“Stay-at-home parenting is superior to ‘day orphanages’ (childcare). We need to reform our tax/welfare system to support parenting. #teamnile”
No sooner had I tweeted about the joy in commuting across the street to my daughters’ daycare centre (as opposed to driving across Sydney like I did last year) this morning, I saw Fred Nile’s contribution to the discussion about childcare. And what an incisive contribution he makes.
After recoiling immediately at the insensitivity in likening any functioning childcare centre in Australia to an orphanage, my thoughts in response to his tweet were roughly as follows:
– I wonder how many “day orphanges” Fred Nile has spent time in?
– I wonder how much stay-at-home-parenting Fred Nile undertook whilst his four children were young?
– I wonder if by “parenting” Nile actually means “mothering”? Or is it fathers that he believes our tax/welfare system is failing to support in parenting?
– How many people actually voted for Nile?
A few of these questions were clarified by Reverend Nile himself. The Daily Telegraph reports that Nile was referring to mothers in particular.
“We favour mother care rather than childcare. We prefer children are cared for by their parents, and there should be financial assistance for stay-at-home mothers. At the moment the tax system disadvantages you if a mother wants to stay home,” Rev Nile said. “A lot of things children learn they learn from their parents, they learn from their mothers.”
First things first, the assumption that mothers carry the sole responsibility for parenting requires challenging; parents are responsible for parenting.
Secondly, the other issue that is sadly relevant is the sentiment that childcare is akin to abandonment and in holding that belief, Nile is not alone.
Ask any working parent who uses childcare how often they fend off disparaging comments about their choice, and you’ll realise it’s hardly a minority view.
Leaving aside the fact this sentiment assumes a family’s decision to use childcare is always discretionary, as opposed to being necessary to generate an income to support said family , the notion that parents staying at home is superior to having kids in daycare is inaccurate.
As a parent who uses childcare, of course I would say that, you might be thinking. But I’m not merely basing this assertion on my own family’s personal experience with childcare which has, for the record, been exceptional.
Late last year PwC released a study called Putting a value on early education and care in Australia which examined the long-term impact of quality and access to early childhood education and care on the Australian economy. The results were unequivocal; investing in good quality early childhood care and education creates better outcomes for children, particularly those from low-income or vulnerable households, and the economy.
“This study provides a clear message that the longer term benefits of improved quality and access are likely to be significantly greater than the incremental, but still welcome, benefits from increased labour force participation,” PwC Partner James van Smeerdijk said. “The study is also important in highlighting to the Australian community that child minding is just not good enough for the future of our children and of our economy.”
On Women’s Agenda’s sister site The Mandarin, PwC partner Tony Peak, explains that modelling efforts in this regard in Australia have focused predominantly on the immediate economic benefits of more young children’s mothers joining the workforce. In addition to that however, this study also considers the value of the return from investing in quality early childhood education programs and from investing in increasing participation rates, especially for children from low-income or vulnerable households who are currently under-represented. The results are compelling.
“What is clear is that we can now say that making the interests of the child central to childcare policy is also good for the economy,” Peak says. “Quality education and care programs provide demonstrable improvements in literacy and numeracy outcomes in primary and secondary years. These in turn are correlated with higher earnings when people enter the workforce. There is also significant international evidence of the return on investment of vulnerable children’s participation in early childhood programs.”
Savings to taxpayers through decreased spending on remedial education, criminal justice and youth offending and health services as a result are significant.
“This study estimates a cumulative benefit to GDP by 2050 of $13.3 billion if children whose parents are in the lowest income bracket — and are unlikely to attend an early childhood program — attend a program.” Peak says. “The study finds a cumulative positive impact on GDP of up to $29.6 billion by 2050 and an estimated net fiscal benefit of between $1.6 and $1.9 billion in the same period.”
It’s unhelpful to characterise one type of parenting as superior to another, but if people like Fred Nile choose to pursue that path, let’s at least stick to the facts. In many cases good quality childcare trumps being home. Can someone please let Fred know?