Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
The commodification of child care: ABC Learning
Last Friday, 14 November 2008, the new Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young had something to say about the ABC Learning debacle. Webdiary thanks Kathy Farrelly for sending in an extract. It started like this:
The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 11 November 2008, from Senator Hanson-Young:
Dear Mr President,
Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move: “That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The collapse of ABC Learning and its effect on childcare across Australia, which requires an urgent response from the Government including an emergency summit of the key childcare providers from around the country, to ensure services to parents and children are available beyond the end of 2008.
Yours sincerely
Senator Hanson-Young
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The PRESIDENT —I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
The issue is of such importance that it deserves its own thread. We now publish Senator Hanson-Young's contribution to the Urgency Debate on Childcare in Australia in full:
MATTERS OF URGENCY - Child Care
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (3:53 PM) —I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The collapse of ABC Learning and its effect on childcare across Australia, which requires an urgent response from the Government including an emergency summit of the key childcare providers from around the country, to ensure services to parents and children are available beyond the end of 2008.
Child care in Australia is in desperate need of an overhaul. The crisis that we are seeing with ABC Learning Centres is simply the tip of the iceberg. For years and years, we have seen the child-care sector in Australia being taken over by profiteers and being seen as an industry. Child care should be seen as an essential service. Child care should be seen as part of the lifelong learning that starts at birth. Child care is something that we as parents trust to give our kids the best quality of care so that we can go out to work and pay our mortgages. How was this crisis with ABC Learning Centres ever allowed to happen? How has it been that one corporate entity was allowed to control 25 per cent of the market? How can we say that one corporate entity should be allowed to monopolise a quarter of the child-care sector—for profit, not because we are putting the care of our children first?
Child care should not be viewed or treated as a profit-driven industry; it should be seen as the essential service it is. We have seen over the last couple of weeks a response from the government, a response from the community sector and a response from various child-care providers from around the country to try to get together to talk about what to do next. We know that ABC Learning is responsible for 100,000 long day care places around the country. We know that ABC Learning relies heavily on government funding; it was anticipated to receive up to $300 million from taxpayers through benefits paid to the company and on behalf of parents in this financial year. We have heard from the government that the response in trying to keep these centres open until 31 December this year is a $22 million rescue package. What then? In estimates a few weeks ago, I asked Senator Ludwig, the minister representing Minister Gillard, whether he could explain the federal government’s contingency plans, which they assured me they had. I also asked whether they could explain what would be happening, when it would be happening and what kind of discussions had happened so far to try to avoid the possible crisis that may happen if ABC Learning Centres were to go under—what would happen to the 100,000 children in care in their centres around the country? How do we, as a government—as elected parliamentarians—ensure that we do not leave these families in the lurch?
In response, the department said that there had been some thought given to the issue of ABC Learning folding and that some scenarios had been looked at. Since then, we have seen the $22 million package but we have not seen the details of any type of contingency plan. I have been inundated by various community child-care workers from around the country saying that they have put themselves forward as experts in the sector, people working on the ground, wanting to help the government move forward and ensure that we can keep as many centres open as possible, and yet the biggest criticisms that all of them have come to me with are a lack of transparency in the government’s plans, a lack of transparency in their conversations with government. It is a lack of transparency that led us into this mess in the first place. It is time for the government to shed light on what is really happening with ABC Learning and what types of contingency plans the government has. It is time to ensure that we involve the experts every step of the way.
Today the Senate passed a motion to support an emergency summit to get together the brightest minds in child care from around the country to talk directly to the government about the way forward. I am thankful that the government has taken the opportunity to ensure that centres are open until the end of this year, but we need to be looking beyond 2008. There are people who are willing to help, willing to put up their hands, willing to step in and keep centres open in order to ensure that kids can be dropped off as their parents go off to work and that the quality of care for our kids remains the highest it can possibly be.
I am glad that I have been able to kick-start some debate on this issue in the chamber. I think Australian mums and dads must be sick and tired of the petty party politics that go on in this place. We have just spent almost an hour hearing about who is to blame for the ABC crisis. There is definitely enough blame to go around on both sides of the chamber. The ABC crisis would never have happened if ABC Learning had not been given the opportunity to monopolise the sector. Mums and dads around the country would not be worried about whether they can drop their kids off at their local childcare centre if companies had not been given free rein over what is meant to be an essential service. Mums and dads would not be worried about whether their local ABC centre is closing if companies were not able to profiteer from an essential service and the essential needs of Aussie families.
The government should have responded sooner. The government are creating more anxiety by their lack of transparency on this issue, keeping parents and the elected members and senators in this place in the dark on the rest of their contingency plans. The $22 million to be used to prop up ABC Learning over the next two months will only keep centres open until after Christmas, until 31 December. If the plan is more than this, let us see it. I hope there is more of a plan. I want to see it. I want the key stakeholders in the childcare sector to see it because that means we can get together and move forward.
We need to know now whether the minister will hold an emergency summit of the key stakeholders in the childcare sector, given that today the Senate voted to call on the government to hold one. We need to know within days when that summit will be held. Senator Collins mentioned that consultations will be happening and that those who were not spoken to today at a luncheon held by the parliamentary secretary—which I must point out was not a crisis meeting; it was simply a luncheon—eventually will be consulted. Frankly, ‘eventually’ is not soon enough. We need to know within days what the minister’s contingency plans are. We need the minister to commit to bringing together the brightest and best minds in the childcare sector. Those involved on the ground—the service providers, the local government associations that run childcare centres in their local areas and the small, independent operators—need to be brought together. We need to figure out how we move forward to ensure we can give parents some certainty after 31 December. ‘Eventually’ is simply not good enough.
We need to be take this opportunity to reform child care in Australia. The status quo simply is not working. We need a full investigation into how we ever allowed this essential service to be monopolised by a private company that puts the lining of shareholders’ pockets above the care of children. The company has a 25 per cent market share and that is simply not acceptable when we are talking about an essential community service. We need a full investigation as to how this happened. We need an emergency summit to move forward to ensure we can give certainty to parents and working families that their kids will not simply be left at the gate on 1 January.
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
institutionalised children
Jay, educate young people properly and you will end up withknowledgeable and educated future parents. Sadly that's not the case inabout 95% of occasions, people become parents in a state of ignoranceand non understanding, that's why the trend now is to dump them on toothers in the hope they will take responsibility for educating anddirecting them in life. Placing babies and young children inchildcare, is institutionalising them and nothing more. If you lookat the history of people institutionalised at an early age, in themajority they end up pretty dysfunctional and we are beginning to seethat trend in the youth and children of today who have beeninstitutionalised by early child care.
childhood and education going down the drain
Simon, I believe your link proves my point. Schools of today are purely for producing economic clones, not real people and they are doing a terrible job of it when you consider literacy, grammar and writing skills have diminishing rapidly. Early child care centres are just places for parents to dump their kids in the hope someone else will take responsibility for teaching them the ways of the world, when in fact these places only teach them to be nothing but empty programmed slaves.
Academics, the bizarre politically correct and ignorant bureaucrats have created the situation society faces in education and yet you want to accept their answers, isn't that like asking black to become white. The academic world has already admitted university standards have dropped considerably and are getting worse yearly. So the current approach of early childhood programming will only contribute to that demise, as it is controlled by the same bizarre ideological nut cases and it clearly doesn't work, as we can all see.
Sure kids are born ready to learn, but they have to develop their learning skills with individual experiences, which are related to expanding their creative individualism and improvisation skills. Something modern child upbringing and schooling are completely bereft of, as all they create are clones packed in cotton wool and blindfolded to the real world. In my work I deal with university kids who work part time and their ability to relate to customers, make decisions, do simple things like add up, are nowhere to be seen and they don't want to learn. Each year it gets worse, I feel really sorry for these young people as it is not their fault, but the political, bureaucratic and academic elitists of the world.
Inverting the drain
You make many good points, Alga. Current research points to the earliest years being most important, but education spend increases with age. Hart and Risley, for example, show that good conversations with children before the age of one are the best predictor of later language performance, even many years later (Psychology Research: Differences in Family Language Learning - Dr. Todd Risley).
I wish I had known about it when my kids were born. If I had my way, I’d spend less of my tax money on educating kids and more on educating parents.
Puppy daycare
from the link: "well-trained early-learning educators who will help them develop cognitive, social and behavioural skills."
God, that's chilling.
"high pedagogical standards". Even more chilling.
Maxine Mckew is a woman whom I, like masses of others, admire. I have no idea what she knows or has observed about childhood development, but she is either showing a deep ignorance here, or following some unrealistic totalitarian-sounding agenda.
In any case, this whole childcare-early education area is absurd in that the ratio of "carers" to children is far too high by any standards. Unless this is addressed, all the rest is just hypocritical noise and wishful thinking.
Child care
I think poor old Rudd and Maxine have got their ABCs all mixed up. Maxine did not work for Eddie Groves.
Why on earth we are bailing out ABC Learning when Gillard has promised a child care centre in every school?
Just more talk so that the punters will think that something is going on.
The inexperienced Senator Hanson-Young is also jumping on the bandwagon, but that is what the Greens do well when they have no real input into anything.
Maxine Mckew "Tackling a big learning curve"
Alga and Jay, you both may be interested in Maxine's piece in the SMH, Tackling a big learning curve.
Maxine seems to be right
G'day Simon Dennis, this is totally only my impressions and mine alone.
I can remember when child care was an individual decision by a family who wanted free time to themselves.
