Bold claim first: vulnerable kids in rural Australia are at risk because in-home childcare is collapsing without urgent government support. And this is where the story gets controversial: the gap between policy promises and real-world costs is widening, threatening families who rely on home-based care to stay employed.
In-home childcare providers say they will be forced to shut down unless the government steps in now. These operators are excluded from a subsidy scheme designed to shield families from large childcare wage increases, the latest pay rise taking effect today. Since 2018, the number of in-home providers has fallen from 68 to 23, and advocates warn that many services are “absolutely” at risk of closing without funding that covers wage increases for childcare workers.
Take Ellen Fitzgerald, for example. She juggles three kids and works as a cattle grazier on her family’s remote property, Marita Downs, about 165 kilometres northwest of Longreach in Queensland. In-home care lets her return to work and has a strong positive impact on her mental health. She describes it as essential for keeping her family functioning when both parents work. Yet the cost is steep: more than $1,300 every two weeks for 100 hours of care for her two younger children, on top of travel and lodging costs for the educator. With a 5% wage rise kicking in today, that expense jumps to over $1,600 a fortnight, making continuation seem impossible.
Fitzgerald fears she may have to say goodbye to an educator who transformed their family’s routine, learning, and safety. She notes additional pay rises due in July and 2027 will also require funding. The government currently subsidizes long daycare centers to cover wage increases, provided those costs aren’t passed on to parents; in-home care, however, isn’t eligible for that support.
This has left rural families feeling left behind. Fitzgerald argues the government promised to make childcare more affordable for rural households, but the outcome has been the opposite. She questions whether children in the bush deserve the same educational opportunities as urban kids and laments that equality remains an ongoing struggle in 2026.
If the service folds, she and her husband might have to bring their children to work on the farm, a situation that raises safety concerns. She recalls a moment of risk when her eldest, Vivienne, attempted to mount a horse unsupervised while their third child was breastfed, in a 10,000-hectare paddock. She describes such episodes as real-life worries that can seem humorous in stories but carry serious consequences for country families.
Further west, Emily Corbett, a mother of four who runs a cattle breeding business with her husband three hours from Katherine in the Northern Territory, describes out-of-pocket costs as ludicrous. With further increases expected in March, she says it’s becoming financially unviable. Without in-home care, she would need to become a full-time carer and hire someone to run the business, an adjustment that would severely affect her mental health, family life, finances, and staff.
Corbett asks, when you lift the lid on these challenges, does it not unleash a cascade of problems? It’s disheartening, she says, and begs the question: shouldn’t all families have equal access to care, regardless of whether they live in the city or the bush?
Nicole Morgan, who operates in-home care and serves as president of the Australian Home Childcare Association, stresses that in-home care focuses on delivering early education to children who can’t access mainstream childcare. The sector is currently operating at roughly 30% occupancy, signaling affordability and accessibility issues from the outset. Independent reviews by the federal government, the Productivity Commission, and the ACCC all identify affordability as a major barrier to accessing in-home care.
Morgan worries about the broader impact if the sector collapses. Her top concern centers on child safety for a vulnerable group connected to child protection, family violence, and medical needs. She argues it’s the government’s responsibility to ensure these families retain access to care and that in-home providers deserve the same wage-support opportunities as long daycare centers, so they aren’t forced to pass costs to families.
On the policy front, the government contends that Cheaper Child Care reforms have reduced costs for all families and guarantee three days of subsidised care. Education Minister Jess Walsh notes that the reforms cover all approved early-learning types, including in-home care, and that families will save an average of about $3,500 this year. She also emphasizes ongoing government funding for in-home care via the Child Care Subsidy, designed to support families who can’t access mainstream options.
The Department of Education is reportedly working with the in-home sector on measures to support workers. Greens Senator Steph Hodgins-May highlights that urgency is still needed, pointing to dozens of families—comprising nurses, doctors on shift work, and children with complex health needs—who are reaching out. She cautions that if universal early education is deemed a government priority, lax support for in-home care could derail that legacy and widen disparities between urban and rural families.
Should this debate spark stronger disagreement, what level of government-backed funding or reform would you advocate to protect rural in-home care and ensure equal opportunities for all children, regardless of where they live? How would you balance wage increases for workers with the financial realities of families in remote regions?
