Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Leigh supported the bill, highlighting the educational benefits of early childhood care and the government's prior reforms, including a 15 per cent pay rise for educators and fee caps. Leigh argued that the previous activity test created barriers for disadvantaged families and lacked evidence of boosting workforce participation. Leigh cited Productivity Commission recommendations and randomised trials demonstrating the long-term social and economic benefits of early education for disadvantaged children.

Birrell opposed the legislation, arguing that childcare is a finite resource and the activity test prioritised working families to boost national productivity. Birrell warned that guaranteeing places for all families, regardless of employment status, would reduce access for those seeking to enter the workforce, particularly in regional areas facing labour shortages. Birrell stated that the government should have addressed supply-side issues before changing eligibility rules and expressed concern about the impact on regional economies.

Stanley supported the bill, emphasising the importance of early education for child development and workforce participation. Stanley noted that the new guarantee provides 72 hours of subsidised care per fortnight for all families and 100 hours for First Nations children, benefiting over 100,000 families. Stanley highlighted the Building Early Education Fund, which aims to create approximately 12,000 new places by expanding around 160 centres, particularly in areas of need.

Chaney supported the bill, arguing that the activity test trapped parents in a cycle where they could not secure childcare without a job and could not secure a job without childcare. Chaney noted that the reform delivers financial assistance to almost 67,000 households during its initial year and increases entitlements for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. Chaney acknowledged short-term supply pressures but argued that bold reform is necessary, citing support from various stakeholders including the Productivity Commission and Thrive by Five.

Neumann supported the bill, framing it as a productivity and economic development issue that supports women's workforce participation. Neumann criticised the opposition for opposing previous affordability reforms and the current supply-side investments, including the $1 billion Building Early Education Fund. Neumann highlighted that the package includes $427 million for the three-day guarantee and aims to establish a universal, affordable, and accessible early education system.

Chester opposed the bill, focusing on accessibility, affordability, and choice in rural and regional communities. Chester argued that guaranteeing subsidised hours is ineffective if no childcare centres exist in remote areas, exacerbating workforce recruitment challenges for critical sectors like health and education. Chester advocated for greater flexibility, including support for kinship care and in-home care, arguing that the government's model does not respect the diverse choices of families in regional Australia.

Albanese supported the bill, outlining the government's record of reducing childcare costs for over one million families and increasing educator wages. Albanese argued that the activity test was a barrier for disadvantaged families and that the three-day guarantee ensures every child has access to early education regardless of parental income or employment status. Albanese compared the reform to other universal services like Medicare and the NDIS, stating it is a step towards a universal childcare system that supports economic growth and child development.

Van Manen argued that the bill fails to address fundamental issues of access and affordability, particularly in regional areas with limited childcare places. Manen claimed that removing the activity test would force working families to compete with non-working families for scarce spots. Van Manen cited Productivity Commission modelling suggesting the true cost of removing the test was higher than government estimates and that it might reduce workforce participation among sole parents.

Steggall supported the bill as a necessary step toward universal childcare, arguing that the existing activity test was broken and discouraged workforce participation. Steggall highlighted that high childcare costs disproportionately affected women and low-income families, preventing them from entering or advancing in the workforce. Steggall called for additional measures to increase the supply of childcare centres, particularly in regional areas, to ensure the guarantee could be effectively delivered.

Templeman criticised the previous government's activity test for creating barriers to workforce participation and excluding low-income children from early education. Templeman argued that the three-day guarantee would provide cost-of-living relief and ensure all children have access to quality early learning, regardless of their parents' work status. Templeman linked the bill to broader government efforts, including the Building Early Education Fund, to expand capacity in underserved areas.

Spender supported the removal of the activity test, noting that research showed it had not increased workforce participation and had disadvantaged low-income families. Spender argued that high childcare costs were contributing to low birth rates and preventing families from having more children. Spender called for broader supply-side reforms, including reducing administrative burdens on providers and addressing staffing shortages, to complement the demand-side changes in the bill.

Garland argued that the bill represented a significant structural change toward universal early education, benefiting families and the broader economy. Garland claimed the previous activity test penalised vulnerable families and restricted access to early learning for those who needed it most. Garland highlighted that the guarantee would help ease cost-of-living pressures and support parents in making decisions about work and study without fear of losing childcare access.

Aly moved that the question be put, effectively closing the debate and proceeding to the vote on the bill.

Burke moved to suspend standing order 43(a) to allow the completion of the bill's proceedings before moving to 90-second statements.