After a long wait and an endless amount of media speculation, the Productivity Commission has released its draft inquiry report on Childcare and Early Childhood Learning.
One of the key features of the proposals is what many were counting on – the ability to claim back the costs of nannies.
The average out-of-pocket cost of childcare in Australia is 27 per cent of the average wage — which is less than in Britain, the US, New Zealand or Canada. However the number of women who work has increased in the past two decades – from 57 to 66 per cent – and the bill for childcare costs has also grown, with some families finding its financially just too difficult to send their kids to childcare.
With more than 40 per cent of children aged 12 years or under using some type of informal care on a regular basis, and nearly one in four parents working part time being unable to work more hours due to unmet demand for childcare, there is a desperate need for an overhaul of the system.
Some of the submission details concern over stay-at-home mums taking much needed child care spots: “But the reality of childcare is that it should be more directed at working families. Spots can be filled by stay at home mums … just looking for time off from the baby for a cheap ‘babysitting’ rate,” wrote one contributor. While others were concerned with the lack of after school care: “My eldest daughter attends Leichhardt Public which in 2014 will have 650 students but only 180 spots for after school care. I have friends whose second child cannot access this service as they are full – and they are on the priority list. Next year will be even worse.”
The key recommendations of the report are:
Nanny subsidy
One of the key recommendations is that grandparents, nannies or babysitters could be eligible for a government payment if they had at least a Certificate III in early childhood education. (Which is not exactly an easy task, being a one year full-time or two year part-time course..)
The current costs of a nanny varies from $20 an hour to around $27 an hour. This does not cover au pairs – however it does recommend that the current restriction on au pair’s visas be amended, allowing au pairs to remain with a family for the full twelve months of their visa rather than the current limit of six months.
The report says that, “This reduces the transition costs for families changing to a new au pair every six months and the continuity and stability that this would enable would also be of benefit for children.”
Single means tested payment
The complicated system of childcare subsidies currently on offer would be replaced with one means-tested payment that would go directly to the parents’ choice of provider. “Some of our key recommendations include replacing the current multiple childcare subsidies with a single subsidy that would be paid directly to the parents’ choice of provider, and be means and activity tested. The subsidy would be based on a set reasonable cost of care,” Presiding Commissioner Dr Wendy Craik said.
Those on a family income of $60,000 or less would get 90 per cent of the cost of childcare covered. Families on $300,000 or more would get 30 per cent. There would be additional funding for children with extra needs.
After school care and occasional care
After school care provisions would also be extended so that all school principals have the ability to provide after school care – and interestingly, this recommendation says that this would include care for preschoolers. For those despairing the lack of occasional care it calls for a removal of the restrictions on the number of child care places for occasional care and the hours that centres have to be open in order to receive Government subsidies.
Pre school funding
The commission found the Federal Government should also maintain the current funding arrangement for pre-school for four-year-olds that provides 15 hours a week. It also found that governments should continue to contribute funds to preschool programs in long day care (LDC) centres. The federal government is waiting on a review before deciding the future of the current state-federal funding model to give each child 15 hours.
Additional jobs
The report says that these recommendations would see a a GDP impact of an additional $5.5 billion and would encourage up to 47,000 more mothers back to work. The new system would cost the government about $8 billion a year – this is roughly $1 billion more than child care assistance costs now. The draft submission will be finalized by the end of October – and it remains to be seen which, if any, of its recommendations will become reality.
Top Comments
Wow, women can really rip into each other, just reading through posts below, working mums and stay at home mums casting aspersion. I don't think anyone of us can presume to know what it is like being the other, what the other know, what knowledge they have or that one way is better, the one thing I do see that should form solidarity is that all these women are trying their best, each is different in the way they are facing the very challenging world we live in coupled with the hard job that is motherhood, each I dare say has complete love for their child. I just wish we could pat each other on the back and say "I see what you are doing and it is hard isn't it, you're doing ok, I am doing ok, if there is a way we can support each other and make life easier then let's do it".
That has never been the reality of this issue. The "working mums" brigade clearly view stay-at-home mums as failures to their cause. Stay-at-home mums are portrayed as holding back equal rights for other women and even as damaging the economy.
I recall one leading feminist spokesperson, some years ago, arguing that families with a stay-at-home mum should actually be taxed on the notional value of the domestic duties they provide for free, because two-income families had to pay someone else to perform those same duties. That's right, she thought lower-income families should pay more tax, on less income, because they ate less take-away meals.
And you wonder why stay-at-home mums find it hard to treat the other side with respect?
Are they removing the cap of $7500 per child? If so, then I can see their proposal as a fair one.
I think we also need to stop finger pointing at who does or doesn't need assistance to pay for childcare. The reality is that childcare costs a fortune even with government assistance.
It's so important that we get this right for the long term benefit of everyone.