Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As a former early childhood educator for over a decade, I have extensive experience working in the early childhood education and care system and with the children of vulnerable and disadvantaged families.

The Additional Child Care Subsidy, or ACCS (child wellbeing), is an important program that provides additional support for children who are at risk of abuse or neglect, including children who experience domestic and family violence. The payment can make the difference between children being able to stay at home or going into the child protection system. Because of the unique circumstances of families receiving the ACCS (child wellbeing) payment, they are exempt from the activity test and their providers receive a subsidy equal to the actual fee charged by the service—up to 120 per cent of the childcare subsidy hourly fee cap.

When the new childcare subsidy system started in July 2018, new requirements were imposed on providers and families trying to claim ACCS (child wellbeing). These changes included: reducing the initial approval period from 13 weeks to six weeks; approving eligibility certificates for only 13-week periods; only allowing 28 days of backdating ACCS payments; and deeming that any applications not approved by Centrelink in 28 days be refused.

Labor warned the government that these changes in the early-childhood education sector would have a detrimental impact on families. The government, of course, ignored these warnings, and within six months the number of vulnerable families accessing this payment collapsed by 20 per cent. Ever since these changes were made, the sector has been calling on the Morrison government to fix this red-tape nightmare. Unfortunately, the government spent many months with their heads in the sand over this issue, and as a result it's taken a long time to reverse the decline.

The department of education told Senate estimates that they were not concerned about the drop in the number of families accessing the payment; nor were they tracking whether families had dropped out of the system. I wouldn't be surprised if the decline in accessing the payment, a measure that supports at-risk and vulnerable children, resulted in an increase in demand for other support services. Even more worrying—and this especially concerns me as a long-time campaigner against child abuse and neglect—is the possibility that this resulted in worse outcomes for the children concerned. I'm completely baffled that the government would not be concerned about the decline in the number of families accessing the payment and not monitoring the impact it has on vulnerable and at-risk families, and those children in particular. While the number of children and families accessing the subsidy has reached the level it was at when the childcare changes were made, this was in part thanks to a significant effort and commitment of resources from providers. More needs to be done to reduce this red-tape burden for families.

This bill makes changes in a number of areas that will reduce the administrative burden on providers and at-risk families while providing greater financial security to these families. Providers will be able to enrol children in foster care under the name of the provider rather than that of a parent or foster carer for up to 13 weeks while the parent or foster carer is applying for a Centrelink reference number and childcare subsidy. This will help the transition for children in foster care when they enrol with a provider or move between foster care arrangements. Providers will be able to apply for ACCS to be back paid for up to 13 weeks instead of the previous four weeks. Providers will be able to request ACCS determinations for up to 12 months for children on long-term child protection orders or in foster care, up from the previous 13 weeks. Finally, the calculation method used when family circumstances change during a year for circumstances such as the separation of parents or the death of a parent or parents will be changed to ensure that CCS eligibility more accurately reflects the new circumstances and the CCS payments.

These are positive changes, and Labor will support them. Like my Labor colleagues, I welcome any reduction in the administrative burden on families who are relying on early-childhood education and care. Unfortunately, many of the recent changes made by the government have actually increased the red-tape burden for families accessing child care. And, for a government that likes to trumpet its credentials when it comes to red-tape reduction, its changes to the childcare subsidy are an indelible stain on its record. The new system introduces complicated activities and means tests. It forces childcare providers to act as unpaid debt collectors for the government. It is riddled with software glitches and raises childcare subsidy debts without any explanation.

The government's childcare system is not only complicated and administratively burdensome but, for families and providers, it's also expensive. Australia has some of the highest out-of-pocket childcare expenses in the world, and they have been rising rapidly under this government. Childcare fees have increased by 7.2 per cent in the 12 months to December last year, which adds up to an increase of 34 per cent since the Liberals came to power. This represents an average additional cost of $3,800 per year per family.

While Australia's childcare system already confronts families with some of the highest out-of-pocket expenses in the world, the Morrison government has introduced a system that leaves one in four families worse off. That's 279,000 families for whom access to child care has become a greater strain on the family budget because of the changes made by those opposite. Is it any wonder that those opposite have gone silent on their claims that their new system would put downward pressure on fees and that they were driving down the cost of child care? No. But that is what the government were claiming at the time they introduced their new system: that it would put downward pressure on fees and drive down the cost of child care. Well, you don't hear those claims from them now—because they're not true.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the government proudly trumpeted their free childcare policy but failed to adequately fund it in a way that provides enough childcare places to meet demand or that ensures the viability of providers. This has left many families without access to child care, while some providers have had to struggle to stay afloat. Instead of fixing the mess they have made, the government have now broken their promise to continue providing JobKeeper to early childhood educators until September, and 'snapped back' to the old childcare system last month. A survey commissioned by The Front Project before the childcare snapback predicted the disastrous impact that it would have on family budgets during the recession. In responding to the survey, 57 per cent of families said that childcare fees impact their social spending, 55 per cent said that the fees impact their grocery budgets and 35 per cent said the fees impact where they choose to live. Out-of-pocket childcare costs were already having a massive impact on family budgets prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Now that Australia is in the midst of a recession, this snapback has put further pressure on families that are already struggling through the loss of work and reduction in household incomes.

