|
|
| Research shows Jobs for Families will have a negative impact on indigenous kids in care |
|
|
|
New research shows the Government's Jobs for Families Child Care Package could further disadvantage indigenous children.
The research, conducted by Deloitte Access Economics for Australia's national peak body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children (SNAICC), reveals that the abolition of the Budget Based Funding Program and the introduction of an activity test could significantly reduce access to early years services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.
According to SNAICC Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are twice as likely to be developmentally vulnerable early in life, and half as likely to access early childhood education and care services as non-Indigenous children and while the organisation applauds the investment in early learning they claim that the proposed package will not progress the stated policy objective to Close the Gap.
According to SNAICC the research by Deloitte would mean that:
- 40% of families currently accessing BBF services (including 46% of families in the lowest income bracket) would receive fewer subsidised hours of child care than they do currently, with an average reduction of 13 hours per week.
- 54% of families currently accessing BBF services will be subject to higher out-of-pocket costs, with an average increase of $4.42 per hour for those negatively impacted.
- The average change in hourly fees is most extreme for families earning less than $65,000 per year due to the impact of the activity test. The average change in out-of-pocket costs for these families who are negatively impacted is $5.06 per hour.
- 67% of BBF services will receive reduced government revenue, decreasing by an average 9.1%, which would have a significant impact on small, regional and remote services, with remote services averaging a 34% reduction in funding.
SNAICC Deputy Chairperson and President of the Victorian Aboriginal Education Association Inc. Geraldine Atkinson said that the benefits of investing in high quality early childhood programs cannot be underestimated but she is concerned how the reforms will impact indigenous children.
"We are really concerned that key components of the Package will significantly reduce access to early years services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, increase costs of child care and threaten viability of regional, remote and Indigenous services.
"For example, if this reform is passed in its current form, over 50% of our families would have significantly higher costs of child care, something like $130 on average per week as an additional cost for 3 days of care.
Furthermore, centres that are already seriously underfunded will receive even less funding under the Package. This causes us deep worry about the future of our children. We need a system that recognises their realities and provides culturally strong, place-based responses that can change trajectories to ensure that our most vulnerable kids have life choices. A focus on change in the early years is fundamental to Closing the Gap," she said.
To avoid these unintended consequences, SNAICC suggests a suite of recommendations to ensure adequate protection of the most vulnerable Indigenous children. These include:
- An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander specific program to enable ongoing three-year top-up subsidies to services where child need is demonstrated.
- Up to two full days of subsidised care for children from families earning under $65,000 per year and not meeting the activity test.
- Broader parameters under the Additional Child Care Subsidy for a full subsidy to children experiencing vulnerability.
- A 15% higher fee cap for remote and Indigenous services, and
- A guarantee that playgroups, mobiles and other services supported within the BBF program, continue to be funded following the cessation of the BBF program.
Speaking to the Sydney Morning Herald Education Minister Simon Birmingham disputed the findings of the research and said Indigenous children will be better supported under the Jobs For Families package, claiming the Deloitte research only looked at one element of the package.
|
|
|
|
|
