Close examination of the Rudd Government’s much-touted childcare reforms brings to mind the wonderful quote by Milton Friedman “the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem”.

Shoot, we got ourselves a family.

In this case, it may in fact be worse.

Labor’s proposals for more highly qualified staff in all childcare services, and lower child:staff ratios in the name of “quality care” are, on the face of it, very worthy.  What self-respecting human being doesn’t want the very best for our children?  How can an emphasis on “quality” be anything but laudable?

But there are obvious flaws in the way the Rudd Government is setting out to achieve its utopian childcare vision and a social undercurrent in Labor’s approach to this issue which is very disturbing.

The central problem with Labor’s Early Childhood and Childcare Agenda is undoubtedly the absence of parents. 

There are academics, teachers, quality assessors, university qualified carers and a list of “stakeholders” a mile long all involved in developing this Agenda and pushing it through the behemoth that is COAG – but sadly, parents are often the last on the list and given just cursory consideration. 

This is baffling when you consider that parents are actually still taking on the lions share of “early childhood education” in this country.  The vast majority of children do not attend any form of formal childcare.  Recent ABS data shows that only 22 per cent of children aged 0-12 attend any type of formal childcare - and only around 7 per cent of all children attending formal care did so full-time (35 hours or more).

So we’re talking about a fraction of less than 1 per cent of all children attending formal care full-time. Even in the peak age group of 0-4 year olds, 66 per cent of children were cared for informally by parents or relatives, rather than in formal childcare.  When it comes to children under 1 year old, that figure rises to 91 per cent.

So when we talk about the vital area of Early Childhood development (now fashionably dubbed Early Childhood Education) surely it makes sense to involve and encourage parents as the primary carers and educators of their children?

If indeed there exists a problem with Early Childhood Education in this nation, surely our approach should extend well beyond creating a curriculum and another layer of red tape for formal childcare? 

Surely we need to include more community resources, support and assistance for parents and grandparents who are taking on the majority of care?

But more fundamentally, we need to ask:  exactly what is the problem that the Rudd Government is attempting to address?  Labor made a big song and dance about childcare before the last election – it became a key platform.  They relied heavily on the 2006 OECD Report “Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care” that ranked Australia as one of the lowest countries in the world when it comes to public expenditure on Early Childhood Education and Care.

The OECD report, while including paid parental leave in the calculations for other countries, for some bizarre reasons did not include Australia’s generous system of family payments when looking at expenditure. 

Yet a recent Productivity Commission Report found that Australia ranked very highly on overall spending on family policies as a percentage of GDP – only very marginally behind those top four nations in the OECD report. The OECD report also marks us down as a nation on “quality” because we have different regulatory systems in each state (not because those regulations are poor – but just because they vary!).  So the OECD ranking needs to be examined closely, rather than held up as evidence that we have failed our children.

We really have to get back to basics and let parents make choices about what is best for their children.  While every parent would agree that quality is important when it comes to the care of their children, the overwhelming majority of parents I meet also say they are happy with their child’s particular daycare centre or carer.

Parents should be defining what constitutes “quality” – not academics.  The recent online survey for parents on the Government’s reforms fails to even list “safety and security” as a key concern when it comes to quality – yet this would be first on any parent’s list!  And very few parents attended (or were even aware of) the recent round of community consultations on the Government reforms – in fact at a Sydney meeting of around 300 people, only one parent was there.

Even the Government’s own secret research apparently found that parents placed a higher importance on experience, rather than formal qualifications – yet the Government is pushing ahead with mandatory qualifications for all carers.

What parents need is a clear understanding of what services and level of care are being offered by any childcare service – underpinned by a simple quality control system that gives them peace of mind.  But ultimately it’s important that we let parents make decisions about what is best for their children.  That’s their responsibility – not the Government’s.

The Government ought to be directing its resources to helping the very small percentage of children at serious risk, and ensuring they get the intervention and support they need to achieve developmental milestones.  The vast majority of parents are capable of making decisions about what they want for their children, and providing a high level of one-on-one interaction in the early years so that they are prepared for school.

Labor’s utopian vision – where the Government controls the early childhood agenda and sends a clear message that no less than a university education is required to care for young children (and let’s start that formal learning from birth!) – is a dangerous step towards the ultimate nanny state. 

Early Childhood Development is a vitally important issue.  Formal childcare must be supported – and so too should families and parents who do the majority of caring for kids. Let’s be sensible when it comes to defining quality (a politically correct curriculum for toddlers is laughable) and let’s be realistic about what working parents can afford when it comes to childcare costs. 

