Apparently Bronwen Bishop is angry that her suggestion to make childcare tax deductible has not been taken up by the Commonwealth government. She rightly points out that “If you can get a tax deduction for your car, your laptop, your mobile, your tools” then it is inconsistent that childcare is also not included.
Howard’s response is that child care is already tax-deductable for 80 per cent of Australians and “It’s not possible to make child care completely costless [...]. There has to be some limit, we can’t afford to do that.”
In one of the first occasions that I can remember agreeing so strongly with Ms Bishop, she has responded by saying:
“I cannot agree with any man who makes a judgement about what is best for a woman.”
However, the issue is a little more complicated than men making judgements about what is best for women. Ms Bishop’s proposal was designed to ensure maximum flexibility of childcare arrangements, which meant that it would have provided heavy subsidies for home carers including private nannies. Clearly this means that many of the proposed changes were really designed to favour the wealthy.
Although I am in favour of increasing the flexibility of options available to families (the fact that this debate has been framed solely in terms of women is somewhat disturbing even if it does reflect the statistical reality), this doesn’t seem right to me. After an 18 months inquiry, surely there should have been more discussion of how to make centre-based care more affordable and accessible – since that is an issue that is constantly raised in the community. It is a disturbing replication of the Liberal party’s policies on education and health if subsidising the wealthy to remove their children from childcare centres was proposed as the primary model of increasing access for poorer families. Like the subsidisation of private schools and health insurance, this doesn’t increase the options available to all families – it simply increases the options available to the wealthy (who already benefit from having access to the greater range of options), while removing their concern and social capital from the public system.
Finally, what I would like to know is: now that Howard has rejected Ms Bishop’s proposals, what next? Does this mean that absolutely nothing is going to be done to improve childcare in Australia?
Given how hard Ratty has been trying, and by how many different devious means, to get us all back into the Küche baking Kuchen for the Kinder before they leave for Kirche, I’d say the answer to that last question is “Yes”.
Surely you’ve read Caroline Overington’s position on the matter?
More tax breaks for the wealthy indeed. After all, everyone knows it’s only the wealthy children that are smart enough to go on to university to become engineers and lawyers and other productive, non-un-australian things like that.
Surely the real problem is the almost complete privatisation of childcare during the Howard era as subsidies dried up for not for profit providers (or regulation was used selectively to disappear family day care) and it’s become a highly profitable market based commodity. Unfortunately, I suspect that very little will be done to reverse this – even if Howard loses the election – and we’re left arguing over the extent of subsidies. Effective public provision of childcare would no doubt be both more equitable and less costly than any combination of tax deductions or whatever.
Yes, Mark, I think that you have hit the nail on the head actually. That is the real problem. The fact that Bronwen Bishop simply wanted to take us even further down this path is what concerns me.
The absence of not-for-profit and council-based child care in many areas is a real problem – not just for families who are looking for affordable care, but also for equity in terms of future opportunities (given the positive impact of early childhood education on children’s capacity to adapt and thrive at school).
Mark, I hold a different perspective, the federal government without ever admitting it, behaves as if child care is a pre curser to pre primary schooling, and as such believes it to the responsibility of the state sector. The capped tax deductable policy, as outlined earlier does allow benefits and shows some intent to support middle Australia, whilst not committing to a vast costs of a capital and operational national strategy.
“I cannot agree with any man who makes a judgement about what is best for a woman.�
What a dopey statement. Anyone who pays taxes and votes can make judgements on Government policy
Actually, it’s even worse than I thought on first sight. Of course anyone can make judgements on government policy – you don’t even need to be a taxpayer or a voter. What is Bronny on about?
I turn off anything that dreadful woman supports.
Can we have some more full-time childcare places in the vicinity of the Perth CBD, please? Current waiting lists are a year or more.
Can anybody imagine what a publicly provided pub would be like? If all pubs were publicly provided? Fancy a coldie in such a place?
Be a bit like the department of transport “service” counter.
Publicly provided childcare would be any different?
The Government’s much trumpeted childcare rebate is a crock. Even if I went back to full time work, with the childcare rebate, my pay would be totally eaten up by the childcare costs. And I wouldn’t see my child into the bargain. At least if there were tax deductions, chainstore-style childcare centres like ABC Learning Centres might stop spreading across Australia like a blight.
I think Overington is right. Not everyone works 9 – 5 on weekdays. I don’t. For the record I’m not rich on anyone’s scale. My hours vary. At the moment, I don’t even know what days I’ll be working. This really doesn’t suit the certainty needed for childcare places. Waiting lists are years long anyway, and I didn’t get down on them from the moment that pregnancy test came back positive, so it’s all too late.
I certainly wouldn’t sneer at women who use nannies, because I understand how frustrated they must be with the lack of flexibility in childcare centres. I can also understand that women want their children to be looked after by a single reliable person with whom the children are familiar. Realistically, I’d prefer that too!
