The childcare subsidy gives parents 'choice', but the government must ensure good choices are available
For those who spend their lives thinking about how to improve the systems and policies our society relies on, moments like this can also provoke change.
We expect our governments to be improving our institutions all the time, not just when there is a horror story — and they often do, in ways that do not make headlines — but policy advocates understand the power of a "burning platform" to make reforms stick.
This week, childcare advocate Georgie Dent of The Parenthood said leaders needed to go beyond steps already underway to improve screening and surveillance of staff and redesign the sector entirely.
Dent's two priorities are an independent national regulator with the power to effectively force the closure of centres that do not meet minimum standards, and a new funding model where child care is provided directly like public schools, rather than subsidised.
It is obvious how a national regulator relates to the failures exposed by this week's allegations — in fact, it may surprise many to learn that shutting down substandard childcare centres isn't already standard practice, and the federal government has work underway to change that.
The relevance of funding may not be so obvious. But the financial model of Australian child care — where the federal government gives money to parents rather than operating centres itself — has long put it at arm's length from ensuring quality and safety.
That is a challenge for the Albanese government, which has long aspired to make those subsidies universal but has limited oversight of what exactly it is subsidising.
Our childcare system is built with "choice" at its centre. Rather than the government providing childcare services directly, it pays a subsidy to eligible parents, who choose from a range of providers, including for-profit and not-for-profit organisations.
The logic is that high-quality services will naturally follow if parents are "empowered" to give their money to a good provider instead of a bad one.
It's a hybrid system: demand is public, with the government paying for at least a portion of the cost of care, but supply is private, with providers competing with one another in a market for customers, and regulations often light-touch.
Similar systems are today used for a range of services that were once directly provided by government, including aged care and vocational education, and for disability care through the NDIS.
In-home aged care recipients have "packages", NDIS participants have "budgets" and trainees have "fee-free TAFE", all different names for subsidies allowing them to choose their preferred providers.
But this choice "revolution", which has taken place in the last few decades, has its critics. Mark Considine, a politics professor at the University of Melbourne, calls it evidence of a "careless state".
Though motivated by a desire to improve on often stale government service providers, Considine argues it became an excuse for governments to outsource quality assurance to those who use the services, who may lack the information to make informed choices.
Sometimes there may not be much choice at all, like in Australia's childcare "deserts" where only a smattering of providers are available.
But even where options are plenty, it is an open question whether those who rely on these services, who are often vulnerable and confronting complicated systems, are really equipped to sort good from bad.
That is why Dent advocates the school model — schools being one of a few remaining services directly provided by (state and territory) governments, with hospitals another.
"The way schools are funded is directly. Parents are not subsidised to send their children to schools," she said on Wednesday.
"There is no accountability for the childcare subsidy … where taxpayers and the [federal] government are able to say that receiving this money is dependent on you meeting these minimum standards …
"When we've got services that have almost got a business model around employing the fewest number of staff with the lowest number of qualifications, that creates extraordinary risk."
The federal government has not indicated it intends to abolish the subsidy system, but it is considering how to improve regulatory oversight, with Education Minister Jason Clare vowing to deny subsidies to substandard providers in forthcoming legislation, something in train before the events of this week.
The government is also considering how to improve training, pay and retention in the childcare workforce, and address childcare deserts.
That trio of reforms was suggested by the Productivity Commission, which recommended retaining the subsidy system but also called for a national commission to better regulate quality, similar to Dent's other recommendation.
It would be a similar approach to what has unfolded over the last few years in aged care, another sector where stories of neglect and abuse kickstarted a process of change.
An Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission was set up in 2019 and has been accompanied by a star rating system to inform choices.
A new "rights-based" framework for the system was also legislated last year but recently had its implementation delayed.
The jury is out on these changes, and the ABC reported last year that five-star ratings were being handed out to aged care homes found not to be compliant with government standards.
Direct provision of government services is no perfect guarantee of quality either, as we often see with schools and hospitals.
