Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I'm often critical of the Canberra bubble, and for good reason. Too many decisions made in this place reflect decisions made in the bureaucracy by people with a lived experience very different to that of the people I represent in Gippsland. The rich diversity of rural, regional and remote communities is nothing like the Australian Capital Territory. We face many different challenges, and they're rarely catered for in the one-size-fits-all approach which dominates Canberra. It's with that in mind that I rise today to talk about how we raise children in Australia and the system of child care, which isn't fit for purpose any more, if it ever was.

Australia needs to have a conversation about our approach to supporting families as they raise children because the current system is broken and is completely unfit for purpose in a modern world. Mums and dads across Australia are increasingly concerned they've been sold a dud system by all levels of government when it comes to supporting parenthood—the most important job they will ever have. The current system of institutionalised child care actively discriminates against parents who want to raise their own children. So I welcome the contributions to this debate by author Virginia Tapscott with her book titled All Mothers Work: A Revolutionary Plan to Fix Failing Care Systems and Truly Liberate Women and the Page Research Centre's Raising the next generation: apractical plan to protect children, support parents, strengthen families, and restore genuine choice.

I say, at the outset, to those opposite: there's nothing to be afraid of in either of these documents; they are both invaluable contributions to the conversations we need to have as a nation. This is not some ultraconservative, nostalgic stroll down memory lane to a bygone era with women in the kitchen and men off to work. These are both pragmatic documents which highlight how women have been misled into having their right to choose what works for them removed and how big government dominates the decisions that families should rightfully make all by themselves.

The core of the debate is that we have now reached a point where we have a 'one size fits all' model of institutionalised child care, which has displaced choice and flexibility, with the biggest losers being the children, whose interests should actually be returned to the centre of the decision-making regarding families. The current system has become a high-cost money-go-round, with $16 billion in taxpayer funds going to subsidise child care, which is overwhelmingly a profit driven enterprise. What we're seeing now is that many parents are feeling trapped into returning to work earlier than they wanted to, so they can earn some money to qualify for the childcare subsidy to keep up with their cost-of-living problems. Then they feel guilty because they're spending more time away from their children than they had originally planned. What we need to see is more flexibility, and it starts with non-judgemental choice.

As I said, the Australian government now provides $16 billion in childcare subsidies per year. You don't need to be working to place your children in care, yet the system actively puts barriers in front of parents who want to care for their own children in those crucial first three years of life. This institution based system is fundamentally flawed and struggling on many fronts, with a shortage of long-day-care places in the outer suburbs, childcare deserts in the regions, a lack of trained staff—which is being exacerbated by burnout for those staff who are in the industry—and an exodus of workers to the higher wages in the disability sector. We are now seeing, sadly, frequent reports of abuse and childcare centres failing to meet the required standards, only adding to the concerns of many Australian families. I want to stress that the overwhelming majority of workers in childcare centres are doing the right thing every day to look after the children in their care, but there is no question that media reports of abuse are adding to anxiety for families, and I am concerned there will be more revelations in the years to come.

No-one should feel threatened by this debate and, just as importantly, no-one should be judging anyone else for the decisions they make which are right for them and their families at that time. Not everyone wants to send their child into a formalised childcare environment at a very early age, regardless of the government subsidies that intend to herd them back into the paid workforce before they are really ready to go.

Obviously there are cost-of-living pressures here, which are a driving force, but imagine if we actually valued the care given by parents, either mum or dad, and made it possible for more families to look after their own children if that were their choice. The current model doesn't work for many families in Australia today. So the national conversation we need to have is about equality for children—truly valuing the role of parental caregiving and giving families more choices, with an improved system that works for their individual family unit. Even better, it would take the pressure off the formal care sector and reduce the need to build more centres and the seemingly impossible task of finding the skilled staff required to work in them.

A parent's decision to stay at home for a few years and be the primary caregiver should not be judged any more than the decision to send a child to a formal care environment. Individual families should have the freedom and the flexibility to do what works for them and their family. But our governments do cast judgement. They cast judgement on families with policies that reward one form of care and punish the other. This is not a party-political comment at all, because, in the coalition government, we also increased the childcare subsidy, just as the Labor Party has done. But we did nothing to address this example, where a single-income household with a parent who opts out of the paid workforce is immediately penalised, because they have no access to the second-income tax-free threshold, which a PAYG working couple can utilise. Income splitting, or treating their earnings as a family income during the early years of a child's life, would be a much fairer system and would enable more parents to take the choice to become a primary caregiver in the crucial early years.

Women I've listened to, in my electorate, don't want to be referenced in public debate only as a unit of economic production. They want their worth also measured in their caregiving roles, if that's their choice. They want the extent of their unpaid care work and early education efforts properly valued, recognised and respected too. Not everyone wants to send their child to a formalised environment, and I think government subsidies that are intended to drive that choice need to be reconsidered with a view towards supporting families to make the decision which is right for them and their child.

In her book, All Mothers Work, Tapscott also argued that the system needs a fundamental reset because children are a public good. I quote: 'Childcare policy is rooted in the idea that parents could and should be doing something more valuable with their time. With each new childcare incentive, it feels like a slow process of making parent-carers redundant. The agenda is clear—you're of more value in the paid labour force.' Tapscott's right; the system is discriminatory. The book is a must-read for policymakers who are interested in reforming the system to make it work for the Australian people and make it work for Australian families rather than trying to squeeze every family into a 'one size fits all', 'Canberra knows best' model.

Tapscott's thoughts on the issue are well documented over a period of years. They're grounded in the lived experience of a rural mother with professional skills and a desire to change the system for the better. In her submission to the Select Committee on Work and Care, Tapscott argued:

… I'm really disappointed with the lack of support for parental caregivers to engage in a caregiving role full time for a child under 3 years of age. I feel it has made my journey as a parent isolating and less enjoyable than it might have been. Policies that incentivise a return to work have eroded the community around me which I might have once found support in.

…   …   …

Policies that could better validate and encourage parents who choose a full time unpaid caregiving role, while also easing financial pressure, include income splitting, caregiver allowances and longer paid parental leave.

Parents working longer hours with younger children seems obviously like a situation that is far from ideal for the well-being of families, yet the government seems to unashamedly promote these policies.

I generally feel that the government plays an active role in the cultural devaluation of caregiving and consistently prioritises profits over well being. I think concerted efforts should be made to recognise the contribution of unpaid caregivers. Workforce participation should include unpaid care work because it is still work.

I must stress that Tapscott and I—we're not opposed to child care. We just want to see some choice. We want to see a situation where there are essential support measures for families, but not everyone is going to want to send their child under three to hours and hours of care in the hands of a stranger. At a time when access to child care is impossible in many areas—and there are those chronic workforce shortages—surely it makes sense for us to develop a system where a little more assistance is provided to parental caregivers, which may encourage them to take on more of that responsibility in those formative early years. Again, I stress that no-one should be judged for decisions they make which work best for their family at that time.

Family policies matter because, when families are doing well, our communities prosper and our nation is stronger. I urge those opposite and members on this side to engage in this debate constructively with a view towards improving choice, accessibility and flexibility in our childcare system.

See this speech in context