Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1731 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "3", substitute "4".

(2) Page 3 (after line 5), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of this Act

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider the impact of the amendments made by this Act on:

(a) the cost of child care fees and the loss of subsidies to price increases and inflation; and

(b) the creation of new and additional child care places; and

(c) changes to service gaps across Australia, particularly in rural, regional and remote Australia; and

(d) changes to Indigenous children's attendance, specifically any increase in the number of Indigenous children attending child care; and

(e) the number of early childhood educators and any workforce gaps; and

(f) any increase to the workforce participation rate; and

(g) any increases in productivity.

(3) The persons who conduct the review must consider both quantitative and qualitative research in conducting the review.

(4) The review must commence no later than 1 July 2024.

(5) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 3 months of the commencement of the review.

(6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

In the contribution I made earlier, I outlined a range of reasons the coalition is moving these amendments to the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022, and I know other colleagues have also spoken to this. It comes down to the need for information to understand whether this policy and the expenditure attached to it will hit the mark, whether this policy will do what has been said that it will do in terms of providing extra places and enabling more people to return to work.

To that end, there was a significant portion of debate that took place in the second reading stage around modelling—what had been modelled and what had not. We know that there was not a great deal of modelling undertaken. This has been made patently clear by the lack of response from the government throughout this entire debate, not just here or in the other place but publicly, and the lack of effort that has gone into understanding the impact this policy would have and, indeed, whether there would be benefits flowing. I was able to cite just one example of a small demographic that had a small amount of modelling undertaken relating to the impact on them but, at the same time, talked to a huge range of areas that had not even been considered.

The amendments that we're moving here, in terms of a review of the act, mean that the minister would need to cause an independent review around the operation of the amendments made by this act, and there are a list of items there which I think are central to understanding the success or otherwise of this legislation. Understanding the impact of this bill through what we're debating now, on issues like the cost of childcare fees and the loss of subsidies to price increases and inflation, is important to properly understand exactly what impact may be felt by the household, by the end user, by the working parent or by the client of the childcare service and the education service.

What impact will be felt there? Can there be guarantees made that will enable a negative outcome in this area not to be felt by households? We know, based on the information provided to us to date, that there hasn't been modelling undertaken on these issues. I would have thought that we're all in the business of problem solving, we're all in the business of making sure that Australia is a better place, so that those who seek to work can do so more freely and those who want to take advantage of this great service in the early childhood education and care sector are able to do so. But we don't know whether there will be a loss of subsidy due to price increases and inflation, and whether the cost of childcare fees will go up. It is important to understand what impact will be felt by the policy levers being pulled in this legislation, and that's one of the elements that this review would look into.

Importantly, we also need to understand, through this review, what additional childcare places would occur. We know that there is a huge amount of demand out there, and we've heard figures raised in various elements of this debate. Up to 20,000 places were cited as being the shortage in parts of Australia, so we need to understand what new childcare places will occur as a result of the amendments in this legislation. It has been said in the debate—and whether or not these amendments give effect to this is a different question—that in theory this will occur, but no one can tell us how many places, no one can tell us where, and that is a problem. That is why having a review to look at this as well is incredibly important.

The changes to service gaps across Australia, particularly in rural, regional and remote Australian communities—and I know that Senator McKenzie will probably have some remarks to make about this, perhaps with other colleagues as well—are important. We talked about childcare deserts where services are thin to non-existent on the ground and the demand outstrips supply by three to one—are we going to see these gaps filled? Are we going to see these holes plugged? Are we going to see the problems for these communities when its comes to access to this vital economic service solved as a result of this legislation? Again, because there was no modelling done, we don't know. We can only assume based on what we know to be the experience under our time in government, that a lot more needs to be done. But we need to understand what impact will be had, and we don't know what impact will be had as we go to spend in excess of $4 billion on this policy resulting from this legislation.

There is no modelling done on Indigenous children's attendance—specifically, on an increase in the number of Indigenous children attending child care. It's an important area of policy and an important consideration, in the deliberation of this legislation, for those communities out there in regional and particularly remote communities. How will these changes specifically impact on them, the needs they face and the improvement of life outcomes for them? Every senator who has spoken on this legislation has pointed to the importance of a solid early childhood education sector and the foundation it provides for young Australians, no matter where in the country they live. We know that there are improved outcomes for those who gain access to a good system that provides needs, but we don't know what changes there will be to Indigenous children's attendance—specifically, whether there will be any increase in the number of Indigenous children attending child care or early childhood education. It's something that I think is very important in relation to the passage of this legislation.

One thing that has been spoken about a lot—but that we again don't have any detail around—is the number of early childhood educators and any workforce gaps that exist. The review we're proposing here would take us through that. We'd understand exactly where the gaps are and what problems are faced. In gaining that information, we would then be able to support the government in creating solutions to any impediments to finding those childhood educators and where those workforce gaps exist. Understanding those issues, hurdles and impediments is central to ensuring that we can address the problem, but here we are today, passing legislation with no modelling and no understanding of these gaps, who we're looking for, how we're going to attract them, what additional pressure might be applied to the workforce and what increasing of the gap might occur as a result of these changes. It's important to have a review into this particular part of the legislation.

We also want to make sure that we look at any increases to the workforce participation rate and, in addition to that, any increases in productivity. There's been a lot of talk about the economic outcomes of this legislation and what it will mean for communities and for an economy that needs every bit of a boost it can get. I think understanding what impact this injection in excess of $4 billion of expenditure to support and augment this sector will have on the economy is an important part of what we should be considering here. As I've said already, we don't know because the modelling hasn't been done. There have been varying figures around even the cost of this bill. As we move forward, all of us want to be solution providers and problem solvers. Understanding how this policy will translate into increased workforce participation and increased productivity is, I think, exceptionally important. I don't think it's something that we should be forgetting as we go into this. In everything we do, particularly with the pressures that we face across the economy, across society and across every region of our country, we should understand what improvements would be made to economic outcomes in terms of workforce participation and productivity.

In calling for this review, we want to ensure that both quantitative and qualitative research is conducted. It's important to understand not just the numbers and stats but also the improved outcomes for people across the country—households and families that want to take advantage of this service. As I said right at the beginning, we all want to make sure that this sector is functioning as best it can to support the needs, wishes and dreams of Australians, with better outcomes for young Australians and a good foundation. It's an important amendment, and I hope colleagues will look to support it, because having data is central to a good outcome.