But there is growing recognition, including from the government itself, that giving people "choice" in the services they access cannot come at the expense of strong oversight to give parents the confidence, no doubt shaken this week, that those choices are safe.
If the government does press ahead with universal child care, which will require more providers and more workers, safeguarding quality will be essential.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


West Australian
40 minutes ago
- West Australian
Australia, UK solidify AUKUS deal as Pentagon review raised at high-level Australia-UK talks in Sydney
Despite fears the Trump administration could abandon AUKUS, Australia and the UK have pressed ahead, preparing to sign a 50-year agreement they hope will cement the submarine pact. Defence Minister Richard Marles, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, and their UK counterparts John Healey and David Lammy unveiled the new treaty during the annual AUSMIN meeting in Sydney. The Pentagon's review of the trilateral submarine plan had been raised during the high-level talks on Friday, Mr Marles said. Both defence ministers sought to ease concerns, welcoming the still-ongoing review, with Mr Marles cushioning it as 'the most natural thing in the world' for a new government to reassess such a major deal. 'We've welcomed the review, which is being undertaken by the Trump administration. We spoke today about how both of us — both countries — can contribute to the review,' he said. 'When we came to Government back in 2022, we undertook the Defence Strategic Review. When the UK Government came to power, they, in turn, undertook a review. This is a very, very natural step.' Australia had spearheaded the AUKUS pact in 2021 under then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison, after recognising the country needed to rapidly upgrade its defence capabilities. Labor then agreed to continue it. But Mr Trump's return to the White House in January has sparked new doubts over the pricey pact, as Washington slaps controversial tariffs on multiple countries, including close allies UK and Australia. Australia has also been pressured to increase defence spending in line with the NATO agreement for governments to raise their expenditure to 5 per cent of their country's GDP by 2034. While Australia currently spends about two per cent of its GDP on defence — on track to rise slightly above 2.3 per cent by the end of the decade — Washington has signalled that may not be enough. The UK's increase to 2.5 per cent of GDP by the end of the decade, equivalent to an extra £75 billion, was announced at last month's NATO summit and welcomed by US officials. The Coalition welcomed the UK-Australia treaty but called for defence spending to be increased, urging the Albanese Government to show greater commitment to the US. 'The Albanese Government must urgently demonstrate the same clarity and commitment with the United States,' a joint statement by shadow ministers Michaelia Cash and Angus Taylor said: 'Particularly in light of the Pentagon review, to reassure our partners that Australia can deliver on its contributions and, in turn, secure continued US backing for the agreement. 'Australia must do what we can to ensure AUKUS' longevity and success.' 'At a time of rising global instability, sustained underfunding risks weakening Australia's deterrence and damaging trust in our alliances,' they said. 'The Government must match its rhetoric with investment, and we stand ready to support a bipartisan pathway to deliver the capabilities our nation needs.' Australian Strategic Policy Institute senior analyst Euan Graham said it could be contributing to current alliance tensions. The pressure comes ahead of summit season, where the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese hopes to land his first meeting with Donald Trump. The Prime Minister has dodged questions on when he'll meet the US President after their planned G7 meeting fell through, with Opposition Leader Sussan Ley attacking the lack of progress during the first sitting of the new Parliament this week. Dr Graham said while the UK could support long-term ambitions, Australia still faced a near-term capability gap it would need the US to fill. He said Australia still had an interim reliance on US-made Virginia-class submarines — set to be acquired in the early 2030s, while waiting for the AUKUS subs to be delivered in the 2040s. 'It doesn't solve the issue of the gap between now and when those submarines start being delivered,' he said. 'That's where the American Virginia class gap-filling really comes into play.' But he reiterated that the AUKUS arrangement was a three-nation pact and can be reinforced by each side, saying if confidence dips in one party, strengthening ties with the others can help balance it out. 