That ICPA (Aust) request that the Australian Government urgently consider extending workforce and affordability support measures, including an equivalent mechanism to the Worker Retention Payment, to the In-Home Care sector to ensure services remain financially viable and accessible for rural and remote families who rely upon them.
The In-Home Care (IHC) program provides essential education and care services for families in geographically isolated areas where mainstream childcare is unavailable or unsuitable. For many rural and remote families, particularly those on farms, stations or in remote communities, IHC is the only viable regulated childcare option.
The program also supports families with children who have disabilities or complex medical needs, and those working non-standard or seasonal hours common in agriculture, transport, healthcare and emergency services.
Unlike metropolitan areas, rural families often have no alternative care due to distance, workforce shortages and the impracticality of centre-based models. IHC is therefore not a convenience, but a critical service that enables workforce participation and ensures children receive safe, regulated care.
However, the IHC sector is excluded from workforce support measures available to other early childhood services. Rising award wages are being passed directly onto families already facing high living costs and limited access to services.
Without urgent support, increasing fees risks making care unaffordable, forcing families to reduce work or rely on unsafe or unregulated care arrangements—posing serious risks in isolated communities.
The IHC program aligns with government priorities including regional workforce participation, child safety, early intervention and equitable access to services.
We urge the Australian Government to extend workforce and affordability support, including an equivalent to the Worker Retention Payment, to ensure IHC remains viable and accessible. Without action, inequity between metropolitan and rural families will continue to grow.
Case Study:
We spend, on average, more than $5000 per calendar month on childcare, and that is after our CCS is applied to our eligible hours. Our gross (pre-CCS) invoices would exceed $8000 per month regularly. It is our largest individual expenditure, even bigger than our mortgage by a depressing margin. If, by some means, we were able to access "normal" childcare options (which would almost certainly mean one of us pausing or slowing our medical careers to allow some regular days and fewer on-call shifts), we would pay a fraction of this sum; more like $2000 per month after subsidies. This difference of around $3000 per month between standard childcare and IHC is not insignificant in the current economic climate.
We are at the point of putting little to no money aside for our future or our son's future, due to the
additional costs we face in childcare provision and education simply by being frontline healthcare workers with on-call and out-of-hours responsibilities, which are often unpredictable and unscheduled.
We aren't looking for government handouts, we would just like to be treated equitably with all other
families in Australia who utilise CCS for their early childcare and education needs. We believe that early childhood educators are worth every penny they are paid and deserve more, but the government's support for young families must include everyone and not discriminate against those of us who cannot access mainstream care.
Summary of the above:
• The family spends more than $5,000/month out-of-pocket on childcare after CCS is applied.
• Their gross childcare costs regularly exceed $8,000 per month before subsidies.
• Childcare is their largest household expense, exceeding even their mortgage.
• If they were able to access a mainstream childcare service, they estimate their costs would be approximately $2,000 per month after subsidies.
• Means the family is paying around $3,000 more per month (approximately $36,000 per year) simply because they require IHC rather than being able to access standard childcare options.
• The additional childcare costs have significantly impacted their ability to save for their family's future and their son's future.
• As frontline healthcare workers with on-call and unpredictable hours, mainstream childcare is not a viable option for their family.
• Sarah emphasised that they are not seeking additional benefits, but rather equitable support comparable to that provided to families who can access mainstream childcare services.
