Bid to kick stay-at-home mums out of childcare. That was the headline that accompanied an article in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday and it’s unfortunately telling. It demonstrates clearly that childcare is still considered the domain of mothers rather than parents, an assumption that perpetuates the gap between mothers and fathers in the workplace.
The assistant minister for education Sussan Ley is reported to have said that one of the reasons working parents struggle to find childcare in Australia is because stay-at-home mums are clogging the system. It’s an unfortunate remark for several reasons. Aside from the fact it assumes childcare is the responsibility of mothers, it pits parents against one another unnecessarily and it overlooks the more pressing issue of the under supply of childcare positions in many areas. It also fails to acknowledge the complexity of childcare for many families.
According to the Bureau of Statistics as at June 2011 there were almost 70,000 Australian mothers out of the workforce solely because they couldn’t find affordable childcare – which represents 15% of all unemployed females. A further 13% of respondents said they would work more if they could access childcare.
Any parent who has tried to secure childcare to match their working hours in a metropolitan area is likely to relate to the fact it’s not easy. Securing a childcare position that is of a good standard, affordable and convenient is the holy grail. Once secured, a position will not be relinquished easily.
Australian families are entitled to a taxpayer-funded childcare rebate for up to 24 hours a week per child without a requirement that they participate in paid work. That might seem unfair and if all else were equal it might be. But all else is not equal.
I have lost count of the number of times I have chatted with other mums at the childcare centre where my daughters attend who have either been made redundant whilst on maternity leave or shortly after returning from maternity leave. Perhaps it’s a pure coincidence that they lost their jobs whilst their children were so young (or even yet to be born) but judging from the growing rates of pregnancy discrimination, that seems unlikely.
Whether it’s a coincidence or not, the recently-redundant mothers whom I have spoken with have each employed the same strategy; keep the childcare position whilst looking for work. In most cases, they determined it would be harder to find childcare than a job and in any case, without childcare, accepting a job would be tricky. (The same rationale applies to parents who are on maternity leave with subsequent children; it’s far easier to keep the older children in their existing position than risk losing it and then being forced to find multiple positions.)
For parents who are out of work, there is also the fact that childcare is often required throughout the job hunting phase; attending interviews, meeting recruiters, preparing a CV or putting together a pitch.
I cannot find data to confirm how many families access childcare who aren’t in paid work but I accept not all families would be in the situation I describe above. Some families use childcare whilst not working or not looking for work and there is certainly a discussion to be had about whether a subsidy in that situation is an effective use of tax dollars. That discussion, however, ought to acknowledge the legitimate reasons non-working parents also access childcare. Aside from the social and educational benefits that can be derived from good quality childcare there are also practical reasons families seek care.
Australian women still do the lion’s share of the unpaid work in the economy. Because a mother or a father is not in the paid workforce does not mean they are not contributing to the economy nor should it disqualify their children from accessing an early childhood education. The extent to which that is publicly funded however is a legitimate question.
The issue of accessible and affordable childcare warrants a discussion that is more considered and complex than pitting one group of parents against another. If greater demand for childcare is there why try to minimise it?
“If a local school became crowded, nobody would suggest children of stay at home parents should be given a lower priority than the children of those with jobs,” the Acting National Secretary of the early childhood union, United Voice, David O’Byrne says. “The problem with Australia’s early childhood education and care system is chronic underfunding. The availability of childcare is a complex issue, with oversupply in some areas and undersupply in others. If there are not enough places, the answer is to provide more where they are needed.”
O’Bryne says the real problem is Australia’s under investment in the area.
“Australia’s investment in childcare is woeful by international standards: We spend just 0.45% of GDP on childcare, less than half of the 1% recommended by both the OECD and UNICEF. If our neighbour New Zealand can spend 1% of GDP, why can’t we?
If the government is serious about solving Australia’s childcare problem, that’s the question they ought to focus on.