I have found it very difficult to go back to part time work, and without help from my mother, it would have been absolutely impossible. Others are not so lucky. So, while I’m not a fan of Bronwen, I wouldn’t be unhappy if her suggestion was adopted.
I don’t think that the tactics of ABC learning have helped either. Buying up all the community based childcare serves it can and cutting the services provided has not been a very good thing for parents.
The concentration of ownership into fewer and fewer owners and the provision of fewer and fewer services is a blight on our childcare system in this country and represents a cutting of competition.
If SATP ran his pub along these free enterprise lines, drinkers would have to order their drinks months in advance and supply their own stools,glasses and coasters so they could enjoy a drink!
What?
Have you not heard of public education Steve? Why would early education be any different? There are generally the same number of 4-year-olds as there are 5-year-olds in any given year…
Public Education? Rather proves my point doesn’t it.
Legal Eagle: You are 100% correct. Although where there is a chainstore style ABC centre, there is at least a childcare centre.
The structure of the ABC Learning empire is decisively wierd. For example they do not own assets from the perpetual takeover of childcare centres which is necessary to keep rounding up parents who try to keep out of their clutches by moving their children to other non-ABC centres,
I know of people who have moved their children half a dozen times and no sooner is the child settled into a new childcare centre when the new centre is bought out by ABC Learning.
Read the financial documents from ABCLearning and you will quickly run into the term AEU. This is not the Australian Education Union or anything of its ilk but a joke reflecting the Liberal Party board member humour as the name for the property trust that does own all the assets for ABC Learning.
I don’t know how many investors in ABC learing know of the assets actually being held in the Property Trust, but I’ve often wondered just why would investors buy into the ABC Learning share with no assets when the far cheaper Property Trust has heaps of assets.
Hmm, Steve, that is very interesting information. A friend of mine (Cherry Ripe) has written some interesting posts about ABC Learning here and here.
Makes me feel very cynical about the whole thing.
As my friend’s post notes, can it be a coincidence that Eddy Groves pays substantial donations to the Queensland Liberal party??
Some of the mothers in my Mothers’ Group were saying a couple of local centres had just been bought out. Really makes a mockery of the idea of providing “choice” of childcare. Apparently ABC Learning just keeps offering increasingly exorbitant amounts of money to local childcare centres to buy them out (they’ve got so much money already) and many operators just can’t resist the temptation.
Steve, I’m not sure that there is a problem with the physical facilities being owned by a property trust. After all retailers such as Woolworths don’t usually own the buildings they operate in.
There are of course plenty of stories about ABC, which as a company is now worth over $3 billion and is the second largest child care provider in the USA.
There is another story here in Qld that I can’t get a decent hold on. It seems that the Govt has legislated so that from 2008:
Some of the troops are thinking that this means that the State will correspondingly reduce subsidies to pre-prep institutions in view of their lower wage costs. This would mean less tax payer funding of Eddy Groves life style but would also apply to C&K kindergartens.
The thought is that you can’t retain teacher registration unless you are employed by an educational institution. If this is so, there is a slight chicken and egg problem and maybe a problem about supply teachers.
I’m sure such minor glitches if they exist will be ironed out, but it does seem that the ’smart’ state is heading in a different direction to that of Federal Labor who are promising to turn child care operators into educators.
Just a few points of information and comment:
The Feds subsidise child care for families in Long Day Care through Child Care Benefit [CCB], paying the subsidy directly to child care services on behalf of parents who also pay a gap fee.
The NSW Government, through the Department of Community Services [DOCS], partially funds 800 community/council based preschools. The Iemma government wants these services to be eligible for the Federal Government’s Child Care Benefits, thus shifting the cost to the Feds.
Whilst NSW DET fully funds about 100 of its own preschools attached to primary schools, the NSW DOCS funded preschools have been hung out to dry ever since the Greiner Government, facing a battle of survival due to gross under-funding.
Iemma and Costa are kidding themselves if they think Pete and Johnny are going to fund ’state’ preschool systems, especially the NSW preschool system.
Watch out for a concerted pre-election campaign by the community/council based preschools.
Whilst there is a federally run accreditation system which covers some matters of ‘quality’, the various state governments ‘regulate’ child care services, including Long Day Care, Preschools and Family Day Care. These regulations cover the pointy end of quality and safety: Staff qualifications, staff:child ratios, group sizes, built environment, risk management etc.
The private and corporate sectors are constantly chipping away at the NSW Government to lower child care standards.
I can’t work out the business case for ABC ‘learning’ centres and have a feeling that the slightest recession will see the lot fall like a pack of cards. The corporate entity may survive because of how assets are owned, but the centres may close because of low revenue.
A lot of my friends have worked in or used private/corporate child care, mostly for a short time. “Child Warehousing” is the common term.
I share the ambivalence expressed here toward ABC Learning. Trouble is Australian Ethical Investment which has some of my super money invests in Eddy Groves’ outfit. And they won’t budge on their decision neither. I have had the argument with ‘em, but no dice.
I have done a post in light of the recent comments by Julia Gillard about politicians and parenthood for those who are interested.