Nanny state trying to shut down debate on debate

WITHOUT a proper analysis of rebates we'll never know what may work.

Illustration: Sturt Krygsman

THE strongest objection to Tony Abbott's idea that the Productivity Commission take a look at rebates for nannies - and that is all the Opposition Leader is calling for - seems to be that it is Abbott who made the suggestion.

The ferocity and speed with which the government has condemned the idea leaves you wondering which side of politics are the real Dr Nos.

Abbott and his team have certainly taken a "tear down the house" approach to opposition during this term of government, no one could deny that. But this week Labor proved itself little better, attempting to shut down debate about even having a debate over nanny rebates.

The Childcare Minister, Kate Ellis, said Abbott's idea was "messy" and just a "thought bubble", one that she was quick to rule out. New mum and Labor MP Michelle Rowland echoed Ellis's comments, condemning Abbott's "butcher's paper thought bubble". Labor's talking points must have been emailed out early this week.

What has policy debate come to in this country when the not-so-radical notion of asking the Productivity Commission to simply look into an idea is so stridently opposed? Fortunately, private sector stakeholders - such as the president of Chief Executive Women, Belinda Hutchinson - were more open-minded about Abbott's call.

Chris Bowen (mis)used liberal philosophy to beat Abbott over the head. He wrote in this newspaper that John Stuart Mill never argued "that freedom of choice leads to a right to a subsidy paid by others". That's true, but liberalism evokes government responsibilities, not just individual rights.

It may not be a government responsibility to fund nannies, but isn't it a government's responsibility to investigate the pros and cons of doing so? That is all Abbott wants.

Albert Einstein once said: "Great ideas often receive opposition from mediocre minds". Abbott's idea probably isn't a great one. There are real challenges to overcome. But that's why allowing the Productivity Commission to investigate the idea is worthwhile, whatever it concludes.

It's not as though this government has been shy of using the Productivity Commission to investigate policy ideas. It used it for an inquiry into climate change adaptation, electricity network regulation, a review of paid maternity leave, drought assistance, the regulatory burden on the upstream petroleum (oil and gas) sector, the not-for-profit sector, executive remuneration, Australia's anti-dumping and countervailing system and to take a look at default superannuation funds. And it is adopting policy changes in the areas of National Disability Support and aged care, which were recommended by the Productivity Commission.

What is so right about the operation of the childcare industry at the moment that it should be quarantined from examination?

Remember, it was this government in 2007 that recognised something needed to be done to improve the quality and accessibility of childcare. It has since raised quality standards, which is no bad thing. But its commitment to building 260 new childcare centres because of a "crisis" in the sector was replaced by a press release issued on the afternoon of the Melbourne Storm scandal (yes, I am cynical about the timing) stipulating that after building 38 new centres in a little less than three years it was calling it a day, breaking the promise.

Unless Labor's earlier rhetoric about a crisis in the sector was inaccurate, there must still be a shortfall of childcare places. This reality is backed up by ABS data for last year showing that 25,400 parents (mostly women) had not gone back to work because of a lack of childcare availability. Abbott's idea is just one way the shortfall might be alleviated.

The point is that, without a proper analysis, we'll never know. The government has crowed that it already offers selective taxpayer-subsidised childcare payments. That is, to a maximum of 8000 places. Consider those numbers in light of the ABS data.

The alternative to Abbott issuing a measured press release calling for a Productivity Commission review into extending rebates to nannies would be either to do nothing or announce a policy without first conducting a study. Neither approach is particularly edifying. Abbott tried the latter with his generous paid maternity leave policy and continues to suffer the consequences.

No doubt a large part of his interest in putting this issue up for debate is to appeal to women voters. The polls show that, despite a commanding lead over the government, women do have a problem with the Opposition Leader (which is a different observation to saying Abbott has a problem with women).

But that is no justification for the reaction we have seen from the government. Even if we only focus on the politics of this debate, Labor has put itself in a position where it now looks closed-minded to the issue of exploring how to make working women's lives easier, by attempting to shut down debate on one way of doing so before it gets started.

Pioneering 20th-century US composer John Cage said: "I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones." How ironic that it is the party of the mainstream Left in this country that is so frightened of Abbott's nanny rebate idea, and it is a conservative leader of Australia's mainstream right-of-centre party who proposed it.

For the record, while I have enormous sympathy for the plight of working women seeking to find feasible childcare arrangements so that they can get on with their careers at the same time as lifting national productivity, taxpayers subsidising nannies looks difficult to achieve. Certainly within the current funding envelope.

To ensure that it doesn't just become another version of middle-class welfare, any such scheme would need to be carefully calibrated. To ensure standards are worthy of government assistance, we need serious investigation into any proposal.

Overcoming the reality that many nannies do more than look after children, by helping with domestic chores for example, makes using taxpayers' dollars harder to justify. Then there is the very real question of whether the government wants to encourage parents away from sending their children to daycare, which has considerable learning and socialising benefits.

All of which is why a Productivity Commission review would be so valuable, putting rigour behind the various arguments.

I'd even like to see our politicians prepared to look at the use of overseas workers to fulfill nanny roles, at the cost of the individual, not the taxpayer. Eva Cox has worried publicly that Abbott's rebate idea may lead to this kind of debate, which is a negative, knee-jerk reaction, no better than the government's.

Condemning cheap overseas labour being used for local nannying (as occurs right around the developed world) usually rests on two arguments: it exploits those who come here, and threatens local jobs in the process.

However, if temporary migrants coming here do so in order to send money back home into their poorer communities, and if they are fulfilling jobs Australians don't want in the first place, what is necessarily so bad about that?

Peter van Onselen is a Winthrop professor at the University of Western Australia