'This is a clear commitment from the UK to honour its side of the bargain, and I think hopefully that should steady some of the nervousness around Washington's commitment levels,' he said. Greens Senator David Shoebridge blasted the new treaty, calling it a backward step that enriches foreign arms companies and damages regional ties. 'Australia needs to look to our region, not tie our future to a dying empire a world away. All this will do is line the pockets of foreign arms companies and alienate our neighbours,' Senator Shoebridge said. But Dr Graham said Australia must pay to play, and it was necessary to offshore work because Australia lacks the technology to produce the subs on its own. 'If Australia wants capability, it has to buy it. It can't produce it itself,' he said. 'As part of that, Australia is committed to directly investing in the defence industrial base of both countries. 'That's money that's going to leave Australia and go into other countries, but those other countries are providing a service. It's like anything else.' Mr Marles expressed the importance of Australia's 'oldest relationship' with Britain amid global uncertainty and a 'great power contest' in the region. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy labelled the AUSMIN talks as ' focused and constructive' and the pact a 'landmark treaty' which was necessary in a 'turbulent world'. 'It's clear that the UK-Australia relationship is an anchor in what is a very volatile world, providing stability in troubled waters and a relationship that holds steady,' he said. 'Whichever way the geopolitical winds are blowing . . . I think we're sending a clear signal, a signal of the UK's commitment to this region of the world.' He said the UK was determined to keep the Indo-Pacific 'free and open'. Senator Wong said the relationship was rooted in shared values and interests, but it was important to 'modernise' the partnership to meet current global challenges. 'We all know we face the most challenging, strategic circumstances since World War II. More conflict, more contest, a multilateral system under strain,' Senator Wong said. 'And against that backdrop, the partnership between our nations matters even more. And we are determined to work together to modernise our partnership, to take the world as it is, but to work together to shape it for the better. 'We've had an excellent set of discussions today.' Both parties will travel to Mr Marles' Geelong electorate tomorrow, where the agreement is expected to be officially signed. Mr Marles and Ms Wong will also join their UK counterparts in Darwin on Sunday for the visit of the UK Carrier Strike Group, the first such deployment to Australia since 1997, taking place during Exercise Talisman Sabre 2025.

Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Potential worsening of Australia-Israel relations as Albanese releases statement
Australia and Jewish Affairs Council's Joel Burnie comments on the Australia-Israel relationship, claiming Israel has a 'very close affinity with Australia' despite the Albanese government's recent condemnation. 'The good thing on that front is that the Israelis have had a very close affinity with Australia ever since its establishment,' Mr Burnie told Sky News host Danica De Giorgio. 'The relationship between Israel and Australia is far deeper than that; it's a friendship, it's a deep and warm relationship where Israelis love Australians, they love what Australia means to them.'

The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
Enough is enough: the CFMEU stain on our society must be removed
The disclosures by The Age this week involving a gangland associate, a Gold Coast developer and the CFMEU are disturbing. Not only because they are innately concerning, but also because they show, yet again, that the cancerous network of thuggery, intimidation and misfeasance that contaminates business, industry and wider society throughout this country continues. It is a stain on the nation. The Age reported that Melbourne gangland associate John Khoury was paid $110,000 by Queensland-Melbourne joint venture Glen Q to help secure industrial peace on the Gold Coast, where the developer was building a 16-level project at Broadbeach. A meeting was held between influential CFMEU figures and Khoury. This occurred four months after the federal government forced the union into administration. There is no suggestion the union attendees have done the wrong thing, and the administration has also cleared them. But the payment to Khoury by the developer was uncovered during federal police raids. A money trail was thus revealed between a front company in the name of Khoury's accountant to Glen Q's project. Also involved was Nick Maric, a Melbourne construction boss now a Queensland government contractor, who has separately retained the services of Khoury and Mick Gatto to deal with the CFMEU. Glen Q's payment to Khoury focuses light on how business and construction is done. Our reporting also highlights the rivalry between the CFMEU and the Australian Workers' Union, with representatives of the latter supporting two firms led by figures with criminal links to foil the CFMEU.