Federal parliament is debating the Albanese government’s bill to strip funding from childcare centres if they are unsafe.
It follows a string of recent reports and allegations of significant safety and abuse problems in the early learning sector.
The bill is expected to pass parliament with the support of the Coalition this week. It represents a belated but promising step by linking quality and safety to federal government funding.
But it also falls short in a number of key ways. Here’s why we cannot rely on it to boost safety in our childcare centres.
Read more:
Childcare centres will have funding stripped if they’re not ‘up to scratch’. Is this enough?
What’s in the bill?
The bill adds “quality and safety” to the factors the federal Department of Education considers when deciding to approve an early childhood service for the Child Care Subsidy.
The subsidy funds about 70% of the average centre’s operations.
Existing services could lose this subsidy if they do not provide “high quality and safe care”. They may be unable to open new services, or face other compliance actions.
The bill expands the department’s existing powers to publicise actions taken against providers, including if they are not approved to open another service. It will also be easier for departmental officers to do unannounced visits, although these will focus on childcare subsidy fraud, not service quality.
But the bill is reactive
The bill refers to a provider’s record of “high quality education and care” but action is triggered when things going wrong. The focus is on services that are non-compliant, have a “poor track record” or are “repeatedly not meeting the minimum standard,” according to national childcare quality ratings.
In other words, when children have already been subjected to poor quality education and care, or worse.
So we need to change our approach
This is why we need to put the emphasis on boosting overall quality in childcare, so things don’t go wrong in the first place.
There are seven components of the national quality standards for early learning and care. They are meant to be considered as a package deal and reinforce each other.
Yes, one of the components (or areas) is “children’s health and safety”. But putting the spotlight on the other quality areas – including staffing arrangements, service management and the physical and educational environment – will more effectively support child safety.
If all these components are working properly, that’s a good start, but more needs to be done.
Can we rely on the existing ratings?
At the moment, services are given one of four ratings against the national standards. These range from “exceeding” to “meeting”, “working towards” and “significant improvement required”.
But the rating system itself is a major weak link. As a 2023 Productivity Commission report noted, there are
widespread concerns over the accuracy, consistency and efficiency of the assessment and ratings process […] and the infrequency of assessment and ratings visits.
For example, a service may be rated as “exceeding” but not have had an assessment for many years and now be operated by a different provider. So regulators at both state and federal levels need to be resourced to do more frequent and comprehensive assessments of all quality areas.
Regulators also need to be empowered to defund providers whose services don’t meet robust quality thresholds. There is a difference between having powers and actually using them. Regulators need resources and, in the face of supply pressures, institutional will. And governments need contingency plans, including being prepared to take over failing services.
There is another way
The bill covers most early education and care services, including long daycare (what most people would know as a childcare centre) and family daycare, and after school care.
But it does not include preschools or kindergartens (“kinders”), which specifically cater for children aged three to five, before they go to school. Preschools are not eligible for the childcare subsidy under family assistance laws.
The exclusion of preschools from the bill is not necessarily a problem, because preschools tend to have much higher quality ratings than long daycare centres. In fact, they provide a model for how the rest of the early childhood sector could operate.
As our analysis in the chart below shows, more than half all preschools exceed quality standards. Only 1% don’t meet them. Governance is a key factor. Almost all preschool services are operated by government or not-for-profit providers.
Not-for-profit and public long day care centres also come up a strong second, with more than a third rated (35%) as “exceeding” standards and only 4% “working towards”.
For-profit providers perform worst. Only 14% are rated as “exceeding” and one in eleven (9%) don’t meet the standards. And we don’t know about another 9% that haven’t been rated. Yet they operate about 70% of long daycare centres in Australia.
What can governments do?
Education ministers will meet next month to talk about child safety. While there are a host of measures on the table, including child safety training for workers, they need to look at the bigger picture.
Professional pay and working conditions are needed to attract and keep the best teachers and educators. Early childhood staff recently received a 15% pay rise over two years. But it comes to an end in December and came off a very low base – early childhood educators are still low-paid workers.
A simple but crucial thing governments can do immediately is talk about early childhood teachers and educators as professionals. They are not babysitters. In a high-profile interview with 7.30 last week, Education Minister Jason Clare twice referred to early childhood educators as people who “look after” kids.
We also need improved staff-to-child ratios, especially for babies and toddlers. Ratios vary by state, but at the moment there must be one educator for every four babies aged up to two years. This is below national recommended standards.
This will ease work demands and stress, ensure better supervision, and support high quality.
Marianne Fenech receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Gabrielle Meagher is a member of the Work + Family Policy Roundtable.
Read More: Read More
