Extract from The Guardian
New mothers returning to work on a casual basis could lose out under
the government’s proposed changes to childcare assistance, the childcare
sector has warned.
Modelling from the Australian National University found that 330,000 families – roughly one third of those who use subsidised childcare – would be worse off under the government’s changes.
Of those families, 149,000 may lose out due to changes in the so-called activity test, author of the report, Ben Phillips, said.
Currently, parents who do not meet the minimum requirement of eight hours of paid work, volunteering, training or study are still eligible for 24 hours of subsidised childcare a week. Under the new proposals, that will be halved to 12 hours.
Childcare and parenting associations say that could have impacts for new parents who are struggling to get back into regular work, as they would not be able to guarantee what their average working hours would be.
“My understanding is that 30% of the workforce generally – and it would be higher for women, and higher still for women coming back to work after having children – are on casual work arrangements.
“And then we add in the parents that are in insecure work, as well as those in highly variable seasonal work, and you have quite a high proportion of families I would suspect that are not able to guarantee regular working hours all the way through the year,” chief executive officer of Early Childhood Australia, Sam Page, told a Senate committee on Friday.
Hours worked determine how many hours of subsidised childcare families are entitled to.
“Families will either be put in the position where they take the risk that they’re going to get the casual shift, and therefore continue with their access to early learning, or pulling children out of early learning in case they don’t get the shift,” Page said. “You won’t be able to guarantee a regular place at a service if you’re in and out of the system like that.”
Page and a number of others in the industry want the childcare changes to offer a minimum of 18 hours of subsidised childcare, even if parents do not meet the activity test. That would allow for two days of childcare.
“We want two days of subsidised childcare so that parents have that certainty, that they know irrespective of what they might be doing from a work point of view [that] they have that certainty that they’ve got that support paid for two days of childcare,” executive director of The Parenthood, Jo Briskey, said.
Grandparent carers will be exempt from the activity test.
Deputy chair of the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Childcare (SNAIC), Geraldine Atkinson, said the activity test punishes Indigenous children, as their parents are most likely to fall below the minimum requirements.
“We believe this package disproportionately affects our children,” Atkinson said.
Nearly one out of two – 46% – of low-income Indigenous families would not meet the activity test, SNAIC says.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander children are under-represented in kindergarten and preschool, and ensuring that 95% of the population of four-year olds is is one of the government’s close the gap targets.
The government announced the details of its childcare package in November, tying its funding to cuts in family assistance. The cuts to the family tax benefits have stalled in the Senate, with both Labor and the Greens opposed to them.
The childcare sector is broadly supportive of the changes, but sticking points like the activity test remain. The cornerstone of the policy is the tapering of subsidy rates for high-income earners, while giving lower-income earners a bit extra cash.
Families earning $65,000 or less will get back 85% of their childcare costs back, while families earning $340,000 or more will get 20% back.
Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie said she takes issue with the fact that wealthy Australians can have part of their childcare costs paid for by the public purse, saying there is “no justification” for the expense.
Briskey disagreed, saying the expense was a productivity measure.
But she acknowledged that the taper rate might be a disincentive for wealthier parents to work more hours, saying the increased cost of childcare may outstrip any benefit arising from working more.
“There are some serious concerns,” she said. “It might be a disincentive.”
The ANU research noted that 85% of families earning $250,000 or more would be worse off under the changes. By contrast, 75% of families earning $65,000 or less would be better off under the changes.
The policy is “slightly more progressive” than existing childcare measures, Phillips said.
The education minister, Simon Birmingham, has disputed the report’s findings, saying the figures used are not as updated or complete as those compiled by the department.
“Our analysis can absolutely be trusted and is based on a complete picture and actual outcomes that take all factors of the jobs for families package in calculation,” he said.
Modelling from the Australian National University found that 330,000 families – roughly one third of those who use subsidised childcare – would be worse off under the government’s changes.
Of those families, 149,000 may lose out due to changes in the so-called activity test, author of the report, Ben Phillips, said.
Currently, parents who do not meet the minimum requirement of eight hours of paid work, volunteering, training or study are still eligible for 24 hours of subsidised childcare a week. Under the new proposals, that will be halved to 12 hours.
Childcare and parenting associations say that could have impacts for new parents who are struggling to get back into regular work, as they would not be able to guarantee what their average working hours would be.
“My understanding is that 30% of the workforce generally – and it would be higher for women, and higher still for women coming back to work after having children – are on casual work arrangements.
“And then we add in the parents that are in insecure work, as well as those in highly variable seasonal work, and you have quite a high proportion of families I would suspect that are not able to guarantee regular working hours all the way through the year,” chief executive officer of Early Childhood Australia, Sam Page, told a Senate committee on Friday.
Hours worked determine how many hours of subsidised childcare families are entitled to.
“Families will either be put in the position where they take the risk that they’re going to get the casual shift, and therefore continue with their access to early learning, or pulling children out of early learning in case they don’t get the shift,” Page said. “You won’t be able to guarantee a regular place at a service if you’re in and out of the system like that.”
Page and a number of others in the industry want the childcare changes to offer a minimum of 18 hours of subsidised childcare, even if parents do not meet the activity test. That would allow for two days of childcare.
“We want two days of subsidised childcare so that parents have that certainty, that they know irrespective of what they might be doing from a work point of view [that] they have that certainty that they’ve got that support paid for two days of childcare,” executive director of The Parenthood, Jo Briskey, said.
Grandparent carers will be exempt from the activity test.
Deputy chair of the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Childcare (SNAIC), Geraldine Atkinson, said the activity test punishes Indigenous children, as their parents are most likely to fall below the minimum requirements.
“We believe this package disproportionately affects our children,” Atkinson said.
Nearly one out of two – 46% – of low-income Indigenous families would not meet the activity test, SNAIC says.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander children are under-represented in kindergarten and preschool, and ensuring that 95% of the population of four-year olds is is one of the government’s close the gap targets.
The government announced the details of its childcare package in November, tying its funding to cuts in family assistance. The cuts to the family tax benefits have stalled in the Senate, with both Labor and the Greens opposed to them.
The childcare sector is broadly supportive of the changes, but sticking points like the activity test remain. The cornerstone of the policy is the tapering of subsidy rates for high-income earners, while giving lower-income earners a bit extra cash.
Families earning $65,000 or less will get back 85% of their childcare costs back, while families earning $340,000 or more will get 20% back.
Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie said she takes issue with the fact that wealthy Australians can have part of their childcare costs paid for by the public purse, saying there is “no justification” for the expense.
Briskey disagreed, saying the expense was a productivity measure.
But she acknowledged that the taper rate might be a disincentive for wealthier parents to work more hours, saying the increased cost of childcare may outstrip any benefit arising from working more.
“There are some serious concerns,” she said. “It might be a disincentive.”
The ANU research noted that 85% of families earning $250,000 or more would be worse off under the changes. By contrast, 75% of families earning $65,000 or less would be better off under the changes.
The policy is “slightly more progressive” than existing childcare measures, Phillips said.
The education minister, Simon Birmingham, has disputed the report’s findings, saying the figures used are not as updated or complete as those compiled by the department.
“Our analysis can absolutely be trusted and is based on a complete picture and actual outcomes that take all factors of the jobs for families package in calculation,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment