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

I'm pleased to commence the contributions to the second reading debate on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022 on behalf of the opposition. Much has been said by colleagues in the other place around the coalition's position, which I will restate now, and that is that we won't be opposing the bill, noting that we did support it in the House. It's important to outline from the coalition's point of view why we've reached that conclusion and also make it clear that, given the nature of our political foundation and our framework of beliefs, we do believe in choice and we believe that parents who engage in work or study should also be able to access care, whether that be through formal or informal arrangements. I think that's an important factor of this entire make-up of this sector of the economy—this service provision part of the economy—that hasn't been dealt with properly here.

In this bill, though, there is a lack of detail from the government. In particular, there's no plan to address a particular issue that is going to cause a high degree of concern for many—that is, the lack of a plan to address the workforce shortage and, of course, the pressures being faced by educators currently in the marketplace. I should also indicate that, up until recently, my family and I had a formal involvement in this industry and we know exactly what educators are going through. It is something that we do need to take account of here. There's no plan to address access to care. Many parents know and anyone who goes out into the community knows—and I'm sure it's across this place—that many parents are struggling to find a place for care and education of their child. It might be part of the week that they require that is covered, or it could be only a day, but the fact is that it is a difficult task to find a place for care. There's no plan to address thin markets and childcare deserts where there are little to no services, and there's no modelling to show that this bill will actually deliver on what the government has promised. There's $4.7 billion being spent through this legislation and not one single cent will be spent on creating additional places or services. As we've said previously, the bill we're debating today favours high-income earners over the rest of Australians.

In terms of workforce pressures, early childhood educators, who do an amazing job, have been under pressure for the last couple of years and have worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic. Now that we're out the other side, workers are leaving this sector for other careers. A range of issues have contributed to that, but, at the end of the day, childcare educators have become burnt out. There are currently 7,200 vacancies in this sector, but there are pieces of recent data showing there could be up to 20,000 vacancies, which points to the concerns the coalition have raised around this legislation. We've asked the government on several occasions now how many additional educators will be needed under this policy, and we're yet to receive an answer. It's an important fact to put on the table so that we know what we are actually dealing with, how the problem will be resolved and what the plan or pathway is to get there.

Goodstart Early Learning, the largest not-for-profit provider, estimates an additional 9,000 educators will be needed by July next year to match the influx of children expected under this policy. The government has been doing a lot of talking but, based on the fact that we don't have these important pieces of information to allay concerns, not much listening. Back in 2019, in opposition the now government campaigned on a platform of higher wages for early educators. That seems to have been dropped from the platform and the minister won't commit to higher wages for early educators. When asked about it, the government points to its fee-free TAFE places, which won't deliver immediate relief for the workforce, especially when they need it most. As I've already said, the educators are not happy and leaving the sector in droves. Many centres are capping enrolments and asking families to keep their kids at home, because they don't have enough staff to operate at full capacity. We're seeing an increasing number of centres applying for waivers because they can't retain teachers who leave the sector for better pay and better conditions in the education sector. With more children set to enter the sector from July next year, we need to understand how the government plans to ensure there is workforce that meets these needs and offers the support these kids deserve.

In terms of childcare deserts, thin markets and access to care, a report commissioned and published earlier this year from the Mitchell Institute showed that around one-third of Australian families, or nine million Australians, live in a childcare desert. A desert is described as being one place for every three children, so that's hardly making the mark. So 50 per cent of childcare deserts are located in metro locations and the other half in regional, rural and remote locations. This bill creates no extra places and there's no interest from the government in plugging that hole. Where are these new places going to open for all the new children entering the system? And what's the point of lowering out-of-pocket costs if you can't even get into care? These are key questions that need to be addressed here.

While the government has said it will continue the Community Child Care Fund, which provides much-needed funding through grant rounds for services in disadvantaged and vulnerable communities, there's no money in this budget for the next round, nor can the government tell us when the next round of grants will open. Indeed, it's important to point out that, if there was a real sense of care from the government around improving access, it would address the areas struggling most.

In terms of cost, the last time the government was in government, childcare fees jumped by 53 per cent in just a six-year period. The price tag of this policy has changed four times. It started at $5.4 billion, then went to $5.1 billion, was revised down to $4.5 billion, and is now back up to $4.7 billion. That does make one wonder how much work has actually gone into this. I've already talked about the lack of modelling and the lack of clear data around how many places and new educators are needed and how certain issues will be resolved, but this jumping around of numbers—the revision of what the cost of the policy will be—speaks to the fact that that is undercooked. Labor's $4.7 billion policy is, as I understand it, costed for three days a week. The average child attends early learning three days a week. If Labor really wanted to get kids attending care more days a week, it would have probably been prudent, I would have thought, to cost a policy for five days a week instead.

