Family First strongly supports Virginia Tapscott’s renewed call for genuine choice in childcare policy, published in The Australian this weekend.

She advocates what Family First has long argued: that families must be supported to have the choice to raise their own children, not pressured to outsource them into an overstretched and ideology-ridden childcare system.

“Labor gave me several reasons not to vote for it,” Tapscott wrote, “For a start, I don’t want more childcare – I don’t want to see my kids any less than I do.”

She went on to condemn Labor’s push to get more children into a “broken childcare system” as “sickening”.

Family First agrees. Childcare subsidies should not be designed to pull mothers away from their children in the name of economic participation.

They should exist to support families in ways that they choose, not ways government ideologues dictate.

Virginia is right to say, “To be fair and give people genuine choice it would be necessary to subsidise a broad range of care arrangements,” including grandparent and parent carers.

Now that’s real support for real families.

Family First backs her call for income splitting, extended paid parental leave, and support for those who choose to prioritise time with their children.

It’s not about being “anti-childcare” – it’s about giving parents the dignity of true choice.

Tapscott’s voice is one among many who are waking up to the cultural pressure cooker forcing both parents into the workplace, not by choice, but by economic necessity.

As Liberal leadership contender Sussan Ley once rightly said in Parliament: “If economic participation is attributed to women having no other choice than to go back to work to make ends meet then this is concerning.”

Family First couldn’t agree more. It’s time for policy that puts families first.

Family First shares the outrage of child safety and women’s rights advocates at recent decisions of Australia’s Classification Review Board reported in the Weekend Australian.

If elected, Family First will fight for an overhaul of the board including inclusion of child safety and trauma experts on the board to ensure decisions reflect community standards.

The board’s clearance of a novel and a comic containing graphic depictions of child sexual abuse and violent sexual acts against women under the guise of "literary, artistic and educational merits” is a stark example of how this government body is failing to protect families.

Family First calls for urgent reform of the Classification Review Board to prevent such anti-family decisions from continuing to harm our society.

The board’s decision to give the novel Ostend an unrestricted classification is a shocking dereliction of its duty to uphold community standards.

Ostend, written by Maxsense Maximus, includes graphic descriptions of the violent gang rape of a nine-year-old girl and the torture of an 11-year-old girl by paedophiles.

While the novel does not promote paedophilia - its descriptions are in the context of a character dismantling a fictional child sex gang – the novel’s depictions of child gang rape are of such a graphic nature that they do not belong in literature.

Family First has chosen not to print even the Australian newspaper’s description, which was itself heavily redacted.

Despite this horrifying content, the board deemed the material “not high in impact” and concluded it had “literary, artistic and educational merits.”

It is incomprehensible that such content could be deemed suitable for audiences as young as 15.

Equally appalling is the board’s approval of The Boys: Omnibus Volume Two, a comic depicting violent sexual acts, including a scene where a man threatens to kill a woman’s family while forcing her into submission.

The board dismissed this as "dark humour" and “consensual” despite the clear terror and aggression depicted. This decision trivialises the horror of sexual violence and ignores the dangerous influence such media can have on young minds.

Family First firmly believes there is no place for literature or media that normalises or glorifies child sexual abuse, rape, or violence against women and girls.

These decisions by the Classification Review Board undermine efforts to combat domestic violence, protect children, and uphold the dignity of women.

It is deeply concerning that, while the Albanese government touts its new laws banning under-16s from social media to reduce social harm, it allows material of this nature to circulate freely.

Family First commends family activist Bernard Gaynor for his tireless efforts in exposing the dangerous failings of the Classification Review Board.

Gaynor has highlighted how these decisions are not only morally wrong but legally flawed, given that the National Classification Code explicitly prohibits material containing descriptions of child sexual abuse or exploitative depictions of sexual violence.

Family First has long supported Gaynor’s work, with National Director Lyle Shelton featuring him on ADH TV.

Readers can view these insightful discussions on Family First’s YouTube channel.

Advocates such as Hetty Johnston of Bravehearts and Melinda Tankard Reist of Collective Shout have rightly also condemned the board for failing to prioritise community wellbeing and child safety.

Johnston described the material as "violent porn" and expressed disbelief that such content could be given the green light.

Tankard Reist called for the inclusion of child safety and trauma experts on the board to ensure decisions reflect community standards.

Family First, if elected at the federal election, will fight for these inclusions.

The inclusion of experts in child safety and trauma is essential, as is a mandate to reject material that trivialises or exploits sexual violence.

Without such reforms, the board will continue to betray its responsibility to the Australian people.

As a nation, we must draw a firm line against the distribution of material that degrades women and endangers children.

Family First will continue to advocate for a safer, family-friendly Australia where the rights of the vulnerable are defended, and harmful media is kept out of circulation.

(Image: A page from the comic strip "The Boys").

With the federal election looming, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s speech in Melbourne on Sunday kicked off his pitch for the Prime Ministership.
He offered a blend of promising commitments and lingering ambiguities.

Family First cautiously welcomes his address and provides the following analysis.

Anthony Albanese's $1 billion childcare announcement may appear to champion families, but it discriminates against parents who choose to care for their children at home.

By prioritising subsidised childcare over meaningful support for stay-at-home parents, the Albanese government is imposing an unfair economic disadvantage on families who value parental care during their children's formative years.

Family First’s policy is to allow income splitting for tax purposes to end the “couple penalty” which leaves a stay-at-home parent out of pocket. Family First also believes parents and grandparents caring for children should get the same financial benefits as couples who choose to use commercial daycare.

Virginia Tapscott, a mother and advocate for parental choice who is not affiliated with Family First, captured this sentiment powerfully in her recent address at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference in Sydney.

"I couldn't understand why the most important work of my life—caring for my children and raising them—was considered a waste of my time and education," she said.

Tapscott highlighted the cultural shift that treats parenting as a distraction from economic productivity rather than the vital societal contribution it truly is.

Families where one parent stays at home save the government substantial childcare subsidies but receive no financial recognition for their effort.

Meanwhile, these families pay the same taxes as dual-income households, effectively subsidising a system they do not benefit from.

This imbalance creates immense pressure on single-income families, who face rising living costs and feel penalised for choosing to invest in their children's early years.

Tapscott also pointed out the broader implications of this policy.

"The push for equal workforce participation and economic growth has turned into a ruthless march earlier and earlier into motherhood and childhood," she said, warning that this undermines both maternal well-being and societal resilience.

Evidence supports her claim: as workforce participation rises, birth rates decline, presenting severe long-term economic challenges.

The Albanese government’s reforms perpetuate the false narrative that institutional care is superior to parental care.

Tapscott challenges this idea: "It’s time to stop treating women as a problem to be solved. Parenting is by far the strongest determinant of childhood outcomes."

Instead of championing policies that marginalise parents, the government should explore ways to support them—such as tax relief for single-income families, extended parental leave, or recognising unpaid caregiving as valuable labour.

Family First believes parents must have the freedom to choose what is best for their children without financial coercion.

Albanese's childcare reforms fail to address the real needs of families, instead incentivising economic activity at the expense of the most critical years in a child’s life. It’s time for policies that respect and empower all parents, valuing both paid and unpaid contributions to society.

Feminism and environmentalism has negatively impacted our birth rate.

This is a summary of a research paper titled Who Cares? The Real Cost of Childcare which has been prepared for the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference in London next week.