By Stephanie Bastiaan
When it comes to providing immediate relief to Australia's childcare crisis, governments do not need to reinvent the wheel. We already have a model that can ease pressure on families, improve workforce participation, and offer genuine flexibility for parents. It is time for a serious discussion about expanding access to In-Home Care and extending the Child Care Subsidy to more families who choose this option.
For years, governments have focused almost exclusively on centre-based childcare. While that model works well for many, it is increasingly clear it does not work for everyone. Parents across Australia are struggling with lengthy waitlists, rising costs, and a system that fails to reflect the realities of modern family life – particularly in regional and rural communities where places can be scarce or non-existent. The result is that many parents, particularly mothers, are being forced to reduce their working hours or face higher out-of-pocket costs. Australia's childcare debate has become trapped in a false assumption that institutional care is the only solution. Families deserve more options than that.
In-home care is not a new concept. Prior to reforms introduced by the Turnbull Government in 2018, a broader range of families could access in-home care through approved agencies. Turnbull's reforms may have improved oversight, but they also significantly narrowed access and flexibility for families. Today, in-home care exists as a niche program with capped places and strict eligibility requirements, leaving many families without access to an arrangement that may suit them best.
The reality is that centre-based childcare simply does not suit every family. It was largely built around standard business hours, yet many Australians – nurses, police officers, hospitality workers, aged care employees, and emergency services personnel – work shifts, weekends, or irregular schedules that childcare centres cannot accommodate. These parents are working some of our most essential jobs. Yet the current subsidy system offers them almost nothing. In regional Australia, the problem is even more pronounced, with some communities facing waitlists stretching for years. For these parents, the debate is not about which childcare option to choose, it is about whether care is available at all.
Other parents have different concerns. Some want to structure their work around their children rather than the other way around. Others have lost confidence following highly publicised incidents of abuse and neglect within parts of the sector. And there is growing research around the developmental impacts of institutional care on young children – some thrive in group settings, others struggle with long days, large groups, and extended separation from parents. These are valid considerations. Every child is different, and parents are best placed to determine what environment works for their family.
My own experience with the previous in-home care system showed how practical and accountable it could be. As a teenager, I worked as an in-home carer through a local agency. I registered, received training and support, and was matched with approved families who interviewed me to find a good fit. They paid a gap fee while government assistance helped reduce the overall cost. Timesheets had to be signed by both the family and the carer before submission to the agency, which provided oversight and administration. The process was straightforward but effective - and it worked.
A modernised version of this model could also allow grandparents and other trusted family members to register as approved carers, dramatically expanding the available childcare workforce while letting children be cared for by people they already know and trust.
The key question is affordability. Any expansion must be financially responsible. With over $15 billion a year flowing into childcare, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether that investment is structured in a way that serves all Australian families, and whether some of it could be better directed. Rather than matching the cost of in-home care to centre-based care, governments should introduce a means-tested subsidy – a partially subsidised hourly rate on a sliding scale based on household income, allocated on a per-child basis. This would make in-home care particularly cost-effective for larger families, where one carer can look after multiple children simultaneously. Lower-income families would receive greater support; higher-income families would contribute a larger share. The result is expanded choice without expanding the burden on taxpayers.
Families are crying out for flexibility. Many are opting out of the current system entirely or struggling with the weight of placing children into arrangements that leave parents feeling uneasy. Alongside these reforms, the government should be looking at serious tax reform to ease the financial pressure forcing both parents into the workforce while raising young families. Recent reports have highlighted concerns that some mothers are being pushed back into paid work before they feel ready. Parents should not be forced into impossible choices, they deserve the freedom to decide how their children are cared for and when they return to work.
Giving families genuine choice is not just good social policy, it is good economic policy. A sensible starting point would be a parliamentary inquiry, open to the public, into in-home care eligibility, combined with a pilot program that tests an expanded subsidy model across a range of communities. If we strike the right balance, an expanded in-home care system could ease pressure on childcare waitlists, support workforce participation for all kinds of workers – not just nine-to-fivers – and help government funding go further. And perhaps most importantly, it gives children a better start in life too.
Stephanie Bastiaan is Head of Advocacy at Women's Forum Australia.
Women’s Forum Australia is an independent think tank that undertakes research, education and public policy advocacy on issues affecting women and girls, with a particular focus on addressing behaviours and practices that are harmful and abusive to them. We are a non-partisan, non-religious, tax-deductible charity. We do not receive any government funding and rely solely on donations to make an impact. Support our work today.
| I’ll stand with women ▷ |