Right wants women to stay home. Left must push back

Anthony Albanian wanted child care on the political agenda – but not so. He wanted the focal point to be on the costs of the parents that his government is a good story to tell: early this year, Passed legislation At least three days a week, subsidized maintenance guarantees all families who earn less than $ 533.280.

This was another step towards the Prime Minister’s desire to “universal” child care. A vision of the productivity commission in the same agreementAnd probably the productivity of this month will be grown by President Danielle Wood at a round table meeting.

Unfortunately, shocking events drew the discussion of child care in a different direction. After claiming child abuse, scandals appeared Victoria– NSW And QueenslandLabor is now trying to increase the safety of child care centers. Government a invoice On Thursday, he can see that the centers lost federal funds after a security violation “strike .. He hopes to overcome a perceived advantage issue.

On the right of Australian politics, a new narrative emerges, on the contrary, connecting costs and security aspects. PETA CRANDLIN LAST times controversial This child care subsidies should be paid to parents in cash, so that more mother can leave it to the bank and look at their children if they are afraid of security or development. Same kind of Australia Stalwart Paul Kelly acceptedreferring to the balloon cost of state subsidies.

Now, of course, there are some unacceptable elements of this criticism. For example, allowing child care subsidies to be spent for nannies, provided appropriately controlled, expanding family options and presenting child care providers with some useful competition seems to be a reasonable way to provide more useful rich families, this will probably benefit higher income. Common study areas that provide child control are another reasonable option; A petition It has won more than 11,000 signatures to facilitate them and other options.

Talking about Kelly 2019 offer To provide families the option to transform children care subsidies into tax cuts for a wider child care costs to families. This promises to fight someone else real issue: Child care costs and withdrawal of prosperity payments often combine to make the effective marginal tax rate of parents over 100%, ie it is not worth returning to work.

Richard Holden, one of the Elem economists, is now even further. to suggest Parents can bank a tax voucher exempt from tax. However, it is potentially problematic to allow parents to make cash and parent full -time bank. As Kelly rightly states, one of the problems related to the current system is that special providers continue to increase their wages and enter the government subsidies, and then put pressure to increase again. If the government stops doing this, as suggested, child care will become more expensive for parents, and if many of them find the cost, it will make the work extra days.

Thus, the “choice ği, which is proposed to offer the coupons of the parents (mostly, mostly mothers) to stop the work, will constantly offer them less real“ choice üzerinden in practice. Child Care Costs It rose faster More than wages in recent years. If this persists or worsened, staying at home would be more profitable – it is already for many. Despite the economic benefits of themselves and the wider community, they would put pressure on them to postpone or give up their careers.

This is the issue for some conservatives. Kelly argues that problems with child care depend on the change of responsibility from the family, which is a story loaded with negatively unwanted results ”. This means that child care is risky and potentially unnatural (a “experiment), which means that more natural order returns to housewives. A more sophisticated way to express Gerard Rennick, an independent deputy of LNP-Turkned in question Last year: “Corporate Child Care” is a awake form of brainwashing that destroys the family unit.

Kelly argues that parents are worthless and right. However, these two problems limit. We can increase and increase child payments and parent permission programs to help families cope with child -breaking costs, but including the decrease in income caused by work. Australia has a particularly insignificant child payment system compared to international standards.

Child care financed by the government has a separate logic: to encourage childhood socialization while allowing parents to return to work. The taxpayer contributes because the benefits allocate not only for parents, but also for children and economy. There is also a self -argument: Everyone has no retirement of parents who can get loose.

But for many parents, Credlin’s model will have a superficial charm; It has a similar charm to how the contents of the “Trad Wife” content online to retreat to the withdrawal to home construction in the face of modern economic pressures. In order to resist the seductive qualities of such regressing demands, labor should discuss the basis of the problem: the acceleration of wages eating subsidies of special providers.

Some of this can be solved by increasing supply – centers can often increase wages because parents have another option in their own area. For this purpose, the worker 1 billion dollar fund 160 Early Childhood Training Center, which is not intended for profit, is especially in suburban and regional areas where the scope is low. But more needs to be done.

In order to expand the scope and keep costs low, the Labor Party should reduce the percentage of non -profit providers. More than that 70 % Australia’s day care centers are operated by special providers. This is just increasing-95% of the 300-400 new child care center opened for every year are not profit. “Controlled by the rest Private Capital CompaniesPublicly -open companies and international investment groups are all directed by profit instead of children’s welfare, ” reportABCs Four corners.

These special centers have the worst wage increases and quality concerns. 11% of long daily care centers for profit purposes not to meet national minimum quality standardsCompared to 7% of non-profit centers, 13% of non-sought-after centers exceed the standards compared to 28% of non-snow-free organizations.

It wasn’t always like that. When federal child care subsidies were established in 1972, “it was only available for non -profit services and required qualified personnel to be employed, including teachers”. to write Children’s care experts Marianne Fenech and Gabrielle Meagher. Only in 1991, federal subsidies were expanded to non -profit providers and then began to rot.

In order to reduce the motive of profit, the government may finance institutions directly on the basis of need instead of providing subsidies per child, since it is a policy development center. proposed. In exchange for long -term financing, the government may limit the parental wages, as the Accc has. proposed. Or to go further, the government can buy command shares for the country’s largest special child care providers.

If the worker is not interested in this bigger painting, he can give an opening to the liberals. Globally, many right -wing movements adopt pro -birth policies to weaken the advantage of the election for the family policies of the left. For example, the Trump administration “Trump accounts”He will see that every American child, who was born until 2028 from this year, pays $ 1,000 from the government, then he will later see that Parents can add additional funds with tax advantages, and which Treasury secretary Scott Bessent hopes will justify the privatization of Social Security (BAD) Rear door privatization.

The difficulty is clear. If the left wants to appeal to the working parents who make up the election coalition, he will have to fight for them.