Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I ask the simple question: why didn't those opposite do something about the growing costs of early childhood education when they were in government? For example, there are a couple of things to debunk in the member for Moncrieff's statements. According to the last ABS survey, 73,000 people who wanted to work didn't look for work. Why was that the case? Because they couldn't make early childhood education costs work for them. Those opposite did absolutely nothing about it. Let's not forget that early childhood education costs increased by a whopping 41 per cent in the last eight years under the previous government.

We've wasted absolutely no time in addressing this problem. We've heard it over and over in this place: early childhood education reform is economic reform. It's an important economic reform, but it's also an issue that goes to the heart of how we value families, parenting, children and, of course, equality of access to work and choice.

We know that this reform will benefit around 96 per cent of families accessing early childhood education. In my electorate alone, the Adelaide electorate, approximately 10,200 families use an approved early childhood education provider. This reform that we have presented to the parliament will help around 96 per cent of those families, or 9,800 families. In the last month I've visited three childcare centres: the Lady Gowrie Child Centre in Thebarton in my electorate, the Plympton Goodstart and the Prospect Goodstart. I spoke with early learning providers and parents, and they all welcomed this proposal. They all welcomed our reform.

This reform is more important than ever, given the cost-of-living pressure that Australians are facing. Our early childhood education reform represents a $4.5 billion investment, and this reform does three important things. Firstly, it listens to what Australians ask for. It was an election commitment, and we delivered on that election commitment. Secondly, it's an economic reform. By cutting the cost of early education and care, it makes it easier for parents to return to work, particularly mothers. This is the type of reform that makes a difference regarding whether the primary carers work a fourth or fifth day. With the economy screaming out for skilled workers and many families needing or wanting to work additional hours, this reform means additional hours can be worked without people actually losing money. Let's face it: we are primarily talking about women's jobs here, and this reform will make it easier for women to choose when they wish to return to work or study. For the average Australian family on about $120,000 with one child in care three days a week, this reform will cut the cost by approximately $1,700 a year. That's $1,700 a year in a family's pocket. Thirdly, this reform is great for our children. All the experts tell us that early education and care is so important for a child's development. Education is transformative, but early childhood education has a particularly powerful impact to transform children's lives. All the experts are telling us this—all the studies that have been done and the research that's been done.

So this reform makes early childhood education and care more affordable, as I said, for about 1.26 million Australian families. As I said before, this is more important than ever. Let's not forget that early childhood education costs increased by a whopping 41 per cent under the former Liberal government's watch—41 per cent in the last eight years. This has been a significant burden to many Australian families who were already struggling to make ends meet.

Cheaper early childhood education is good for children, good for families and good for the economy, and we have delivered on the election commitment that we made to deliver cheaper early childhood education, when the previous government absolutely failed to do anything in this area. I heard stories of families that chose not to work that extra day because it ended up costing them more than it would have if they had gone to work. This policy basically fixes that. It allows people to make that choice to work the extra day. That's why it's a good— (Time expired)

See this speech in context