Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the government's Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022. At a time when calls for this government to support families and businesses have fallen on deaf ears, particularly with the ramming through of their shonky industrial relations bill, let me reiterate the coalition's wholehearted support for real policies and measures that will help to ease cost-of-living pressures faced by families. The coalition fully supports giving families and parents the choice to be able to determine how best to raise and care for their children in whatever form will best work for them, whether through formal law, informal arrangements or the combination of both.

While in government, the coalition was able to deliver increased access to child care, almost doubling the investment to $11 billion, locking in ongoing funding for preschools and kindergartens in 2022-23. Under the coalition, more than 1.3 million children had access to the childcare subsidy and we abolished the annual cap on the subsidy. Since March this year, we have provided a higher subsidy, up to a rate of nearly 95 per cent, for families with multiple children in early education, helping to increase workforce participation and providing cheaper access to child care. In doing so, we have continued with our track record of supporting the economic empowerment of women.

Women's workforce participation reached a record high of 62.3 per cent in May this year under the coalition, compared to 58.7 per cent when Labor were last in office. The gender pay gap has reduced—from 17.4 per cent under Labor to 13.8 per cent under the coalition. This is something that the coalition is very proud of achieving. We're very proud to have seen it occur under our watch. These are just a few of the achievements of the former coalition government, but the fact is that the coalition have always supported Australian families. It's part of our creed. It's central to what we believe and it's central to who we are as a party. So we support this bill in principle, but we also have some valid concerns about the delivery of Labor's so-called cheaper childcare policy.

Over several weeks, as the Deputy Chair of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, I attended hearings in Canberra and Melbourne, and we had a closer look at the fillings of this bill. At this point I would like to acknowledge the work of the committee and particularly of the chair who, I've got to say, does a very good job in keeping things running smoothly and in order. I think, so far in this parliament, this particular committee has had a huge amount of work to do. Of course, the real signature piece that's coming through at the moment is the industrial relations bill. Despite the huge disagreement across the committee in relation to some of the issues that come through the committee, we actually do work really well together.

On this particular bill, we were able to work exceptionally well together, so I acknowledge all of my fellow committee members and, indeed, the secretariat. The secretariat has had a huge workload, particularly in relation to the industrial relations bill, with only 22 days in which to consider a significant bill and report back. The hearing on this legislation was a truncated experience as well. It was very short in comparison to the traditional way that legislation is dealt with, certainly in my experience in the last parliament. Generally bills are given much more consideration, but we're seeing a pattern under this government of dealing with things very hastily. It's happening across many portfolio areas, and it's something that I hope this government doesn't continue with because I think it's a real discredit to this place—in particular to the Senate—and we've got to make sure that legislation is properly scrutinised.

Nonetheless, we did manage to go through this legislation, even though it was over a short time. We were able to highlight quite a few deficiencies in it, and I just want to take you through some of those right now. Again, we certainly support this legislation. We'll be voting to support it, but there are some issues that we must deal with. Why are we supporting this? We are a party that backs in business. We're a party that backs in families and supports families. We're a party of economic stability and empowerment, and we're a party of sensible economic management. It is concerning, however, that this policy that we're seeing in this legislation is lacking modelling. We heard from the department, and, sadly, we heard that there was no economic modelling and that there are, in fact, incorrect assumptions right throughout this bill.

At the hearing in Melbourne on Wednesday 2 November, Treasury confirmed that the only modelling that they've done is on the impact of the policy on mothers with children aged zero to five. The Albanese government has argued time and again that this policy will increase access to early learning for families, increase workforce participation and reduce out-of-pocket costs, but what has been put forward by Treasury has painted a completely different picture. When questioned about the modelling underpinning this policy, Treasury admitted that they had done no modelling on the impact of the policy on gross domestic product, no modelling on wage costs or increases, no modelling on the provision of early childhood educators and no modelling on the impact of rising fees. The government's policy also assumes that, by 1 July 2023, there will be enough places in the sector to meet the expected increased demand and that fees will remain at their current level. Yet we've seen no modelling—none at all—as to whether or not the sector will be able to meet the influx of children. The department took us through why it is difficult to do the modelling. If we accept that then how is it that this government is out there proclaiming the virtues of this policy and yet we are seeing Labor members of the House of Representatives in their own electorates claiming that this policy will increase X number of places, will assist X number of families? The member for Kingsford Smith said it's going to help 7,000 families in his electorate. How is it they're able to claim these sorts of figures and these sorts of stats when there's no modelling? There's no modelling to demonstrate any number at all, so there's a real vacuum there.