Labor’s childcare vision is not only socially irresponsible – robbing parents of their rights and responsibilities - it also will inevitably increase the out-of-pocket expenses of the working parents.  The Australian Childcare Alliance has predicted that the Government’s reforms will add so significantly to costs that they will drive low-income parents out of supervised childcare and lead to the rise of potentially dangerous “backyard” care.  A solution worse than the problem, perhaps?

No matter which way you look at it, the Rudd Government’s childcare “vision” will result in a clear breech of their key election promise that they would make childcare more affordable.  The Minister has admitted as much.  It seems that parents come into Labor’s Childcare equation only when it’s time to pay.

Most commented

17 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Rationalist says:

      07:21am | 24/08/09

      I am no Labor man but I think it is funny that the Liberals suddenly and miraculously find Friedman after not showing a single sign of him during 12 years of government, and you Ms Mirabella were a Howard loyalist. He was probably less of a Friedmanite than your current wet, Mal who is left of Kev.

    • Jake Zanoni says:

      10:01am | 24/08/09

      To be fair Rationalist, Mirabella is widely considered to be one of the more free market/small government oriented Federal Liberal MPs.

      Unfortunately, the Liberal Party abandoned the principle of individual conscience a long time ago, so the voices of such MPs are often completely lost amongst a sea of big government interventionists.

    • OldMum says:

      10:19am | 24/08/09

      Back to childcare issues then…...it is the responsibility of parents to provide care for children under school age if they need to work.Government and industry can assist by providing sensible parental leave and a safe but sensible way of registering carers of children.Young children need to be cared for in loving environments where they can play, imagine,learn social skills, get dirty,have fun and be with a small number of other children,replicating a family group.Carers need to be paid properly and recognised for the valuable work they do in giving a children a good, caring start.This is the best pre-school education and one of the most effective.The pre-school industry generates profits but is not a good preparation for life.Let’s get real and provide what children really need.

    • Micko says:

      11:02am | 24/08/09

      It costs around $15 thousand per annum for full time long day care—small wonder so few are able to afford it!  More qualifications and lower ratios is simply code for more costs. The ratio of careers to kids has always been five to one, and while I accept four to one might be better, has anyone weighed the costs against the benefits?  Why not regulate and require three to one?  At some point the costs must be greater than the benefits.

      It’s not as though someone is going to spend three years out of the workforce in full time study and not (justifiably) expect a greater financial reward for that sacrifice.  I believe that caring and nurturing skills are innate—if someone is no good with kids a degree is not going to help, so why should I have to pay more for a credential which, to me, has absolutely no value.  I just want to make sure that my kids are being looked after by decent caring people in a supportive environment.  I’m not sending them to daycare to turn them into child geniuses.

      Given we are about to enter period of massive skills shortages due to the ageing population it makes no sense to me why the government would want to discourage young parents from remaining in the workforce by making childcare even more unaffordable.  Nor does it seem fair for the Government to impose even greater costs on young parents at a time in their lives when they are already financially stretched.

    • Susan says:

      11:59am | 24/08/09

      So, from what you’ve said, I take it the Coalition’s current policy on Early Childhood is to do nothing? Wait until the average constituent you speak to is dissatisfied, or the statistics definitely say things are bad rather than possibly flawed before acting?

      Politics needs to think beyond the present day and into what our future needs will be. A ‘do nothing’ approach would surely only lead to problems in the future,.

    • Kate says:

      01:40pm | 24/08/09

      Sophie - What is the Liberal Party’s current policy for child care? I agree with your comments about more parent involvement but do working parents really have the time. Isn’t that what we pay you and your counterparts to do for us (put alternative policies forward) and hold the Govt to account….we’re kind of busy trying to work so we can keep up with the child care payments.

    • barry says:

      04:42pm | 24/08/09

      Maybe less money spent on terrorism and defence and more on things that actually affect our lives like affordable quality childcare.  Oh- but that isnt very sexy is it?

    • simon says:

      04:59pm | 24/08/09

      No one looks after her kids better than Mum.
      Dads a full 8 furlongs behind, and the rest are still at the starting blocks.

      How about we see some support for the traditional family model. It served us very well for many, many years before “progressive” ideas and attitudes prevailed.

    • Mary says:

      06:20pm | 24/08/09

      You’re right Sophie!

      It’s no longer fashionable to be a stay-at-home mum. Ironically, if a new mum was to return “to work” as a childcare worker they would be better regarded under Labor’s policies - rather than looking after her own!

