Australia’s approach to early childhood education and care (ECEC) before and during the coronavirus crisis raises important questions about how Australia makes its future. The implications extend across the national policy field.
ECEC is a thread that runs through many aspects of what Australia wants, whether listening to the people or the experts.
In the two most recent National Values Assessments, Australians said that caring and family are two of the three things they value most in their personal lives. Caring for children is central to these core Australian values.
Applicants for a permanent or provisional visa must confirm that they understand that “Australian society values [among other things] equality of men and women and a spirit of egalitarianism”. However, in Australia today, women earn 14% less than men. To earn as much as men did last financial year, women in Australia had to keep working from 1 July until today. That’s why today is known as Equal Pay Day. And that doesn’t count women in part-time or unpaid roles. Labour market experts point to access to affordable ECEC as a key plank in closing the gender pay gap.
According to research for the Australian Futures Project’s “The Perfect Candidate”, Australians’ biggest concern is their cost of living. Childcare costs absorb as much as 20% of a family's household income, and the majority of parents have experienced increasing stress due to the rising cost of childcare.
The coronavirus pandemic has impacted women harder than men. Reversing unemployment for women in the post-pandemic recovery will - for many women - require access to affordable ECEC.
Finally, ECEC is beneficial to society and the economy, delivering two dollars of benefits for every dollar invested, more than many infrastructure projects.
It is therefore not surprising that around half of all Australian parents want free ECEC and over 70% of all Australians are open to the idea.
Against this backdrop of what Australia wants, four questions stand out:
Why was it possible for the Government to provide free childcare at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, but not beforehand?
Why did the Federal Treasurer revert to the pre-existing means-tested model after such a limited period despite drastically changed economic conditions compared to before the pandemic, and despite calling - in the same breath - for a baby boom that would presumably require more childcare, not less?
Given all the policy innovation around JobKeeper and its various iterations, why wasn’t innovation possible in the Government’s approach to childcare? Instead of the simplistic and false “either free or the same as it was before” position, other options were available. For example, The Grattan Institute suggests a model with a subsidy of 95% of childcare costs for low-income families, tapering down slowly to zero as family income increases. It estimates that this would cost taxpayers an additional $5 billion a year, but facilitate women who want it to return to work. In turn, this would support the post-COVID-19 recovery and boost GDP by about $11 billion a year in the medium term through higher workforce participation.
Why is it normal in response to COVID-19 to talk about government-backed infrastructure projects (male-dominated) to provide jobs and stimulate the economy, but not normal to talk about government backing for the care economy (female-dominated) to do the same? And why couldn’t Australia do both at once?
Is it because government systems and institutions are not yet well-practised at solving complex problems? Because ideology trumps the public interest in today’s hyper-partisan political and media landscape? Because those setting the national policy agenda have a bias (conscious or not) against the more “feminine” parts of society and the economy? Because society finds it harder to value more intangible goods (care and education) than physical goods (roads and buildings)? Because Australia has lost the ability to curiously discuss different perspectives and constructively argue about nuance? Because powerful people in Australia do not share the Australian people’s core values?
The gap between what Australia wants and day-to-day life in Australia is not limited to ECEC. Even before the first recession in three decades, 14% of Australians were expecting their lives in three to four years to get worse, not better and almost two-thirds felt the next generation will be worse off than their parents. With trust in government at a record low, wage growth stagnating, and extinction rates increasing, can you blame them?
While it would be nice if answers to the questions above were obvious, the way Australia makes its future is not well understood - including by experts. And to improve something requires understanding it. That’s why we have created Recoding the Future, a solutions-focussed research program that deeply engages stakeholders over three years to collectively understand, and then work together to identify and implement solutions that improve, how Australia makes its future. Australia cannot achieve what the public wants for the future until we improve how Australia makes its future.
We’ll be keeping you up to date as we progress on Recoding the Future. Meanwhile, please join the conversation on Twitter and Facebook. Please keep it curious, optimistic, and constructive. How would you describe how Australia makes its future? How much say do you feel you have? Where are the biggest opportunities for improving how Australia makes its future and increasing your say?
Together, we can understand and improve how Australia makes its future.