Many educators have raised important issues, such as low wages and mental health stresses, and Senator Faruqi took us through some of that in her contribution. We're seeing an increase of red tape and burnout as their top concerns, and the sector suffers from a high attrition rate. Providers are struggling to attract and retain educators. Centres are having to cap their services at 70 per cent to 80 per cent capacity, sadly due to a shortage of educators. Good Start Early Learning, a terrific provider and the largest not-for-profit provider in Australia, estimates an additional 9,000 educator will be needed by July 2023 to meet increased demand as a result of this policy. There are currently 7,200 vacancies in this sector. But once again, there's been no modelling done by the government to show how many educator will be needed or how they will address the current workforce crisis that we have. It's absolutely mind-boggling that no real modelling regarding access and educators has been done by the government.

All of this is of on top of nothing being done to address thin markets and childcare deserts where there are little to no services available to families. I asked a question throughout the inquiries time and again, said you don't have to go far out of Perth, where I live, you don't have to go even to the outer suburbs, and you start to see childcare deserts, not to mention the absolute dearth of provision in regional Australia and certainly in some of the more remote parts of our country. You go across the Kimberley and it's almost impossible to find a childcare place. Even in the Pilbara, in the more populated cities like Karratha, there's a massive shortage and you can't get access to child care. This makes it difficult for these towns to attract people to come and base themselves there, bring their families and work in these places. Often these places have a fly-in, fly-out environment, so how do you attract workers when you can't get access to childcare in these places?

Unfortunately, this bill does nothing to address those sorts of issues. The Mitchell Institute reported earlier this year that around a third of Australian families live within a childcare desert, where there is only one place available for every three children. I can say that $4.7 billion is, of course, an incredible amount of money and yet not a single cent of that $4.7 billion is going to be spent on creating any additional places or services. If you're one of those families that can't access a childcare centre, who can't get a place, then how is it possible that this policy is addressing your cost-of-living issues? The government is saying that this bill will address that—and I remember throughout the campaign them saying, 'We're going to address the cost of living by reducing childcare costs.' They were elected on that platform, I get that, they've got the mandate. But how is it that you can still say that this bill is going to address the cost of living when we know that this bill is not going to actually deliver an additional childcare place anywhere in the country? If you can't access child care, how is it possible that it's going to reduce your cost of living? All this is not to mention the accessibility challenges that are facing young families living in rural and regional and remote areas. This is a critical issue and, sadly, the government have shown so far that they're just about the headlines and they're not interested in addressing these big challenges. Instead, they've presented this half-baked, undercooked, very expensive policy, with zero modelling that's been done to back up their claims, expecting it to be some magic bullet to solve cost-of-living pressures for families.

The last time Labor was in government, childcare fees skyrocketed by 53 per cent. That's their record: a 53 per cent increase in just six years. Out-of-pocket fees are already rising. Inflation is rising; we've been seeing that. Fees will most likely rise before 1 July 2023, before the impact of the implementation of this bill is felt. Fees will already have risen by then, and the government have no modelling on how this could potentially erode the impact of subsidies before they're even in place.

I studied economics when I was at school. I didn't do it post school, but one of the 101—I know Senator Scarr has his book there. Basic economics, supply and demand—I'm sure it's there. Senator Scarr will point to the particular page it's on. We know that when you increase demand, you see that there will be an increase in cost. This is going to impact families, and there's nothing in this bill, nothing in what the government have demonstrated to us so far, that is going to protect families from rising childcare costs. This subsidy could easily just be eroded. It could easily just be taken up without there actually being any impact on reducing the cost of living.

Our families need to know if they are really going to be better off under this bill. They need to know whether they will be better off under this Albanese Labor government. So far they haven't been. Everything's going up. Everything's going up except for wages and the money in people's pockets. Our families, the backbone of our society, are counting on this government. Our families, the future of our nation, are depending on them. It's time for the Albanese Labor government to come up with some real policies that are actually going to support families, that are actually going to impact on the ground and that are going to deliver for the workers of this country.