When I think about Senator Rennick's comments in the chamber earlier this year, I'm hardly surprised that the childcare system under this government is so expensive and so complicated. Should we be surprised if it's the attitude of those opposite that parents should just stay home? According to Senator Rennick, that's the ideal for parents of preschool aged children: not engaging in work, not having their children receiving the developmental benefits of quality early childhood education and not balancing work and family commitments but staying at home with your kids—which is fine if you can afford to do it and choose to do it, and I'll speak more about that a bit later on. But it's of little surprise that Australia's childcare system is expensive and complicated and that subsidised early childhood education is seen as—and I quote Senator Rennick—'the hand of government reaching in and stealing our children's youth'.

I remind those opposite that, as yet, not one of you on that side of the chamber has challenged Senator Rennick's remarks nor sought to disassociate the government from them. Unless you do—and the debate on this bill is a perfect opportunity for you—then you own them. I call on those opposite; in fact, I challenge them, any one of them, to stand up for working parents and stand up for early childhood education and state, loudly and proudly, that Senator Rennick's comments do not reflect the views of the modern Liberal Party. If you fail to do that, this is the message it sends to the community: it tells early childhood educators—of which I was one for over a decade, as I said—that their work is not valued. It tells educators that, instead of playing a valuable role in contributing to the learning and development of children, they're holding them back. It tells working parents that, by participating in the workforce and placing their children in formal care, they are failing their children. The views that Senator Rennick expressed previously in the chamber belong way back in the past, and the failure of those opposite to reject those outdated views is an implicit endorsement of them by the Morrison government.

By contrast, the senators on this side of the chamber all value early childhood education and care. As a former educator myself, I know that it can make an enormous contribution to the physical, social, psychological and emotional development of children. That's not just a view I've formed from personal experience. It's backed up by the studies, both in Australia and overseas. Unlike Senator Rennick, I do not see government subsidised childcare as 'the hand of government reaching in and stealing our children's youth'. What an outrageous slur against early childhood educators. These comments are also a slur against working parents.

When Senator Rennick says that early childhood education is stealing our children's youth—and that's a direct quote—he implies that working parents with preschool-age children are complicit in this alleged theft. But parents should not be made to feel guilty because they choose to use early childhood services or choose to work instead of being stay-at-home parents. Being a stay-at-home parent is a legitimate choice, but it's just as legitimate a choice as pursuing a career. Surely a good parent, should they choose to, can balance their career and family life and still have a strong, productive relationship with their children. Let's not forget that not every parent has a choice. Not every parent can afford to stay home with their children. It's the height of hypocrisy for Senator Rennick to say that his party supports choice but then to delegitimise the choice of parents to work while having their children cared for and educated by trained professionals.

Attitudes such as Senator Rennick's are also a setback in the advancement of women's equality. Affordable quality early childhood education and care are key reasons why so many women in particular have been able to participate in the workforce. We know that women take on a disproportionate share of childminding responsibilities and that support, such as subsidised childcare, is a big driver when it comes to women's workforce participation and equal pay. Why is it that no-one, not one person, on that side will stand up and challenge Senator Rennick's out-of-touch and outdated views? Is it because those on the other side are too spineless to do so, or do you actually agree that Australia should be dragged back into the middle of last century?

I don't hold out much hope that those on the other side will challenge these comments, because their frontbench in the other place have already maligned the public funding of early childhood education and care. The Minister for Education, Mr Tehan, has described it as communism and the Prime Minister has referred to the childcare budget as a money pit. Well, that tells us a lot. Attitudes such as those demonstrate that the government sees early childhood education and care as an unnecessary cost. They do not see it as an investment in the learning and development of children or as a means of supporting parents to participate in the workforce. They do not value the enormous benefits it provides to Australia's economy or to the learning and development of our children.

In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all early childhood educators for their work, particularly during the pandemic. It's been a difficult time for all educators as they've faced multiple challenges and changes to childcare policy and they've dealt with rapid fluctuations in attendance. Despite the ongoing uncertainty facing the sector, educators have continued to focus on the development and wellbeing of the children in their care and have continued to deliver high-quality early learning. I know they will continue to do so.

As I said earlier, this bill makes changes which improve assistance for the vulnerable and disadvantaged, and Labor will support it; however, the bill does not go far enough towards fixing the expensive, complicated and burdensome childcare system that this government is so intent on presiding over.