Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I must say it's been very frustrating to sit through this today and also over the last week, hearing about how the budget has disadvantaged women in relation to child care. I will go to the points that we've heard today about how this government is supporting affordable child care for Australian families, but I also want to talk about how important child care is as an issue, and, of course, recognise that it is important and complex for Australian families. What really disappoints me is that I'm not sure those on the other side are genuinely interested in exploring this really complex issue. They'd rather default to somewhat lazy politics—that is, big-spending ideology, which has just become their signature, and revert to, 'We'll just chuck a bit more money at it and that will fix it.'

I certainly recognise that child care does disproportionately affect women, and it's my hope that we, as elected members, can begin to frame the issue as a shared responsibility. It is one that does not lie entirely with the government, and I think it's important to recognise that as well. As someone who lives and works in a regional community, and as a mother of five children aged between five and 16, I'm well-acquainted with child care, and I've seen the cost of it across a whole range of governments of different colours. I've always been employed as a casual employee or a contract employee or, in 10 years, as a local government elected member. I've never had any maternity leave. And so I understand firsthand the struggles that families go through to find, to access and to be able to afford child care. I understand the choices that they need to make and the constant juggle and struggle that this can have on family life. Even now, as I come to this place, that is a struggle that continues, despite the cost of child care or the affordability of child care.

Some of these things are about choice, and some of these things are about cost. I'm incredulous at the tunnel vision that's shown by the other side by linking the pressures of child care to just being one that is a financial pressure. In fact I think it was only the member for Macquarie that touched on the fact that there is more to this problem than just cost.

If we want to talk about cost, let's talk about how we saw fees increase by some 53 per cent last time those on that side had their hand in it. That's some kind of financial pressure. But it's our government that's delivered on changes that target and assist those who need it most. We introduced the new child care package in 2018, which was a once-in-a-generation set of reforms that saw out-of-pocket costs fall. Two years later, it's shown that out-of-pocket costs for families remains 3.2 per cent lower than under the previous child care package. It's targeted. Those who earn the least receive the highest level of subsidy at around 85 per cent. Our childcare package has supported families during a period of all-time-high women's workforce participation, at 61.5 per cent in January, up from 58.7 per cent in September 2013. We continue to invest record amounts in child care, with another $9.2 billion in this financial year, growing to $10.7 billion in the coming years. In addition to this, the government is investing more than $900 million in extra support during the pandemic.

The childcare package is supporting families who need extra support and continue to do so. But I must reiterate that it's important to address and acknowledge that the cost of child care is not the singular issue that affects working families. What those on that side are proposing is not reform; it's just throwing a bit more money at it, and it won't address issues of accessibility, for example. You could have the cheapest childcare in the world but you'd still need to be able to access it.

It's a particular challenge for regional communities where there are no centres, or they're not set up, for example, to cater for shiftworkers. In my northern Tasmanian community, I've been contacted by parents who are interested in undertaking seasonal work, for example, but are unable to do so because they don't have the ability to get their children into care early enough or close enough to where they need to go to work, for example. I'm sure that these would be issues for regional communities across Australia and I'm committed to working towards solutions. If those opposite are interested in genuine reform that will change outcomes for families, I for one am more than happy to work with them, but if you just want to chuck a bit more money at it, you can't call it a reform.

See this speech in context