It was usually when people who were wealthy enough, who wanted to have more free time, would employ a nanny. This was not so available to the everyday and unfairly treated 24/7 "just a housewife".
During the post war Menzies era, the thought of both parents working and the husband not being the only breadwinner was becoming a necessity rather than a luxury.
The natural affection that only a mther can feel was enjoined by the fact that women had enormous talents which our society and the women themselves could benefit by.
This made women consider seriously that a conflict of interests existed between their natural desire to be mothers and their frustration at not being able to be a part of the aspirations of people with careers.
Consider a man and woman who genuinely wanted to be parents but who also wanted their right to earn a living. We were restraining that principle.
The industry which subsequently gave breath to the likes of ABC Learning was formed and flourished. Everybody seemed to benefit.
Once again it appears that some people abused a good thing and were allowed to do it.
I can only imagine the concerns of women (and their partners) who have suddenly had their budgeted life put in peril.
As a nation we need children. While that may seem to be a political or selfish opinion, it is a fact of life.
Like all things, the Howard type of monopoly or cartel should not be allowed to balloon - since, like all of his financial policies - it is not sustainable.
NE OUBLIE.
Destroying the children's future
“Secondly, I would like to apologise to those who feel offended by my title (It seems to me that the Senator has likewise implied that parents commoditise their children).”
Jay, I don't think you need to apologise for your comments, you've have hit the nail on the head. Early age child care, I see as psychological child torture and another nail in the coffin of a viable and realistic future for the children of today. In the past children have had the security of the family and the ability to develop their personalities and approaches to life through play, adventure, imagination and interaction.
Now, it's all about economics and the programming of children into empty shells, who can only relate to illusionary and virtual worlds, without any meaningful input by their parents and families. Their lives are fully programmed and set in stone, they never get to experience real nature or deal with real life, they can only test their imagination in sterile plastic politically correct heavily polluted depressing ways. They are heavily constricted by politically correct idiocies, which instill guilt at the first opportunity. Then the victim syndrome mentality is fervently used by their irresponsible and inadequate parents, confusing them into depressive fear and destroying their future in the social fabric of life.
Imprisoning our children
I find the ABC Learning debate fascinating, illustrating both mental models and political messaging. In commenting on Senator Hanson-Young’s speech, it’s probably clearest for me to give my position, and use it as a lens to explore some of her ideas.
I have no beef with Julia Gillard investing my money in ABC Learning. I would, however, expect it to be a professional negotiation, with me/the public getting sound assets in return. Should ABC Learning have monopolised the child care industry? Of course not. One of the principal drawbacks of capitalism is that it encourages monopoly, which is why we have the ACCC (wasn’t it them who pulled the plug?).
Have we commoditised child care? A trade requires two parties agreeing. A trade occurs when we hire a neighborhood teenage baby-sitter, when we park our child in the church crèche, or when we use a commercial centre. Isn’t infant formula, by the same argument, the commoditisation of mother’s milk? The Senator is using irrelevant labeling to condemn privatisation.
Should the public subsidise (or wholly pay for) child care? There are several reasons for government to pay for services. The two most relevant to child care seem to me to be (1) to address equity issues, or (2) there is a public benefit greater than the private benefit which can be met by a market exchange. The equity issues appear to me to be possibly gender, and socio-economic. I agree with the first, but am not convinced of the second. I am not convinced that gender balance issues are best tackled by child care subsidies. Furthermore, I am not convinced that there is a public benefit to child care. The beneficiaries of child care are the parent(s) and the employer (who can pay lower wages if there is a public subsidy of child care).
Is child care an essential service? I believe an essential service is one in which a strike without notice should be illegal, as it is likely to result in death or critical national damage. We need to be very careful about what we label as an essential service, as it has such a fundamental impact on employee rights. The collapse of ABC Learning would inconvenience many parents and many employers – particularly employers without family-friendly policies (and this includes many government departments), but it is certainly not a national catastrophe.
Finally, I would like to make two apologies. Firstly, for the turgidity of this analysis. The real world is complex, and any real analysis is complex (and I have just skimmed the surface). It is, nevertheless, examinable and solvable, but not by sound-bites. We pay public servants, politicians and the media to do this thinking for us, but we need to make sure they report back to us in a way that convinces us that this thinking has been done.
Secondly, I would like to apologise to those who feel offended by my title (It seems to me that the Senator has likewise implied that parents commoditise their children). Its purpose was to draw interest and attention, and I would suggest that the anger is caused because it has a germ of truth in it. How much truth is a matter of individual opinion. Parents make hard choices in what they believe are their children’s best interest. I have no right to, nor am I trying to second-guess them. In some countries, parents sell their children, in what they believe is in the best net interest of the child and their family. And they are likely right. What I do condemn is a society that has the resources to prevent parents having to make such hard choices, but ignores the problem.