Childcare crisis continues as Productivity Commission takes soft options

By Ross B. Taylor AM 

Treasurer Joe Hockey made it clear: Australia is facing a ‘budget emergency’. Everyone from pensioners to retirees has been told we need to save money. Meanwhile, the government will in the next few years be paying-out in excess of $13 billion annually for parenting support.

The Paid Parental Scheme has been widely condemned, and so it should be, as it essentially will ‘feed’ even more middle and upper class welfare. Meanwhile, the government also will ‘fork-out’ an estimate $8.5 billion in child care support by 2017-18 for a system that will continue to be in crisis.

The recently released draft review by Australia’s Productivity Commission (PC) provides some ideas but it fails to create any radical and long-lasting solutions to the challenges facing mostly young families today. They could have taken a lead from Andrew (‘Twiggy’) Forrest about the need to be ‘bold and brave’ in addressing this critical social issue?

The PC has at least recognised the problems parents face in finding appropriate day care by acknowledging one in four parents are unable to find suitable work due to child-care demands. This is just one quote from a parent who wrote...

As a permanent fire-fighter, I am a shift worker. My roster is an eight day rolling roster so though I can tell which days and nights I am working for the next 10 years they are different days and nights every week. Therefore, regular childcare where I have to nominate a day each week is not an option.   Our institute’s submission to the PC argued for the need to consider the option to allow families to use foreign nannies or ‘au pair’ workers. The use of nannies is increasing in Australia as many parents struggle to find appropriate care for their children whilst those who can access care, pay out an average $95.00 per day for these services.   We have argued for some time that live-in nannies would provide not only highly flexible child care services but would also help working parents with domestic work including meals, washings and cleaning, and thus providing more time to spend with their kids.   Live-in nannies would not be suitable to all families. It does require some adjustment as most returning expats will tell you. But the benefits to those families who engage a live-in nanny should not be underestimated.   Under the current visa ‘417’ visa, overseas nannies may be hired by Australian families, but the system has a number of major barriers built into the visa conditions including:   ·         A nanny may only stay with a family for a maximum of six months even though they may have a one-two year ‘work & holiday’ visa. This is highly disruptive for families.   ·         The wage to be paid may be negotiated but must not fall below the minimum wage set in Australia. This is not flexible enough, as families also pay for the nanny’s accommodation, food and travel each year back to their home country, and medical insurance. Therefore, the cost becomes too expensive for families, other than the wealthy, or people simply cheat, which can lead to major problems at a later date with the worker and the family.   This ‘417’ visa generally eliminates the many thousands of Asian-based nannies in countries such as Indonesia and The Philippines who currently fail to meet the minimum cash-in-bank requirements the Australian Immigration Department demands.   In our submission we suggested a weekly wage of $200.00 would be highly attractive to Asian au pair workers whilst affordable to most families. It would also release thousands of skilled workers (mostly mum’s) back into the workforce at a time where companies are telling the government that we have to import skilled labour to overcome the skills shortage in Australia. Why would you want to take this approach when many of the skilled workers needed are ‘locked-away’ in their homes looking after children?   The use of a foreign nanny is not exclusively for those parents wanting to re-enter the workforce. For families who have disabled children, or elderly parents living in the home, a nanny can be a ‘Godsent’as they provide the opportunity for the parent to spend quality time with their children (or elderly parent) and to escape to the local cafe for a coffee a couple of times a week.   Those who argue that governments should not even be subsidising families for child care - as it is really a private matter to have and raise children - may have a valid point. But then perhaps the government needs to cut red-tape and created an environment where families can exercise choice concerning how their kids, and parents, will be cared for in the home?   As Paul Murray articulated in The West Australian newspaper recently, the question for Australians is whether we are prepared to invite so-called ‘low paid’ workers into Australia as live-in nannies - and whose presence would then allow Australian parents to re-enter the workforce should they desire - whilst at the same time reducing the enormous debt currently being incurred by our government on child care subsidies?   The PC has had the opportunity to be ‘bold and brave’ by addressing this issue in its draft report; they have failed to do so.   Perhaps we should have asked Andrew?   Ross B. Taylor is the president of the WA-based Indonesia Institute (Inc)   August 2014