Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the elements of the family package as announced in last night's budget. Firstly, I would like to put very clearly on the record that I am pleased that the government has finally realised that there needs to be proper investment in child care, but of course this comes with a very big caveat and that is: how these changes will actually impact on the lives of families across the country and how these improvements will be funded. There are many childcare opportunities that were missed in last night's budget. First of all, the measures proposed in the government's childcare package do nothing to address the very real issue facing Australian families when it comes to finding a place in a childcare centre up-front. There are year-long waiting lists and inflexible intakes. Unless you address these issues, it is very difficult for parents to get their child in the door of a childcare centre, let alone know how they are going to afford the enormous and skyrocketing fees. The fact that we are seeing a push to get both parents into the workforce means that, unless we address the flexibility issue and the need for a reduction in waiting lists, parents who are easing themselves back into work, working casually or working seasonally, will be locked out. There is nothing in the budget that deals with these flexibility issues. How does the government expect parents to take on more hours, find and secure a childcare place and meet the activity test all at once? The mind truly boggles.

As well as increasing funding for some families, the package will take a lot of money—we are talking thousands of dollars—from some of the poorest families across the country. Cracking down on the number of hours parents have to work in order to access childcare subsidies will have a detrimental effect on many children from low-income families, leaving thousands of children worse off. Under the new activity test, poor kids are going to be hit the hardest and, in the long run, that means they simply will not be school-ready. It is very difficult to understand why the government would make it harder for disadvantaged children and those from low incomes to access what we know is crucial early learning before they go to school.

The government should be listening to the experts. The experts say that there should be a minimum of two days per week of early learning to get kids ready for school, to ensure that they can get to school and have the best possible start. This government is cutting that minimum to one day a week. Children from poorer families are going to lose their access to child care by half. That is not smart; that is dumb. Children should not be cut off from accessing early childhood education and care just because their parents do not work enough hours to satisfy Mr Morrison's new harsh work test. It is about the children's ability to learn to be in an environment that helps them develop and get them school-ready.

I am concerned that, without proper safeguards, vulnerable and low-income families will be hit the hardest by these government changes. This is about early intervention. It is about providing quality education outcomes for children. It is not just about balancing Joe Hockey's budget. How can children 'get out there and have a go' at primary school, as the Treasurer has suggested, if they have been short-changed in the childcare system ? If they are not school-ready, they are going to be behind from the start.

The social and economic benefits that come from investing in early childhood education and care are undeniable. There are papers and papers on this. There are experts across the world who understand that investing up-front is the best way to go for educational outcomes, health outcomes and, in the long run, the economy. Research has shown this time and time again. It is blindingly obvious—investing in educational outcomes is the best way a nation can invest in the next generation and the future economy of the country. This government is missing this opportunity by cutting out the minimum amount of time that children can access—and have guaranteed access to—early learning and child care. This government is missing an opportunity to create a nation of smarter children and, therefore, smarter workers.

Of course, the government also says that parents wanting the new childcare subsidy will have to wait two years. None of these changes are going to come into place until 2017. If you are a family with kids in child care right now, if you dropped them off at child care this morning, if you will be struggling to pay the childcare fees at the end of this month, these changes are not going to help you. The government missed an opportunity to make a difference to people's lives today and tomorrow. And, of course, it is convenient that all of these changes are going to happen after the next election.

Then, of course, there is the compounding issue that this government is trading off one group of parents against another. Cutting paid parental leave for half of the new mothers in this country is a national shame. Cutting paid parental leave support for half of the new mothers in order to pay for changes to child care in two years time is a false economy. We know that the changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme, as proposed by this government, come into place next year and yet there is going to be no change to making child care more affordable or accessible until at least 2017. What do parents do in the meantime? They will have higher childcare fees and fewer places in child care, and they will have had their paid parental leave entitlements cut—$11,500, whack, straight out of the budget of new mothers.

The government knows full well that the current Paid Parental Leave scheme was designed to work in conjunction with employer schemes. The current government scheme is the bare minimum that any Australian government should expect Australian mothers to cop—18 weeks at the minimum wage. It was designed to allow for women to negotiate with their employers for a top-up. It is not double dipping; it is how the scheme was meant to work. Demonising new mothers who have taken this option and have been able to be supported by both their employers and through the government scheme is nasty, cruel and plain wrong. More than anything, it shows what a woeful minister for women Tony Abbott really is.

This Prime Minister said that he wanted to see a world-class paid parental leave scheme. Fast forward to six months later, and he is taking Australia backwards and rubbing the noses of Australian mothers in his budget woes. This Prime Minister does not give a damn about the workforce participation of women. He does not give a damn about whether women have a genuine, proper paid parental leave scheme to rely on. When the rubber hits the road, this Prime Minister has given up on women in a blink of an eye. If there was ever an example of why this Prime Minister should hand over his portfolio of minister for women to, perhaps, a woman for a change, this is it.

The Prime Minister's budget is a fraud. He is spending his entire time trying to pretend that last year's cruel cuts, harsh measures and slashing of spending, all of it falling on the shoulders of hardworking, low-income families across this country, did not happen. Australians are not that silly. The public cannot be taken for mugs. We know that Tony Abbott's ideological attack on those who could least afford it last year has sent ripples not only through this community but also through his party. It needs to change. (Time expired)