Cheaper childcare? Who wouldn’t want that? After fee increases of over 40% in the last eight years it is clearly very much needed. Nods of approval all around as the Albanese government ushers in a new bill promising cheaper childcare this week.
Aren’t we lucky to now have a government that understands the importance of accessible, low-cost quality education and care? That made it a priority both in their election campaign and in their legislative program? Prioritising the education and care of our youngest citizens is so very, very right.
So, cheaper childcare. Yay!
But cheaper for whom? In the 2021 financial year, the Australian government spent $10.1bn on early education and care. The states and territories spent another $2.3bn. That works out at about $8,458 per child or $12.4bn of taxpayers’ money every year.
To deliver “cheaper childcare” even more money must be poured in. Another $5.4bn a year. What if instead of just pouring more money into a system that is clearly incapable of delivering at a reasonable cost, we radically redesigned that funding system?
After all, Anthony Albanese isn’t the only prime minister who has promised to cut the cost of care for families. Morrison did before him; his government delivered the childcare subsidy system we currently have – you know, the one that failed to deliver cheap enough childcare.
So, what would a radical redesign look like?
How about we go for a redesign where our teachers and educators get wages commensurate with their skills and importance, where we don’t duplicate funding systems by the states and territories and the commonwealth, where families don’t have to sell their firstborn child to afford care, and where money isn’t siphoned off by the spivs and corporations sucking from the government funding teat?
Would that be too much to ask?
Funding services rather than the families that use them. Direct funding would give governments a powerful lever to control what those services charge families. And wait, isn’t there a model a bit like that for older children? (I think they are called schools … )
Make it illegal to make a profit from government funding. Too radical? No school can receive federal education funding unless they are not-for-profit. (What about private schools, you ask? Why do you think private schools have such lavish grounds and facilities? Their surpluses must be reinvested back into their school.)
The government buys the premises education and care is delivered from and becomes the landlord. Developers and landlords make a motza out of renting premises to services under inflated lucrative leases with guaranteed rent increases above market rates. (After all, it is governments who own the premises that education for older children is delivered from.)
Just one level of government is responsible for funding all of education and care. We currently have a crazy mishmash of systems where states fund services called preschools with money they get from the federal government while the commonwealth funds the families who use education and care services with other names. (Why? Because under our constitution, states and territories are responsible for the delivery of education, leaving the commonwealth responsible for the care part.)
Duplicating the school system isn’t the only way to deliver cost-effective early education and care, but there are strong precedents there for doing almost everything that needs to be done to reduce the cost of the system to our country.
The Albanese government has announced simultaneous Productivity Commission and ACCC inquiries to accompany their funding increase. But what we need is a government with the courage to go for a massive redesign, rather than fiddle around the edges and do more reviews.
Regarded as one of the best education systems in the world, the national government in Finland sets fees and then funds each local government to ensure there is enough early education and care for every child in their area. They get to decide how it is delivered – directly by them, by not-for-profit organisations, or by private companies willing to deliver for the set fees. We could do worse than emulate this.
There is no point in governments repeatedly announcing they will increase the subsidies for families. Cheaper childcare for families always comes at a cost to us as a country.
But I suppose that doesn’t matter to the developers, the landlords, the stock exchange investors, and the chain owners who rub their hands again at the even bigger pot of money they get to snuffle at.
• Lisa Bryant is an advocate for education and care in Australia and a consultant to education and care services