    • bec says:

      07:58pm | 24/08/09

      Kinda over this whole stupid “let’s return to the traditional model, rah rah rah”. Nuclear families are ultimately a modern convention of western civilisation (and hardly prominent before the 1850s). There are plenty of models for good families and childrearing that involve extended families and involvement of communities. If it works for you, fantastic, but I don’t understand why we promote the “traditional” (and slavery is traditional, btw) model when family structure should never be a one-size-fits all paradigm. It’s like insisting that EVERYONE owns a large six-cylinder sedan, regardless of their family size, driving habits or need.

      Frankly, the model of the nuclear family of mum and dad and kids is pretty crap. It’s unsustainable financially and environmentally, it’s isolating from extended family and the rest of the community, and frankly the number of brats I deal with whose mothers *brag* about having stayed home to care for is driving me off even staying overnight at the hospital after labour - much less actually giving up work to spend an extended period caring for children. The little bastards are more resilient than we give them credit for.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      09:30pm | 24/08/09

      The ABC Learning Centers Collapse was the result of Liberal policies. Another shining example of the private market in action. Not that I agree with Rudds so called reforms. All it will do will jack up the prices and the punters will scream for the government to subsidise the increase and the single taxpayer will yet again be paying for a lifestyle choice.

    • tracey says:

      07:24am | 25/08/09

      I think ‘Old Mum’ 10:19am got it in a nutshell. I have two kids and nannied during my twenties in the UK, after that experience I vowed that if I should have kids that I and whom ever I married would be the primary carers and not ‘off load’ them onto others and true to form that is what has happened.  Some things are just more important than a few extra trinkets and holidays.

    • Helen says:

      08:20am | 25/08/09

      As an early childhood professional, I ran child care services for 10 years before having my own. Whilst we provided the best care we could, the ratio of 1:5 for 0 - 2 year olds, 1:8 for 2- 3 year olds and 1:10 for 3 - 5’s made it difficult to meet all of the children’s needs. All of my centres were rated as high quality by the National System and yet when I had my own children, I chose not to enrol them in Long Day Care as I wasn’t happy with the standards we were providing when it came to my own children. What does that say about the level of care in Australia, especially when there are many early childhood trained women who have made the same decision as me. The increase in ratios will make an enormous difference in the ability of services to meet the needs of young children, particularly the babies which is why we within the industry who see the day to day operation of the services from the inside have been requesting higher adult ratios and more qualified staff for years. I say well done to any polictical party who is able to see beyond the dollar to focus on the needs of our most vulnerable citizens.

    • HM says:

      09:17am | 25/08/09

      Bec…  please don’t have children.

    • bec says:

      06:26pm | 26/08/09

      So.. because I don’t agree with you, I shouldn’t breed, HM? Classy. Truly classy. I hope you model that for your children: I am sure they will be among the legions of sub-90 IQ point kids I have to put up with each day.

      There are other factors that are more influential on a child’s upbringing and outcome (culture of education, work ethic and leisure activities modelled by both parents, behaviour/language modelled by adult role-models, access to plenty of adult role-models and extended family care-giving). But don’t let your lack of education stand in your way of making judgment about how other people raise their children.

      I’m sick of the lie that the nuclear family model is *actually* traditional, natural, or the best model for all. If it works for you, great. But truthfully, it doesn’t, and from my own experience as a kid raised by a stay-at-home-mum, it’s probably not the model that I will choose for my children if I choose to have any - which I will likely do now, purely out of spite.

    • Lisa says:

      07:20pm | 29/08/09

      Personally, I think the nuclear family is great. I love my mother-in-law, but having to live with her 24hours a day? No, thank you. I’d rather visit you at Christmas, (and look after my own kids in the meantime).

    • pdev says:

      05:39pm | 31/08/09

      Bec I agree with you completely. Have 2 children now 15 and 12. They spent 2-3 days in long day care from ages 1-5. Still talk fondly of their carers, the food and their friends, Most of the stay at home brigade are lazy, poorly educated and have very limited prospects of well paid work. Their uber parenting is often an excuse and their kids are often poor performers when they get to school

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

@nigelmcbain I don't see the nexus between gay marriage and gay sex education in schools. ACL does. Health issues should be taught whatever

Daniel Piotrowski

@jennijenni a few companies are known to do that - ask for story ideas from job applicants so they can steal them later

Malcolm Farr

: Bruce Springsteen: "I get roughed up crowdsurfing… people try to pull chunks out of me" http://t.co/jiHqt8agt9” it was him, @patricklion

Daniel Piotrowski

Ray Hadley fires back at Carlton. Great @candacesutton1 get: http://t.co/7fQzk4Xixh

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter