Tom Minear: Childcare shouldn’t just be a women’s issue

Anthony Albanese has rightly seized on the need to make childcare more cost-effective, and it serves Labor’s narrative about the federal government failing women. But childcare shouldn’t just be a “women’s issue”, writes Tom Minear.

Making childcare free during the coronavirus pandemic has led to families thinking twice about how they use the system. Picture: iStock

When the Morrison government made childcare free at the start of the pandemic, Malcolm Turnbull made a prediction.

He said the government would regret waiving fees because of the political difficulties it would encounter winding that back.

While Turnbull isn’t the most popular figure in the Coalition party room these days, several MPs shared his concerns.

They were pleased free childcare achieved its purpose, preventing the collapse of providers and ensuring essential workers could still clock on at hospitals and police stations and supermarkets.

But they realised it could make the one million families relying on the system think twice about whether it was really working for them.

Anthony Albanese came to the same conclusion. That’s why childcare was his first big policy foray since becoming Labor’s leader.

In his budget reply speech, Albanese promised quality and affordable childcare that is universal, likening it to Labor’s signature reforms on Medicare, compulsory super and disability insurance.

In doing so, Albanese wants to create a significant point of difference at the next election, as Labor tries to exploit the perception that this year’s budget has nothing in it for women.

Scott Morrison and his frontbenchers are now fighting back to defend the Coalition’s childcare reforms that have been in place for barely two years.

As is so often the case, once both sides rushed to their corners, the most sensible policy settings emerged in the middle.

Albanese has committed to a “long-term goal” of a 90 per cent childcare subsidy for every family. Compared with the existing system, which is complicated and often too expensive, that sounds appealing.

Labor has pounced on the narrative the federal government’s budget has forgotten women. Picture: iStock

But it is not a sensible use of public money. A family earning $1m a year with two children in childcare for 30 hours a week currently receives no subsidy. Under Labor’s plan, they would cash in almost $29,000 a year from the taxpayer.

The budgetary hit would be huge — which explains why that element of Labor’s policy remains an uncosted “goal”.

Its more concrete promise is a $6.2bn, four-year boost to the government’s annual $9bn childcare spend, cutting costs for 97 per cent of families.

This would be welcome relief for many, but as the government points out, it also means a family on $360,000 with two kids in care for 30 hours a week would receive almost $11,000 a year in subsidies, compared to nothing now.

There is an important debate to be had about the appropriate subsidy level, and Labor has rightly seized on the need to make childcare more cost-effective for low and middle income families.

That said, means testing matters. While taxpayers’ money is flying out the door to rebuild from the recession, spending will have to be reined in at some point, and baking in billions of dollars in extra support for families who can afford it would be a mistake.

It’s also a curious political decision, given Albanese is contemplating paring back tax cuts slated for those same families.

But Labor proposes two other changes which the government must consider.

One is directing the consumer watchdog to regulate childcare fees, so that subsidies are not continually eaten up in price hikes.

More importantly, Labor says the subsidy cap — applying to families earning more than $189,390 — must be scrapped.

For families in this position, it is often not worth a parent taking on an extra day of work a week, because the extra cash is not enough to cover more unsubsidised childcare hours.

This is an unhelpful handbrake on economic activity.

Tactically, Albanese has been clever to use childcare to highlight the differences between how both major parties view Australia’s recovery from the COVID-19 recession.

However, in his eagerness to paint Morrison’s plan as blokey, he has missed an opportunity.

Albanese argues “working mums … cop the worst” of shortcomings in the childcare system, depriving them of opportunities, reducing workforce participation and driving down productivity. This is fair, and it serves Labor’s narrative about the government failing women.

But childcare shouldn’t just be a “women’s issue”.

One of the many lessons of this year is that our work routines were outdated and inflexible.

Men who spend 50 hours a week in office towers are realising they can balance their workloads to spend more time at home with their kids. They are realising what they have been missing.

While it’s disappointing it took a pandemic to start this conservation, it shouldn’t be forgotten when we return to our workplaces.

Working full-time at home isn’t necessarily compatible with caring for children as well, but with the co-operation of their employers, many families can and will want a better balance than the rigid 9-5 grind.

Albanese and Morrison shouldn’t just be debating subsidies and fees and means testing. They should be aspiring to lead this cultural change — and to make childcare work for us.

MORE OPINION:

KENNETT: THE MOMENT DAN FINALLY LOST THE PLOT

BOLT: THOSE IN POWER MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE

TOM MINEAR IS HERALD SUN NATIONAL POLITICS EDITOR

@tminear