In terms of higher income earners being set to benefit over low-income earners, families with a combined income of up to $355,000 are currently eligible for a childcare subsidy. Under this bill, that will blow out to $532,000. There has been no modelling done on whether increasing the threshold to $532,000 will actually increase the number of hours worked by those families nor on whether it will increase the number of days they put their child in care. We don't know what the families in those brackets currently do. We don't know whether they access care five days a week, whether they use a mix of informal and formal arrangements or whether they have a nanny, an au pair or a stay-at-home parent. Under this bill, taxpayers will fork out an additional 22½ thousand dollars for a family on a combined income of $360,000 a year with a minimum of two kids. Compare that with a family earning a combined income of $80,000. Taxpayers will fork out $2,488 a year for them.

It's clear there has been no due diligence and no modelling done on this policy. That is of great concern and should be for everyone. In terms of the out-of-pocket costs and the issue that all of us know our communities are dealing with—cost-of-living pressures—the last time the Labor party governed this country, childcare fees skyrocketed by 53 per cent in six years. Out-of-pocket costs are already rising, and fees will most likely rise before 1 July 2023. This will quite possibly erode a significant amount of the increased subsidies before they're even in place. While we were in government we kept out-of-pocket costs low.

The latest CPI data from June this year showed that childcare costs came down 4.6 per cent in the year to June 2022. While the minister has said that this policy will not have an impact on inflation, I'm not sure how one can stick to that. We know that it's just not true. The government has no plans to address rising out-of-pocket costs or rising cost-of-living pressures in child care. The 12-month, $10-million ACCC inquiry that they announced is too little too late. The inquiry will do nothing to alleviate current pressures in the sector, including—importantly—workforce shortages and access. The inquiry doesn't start until 1 January next year and won't report back until the end of that year. That means that nothing will be done to address the rising costs until 2024 at the earliest. Australian families can't wait that long. They need relief now.

With early education costs set to increase under this government, Australian families deserve to know if they will really be better off under this government, as was promised. It's time that this government focused less on politics and spin and more on a plan to ensure a strong economy that supports Australian workers and their families. They need to ensure that the policies that are brought forward are properly costed, that we understand how many extra places will be created or will be needed and where they will be needed, that all communities that rely on these services have access to them and that they happen in a timely fashion. As I've already said, and I think it is an important point to focus on, the underpinning of any good policy is good research, good data and good modelling.

There has been next to no modelling done on this policy. No GDP modelling has been done and no modelling has been done on how many additional childcare places or how many additional educators will be needed under this policy. Where will the educators come from, what cohorts are we looking to to fill these spaces and how will we get them to where they are needed in the community? There has been no modelling on whether this will increase childcare attendance by children and their families. There is no understanding or knowledge around the make-up of those who will benefit most from this policy, how they currently use child care or whether they'd use it more under the revisions. There has been no modelling on whether the sector will be able to meet the influx of new children nor any modelling on what areas the majority of these children will come from. The only modelling that has been done is on how many women have children aged zero to five and are either in part-time work or no work, which doesn't consider their income nor whether they want to return to work or take on more work.

It's important to place on record the coalition's investment in this space and what it yielded. We almost doubled childcare investment, to $11 billion, in the financial year 2022-23 and locked in ongoing funding for preschools and for kindergartens. We made the biggest reforms to the early childhood education system in over four decades. More than 1.3 million children from around one million families have access to the childcare subsidy. Under the coalition government, 280,000 more children were in early childhood education. We abolished the annual cap on the childcare subsidy, and around 90 per cent of families using CCS are currently eligible for a subsidy of between 50 and 85 per cent.

Since March of this year, we've provided a higher subsidy of up to 95 per cent for families with multiple children in early childhood education at once, increasing workforce participation and cheaper access to care. Our targeted extra support introduced in March 2022 made a real difference, and childcare costs actually came down—as I said earlier in my contribution—by 4.6 per cent in the year to June 2022. Importantly, we saw women's workforce participation reach record highs at 62.3 per cent in May this year, compared to 58.7 per cent when we came to government all those years ago.

In concluding, I indicate that I do have a second reading amendment that has been circulated, which I now move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) this Bill does nothing to address broader challenges for access to early learning in Australia, namely:

(A) child care service gaps in regional Australia, and

(B) early childhood education and care workforce shortages which prevent families from accessing the services they need; and

(ii) the Government's cheaper child care package, which costs $4.5 billion, does not add one additional place for families, and

(iii) early childhood education and care providers have already increased fees since the Government came to office and the additional demand placed on services as a result of this Bill will put further inflationary pressure on fees; and

(b) calls on the Government to ensure that the promised savings for families will not be eroded by higher fees due to the additional demand for services as a result of this Bill; and

(c) notes that the Bill commits to higher ongoing structural spending; and

(d) calls on the Government to manage its spending commitments to improve the budget while standing by their promise to deliver legislated targeted income tax relief".

I encourage senators to consider supporting the amendment. It goes to the points that I've already made around the need to ensure that this bill, which does cost the Australian taxpayer a huge amount, does deliver benefits where they're most needed, and to make sure that this bill, which is costing the Australian taxpayer a huge amount, is founded on good policy and is therefore directed in a way that will continue to grow the economy and improve workforce participation for those in the community who currently need it.