

Running away, running out. Pic: Brian Webber



In fact a family earning $75,000 with one child in full-time care spent 13 per cent of their disposable income on childcare in 2004 but thanks to our increased investments, that figure has fallen to just 7 per cent in 2011.

That is not to say that we don’t need to provide a range of flexible options for parents, so that they can decide what’s best for their family. Of course we do. And I’m proud that our Government is supporting a range of options.

The childcare benefit and rebate subsidy can be used to fund a range of childcare options including long day care, family day care, vacation care, out-of-school-hours care and in-home care.

We also provide assistance for families who use in-home care services, in specific circumstances, such as when a child has a disability, or the family lives in a particularly remote part of the country, or the parents are shift workers and can’t use mainstream care.

I’m proud that last year I was able to announce an expansion of the number of in-home care places that our Government supports – as a result, this year we will see a 17 per cent increase in availability of Government funded in-home care. This is because we know that different families and different circumstances require different solutions and our Government is already acting to deliver them.

I am proud to be part of a Government that is delivering real action on childcare. We are improving affordability, increasing accessibility and flexibility, and importantly, ensuring that the care on offer is of higher quality.

Now Tony Abbott wants to introduce nanny subsidies too.

So what’s wrong with that, you ask?

I think that people should absolutely be free to hire a nanny if that is their wish but the question is whether taxpayers should fund them and from where?

The idea of taxpayer funding for nannies isn’t new. It’s been raised time and time again, including by a parliamentary committee in 2006 that I was a member of (and offered a dissenting report).

Then - and in fact every time it has been raised previously - it’s been ruled out for being too expensive, too hard to regulate and too hard to separate the work of nannies around the house (cleaning, doing the groceries, cooking meals) from actual childcare and ensure that childcare subsidies weren’t in fact being directed to other services.

At the very time that we are raising the quality of approved childcare with increased training and qualifications, professionalisation of the sector and a new accreditation body and ratings system - the Opposition are talking about funding nannies which are currently entirely unregulated with no official oversight checks or balances.

Sure, they could introduce such regulations - but are taxpayers going to pay for that too? It would be expensive and would also push up the price of nannies further.

Which brings us to the billion dollar question, where is the money coming from?

There is also something very different to the debate this time around because Tony Abbott has said there would be no new funding to pay for it. Instead his nanny subsidies would come from “the existing funding envelope”.

Now there are only two items in this envelope. Only two items that could be cut to fund this new expense -  the Child Care Benefit payment, which approximately 654,000 lower income Australian families rely on to assist them with their childcare costs and the non-means-tested Child Care Rebate, which Labor has proudly increased and is now supporting 782,000 Australian families.

No matter what the Productivity Commission comes back with this all comes down to a very simple equation.

You can’t use the same pot of money to fund something new, without cutting what already exists.

A Government can commission as many reviews and inquiries as they please but ultimately they have to make decisions, they have to develop policies and they have to govern.

We’ve brought impressive and historic reform to the childcare sector.

The only way that Tony Abbott could fund his nanny subsidies would be to undo that good work and rip back the existing childcare assistance, which families rely upon.

We’ve fought hard to deliver historic levels of assistance to help families with their childcare cost, I’m not going to stand by and let the Opposition casually rip it back off them.

Most commented


Show oldest | newest first

    • TimB says:

      05:05am | 30/03/12

      “Now Tony Abbott wants to introduce nanny subsidies too.

      So what’s wrong with that, you ask?


      Hmm. Let’s tweak this a bit.

      “Now the Labor government wants childcare subsidies too.

      So what’s wrong with that you ask?

      I think that people should absolutely be free to send their kids to childcare if that is their wish but the question is whether taxpayers should fund them and from where? “

      Holy crap Ms Ellis! It’s almost as if one could accuse you of stunning hypocrisy.

    • Nathan says:

      06:24am | 30/03/12

      Its about what option is the best to fund.

    • TimB says:

      06:57am | 30/03/12

      No it really isn’t Nathan. It’s about whether taxpayers should shoulder the bill for other peoples kids.

    • Tim says:

      07:20am | 30/03/12

      Absolutely correct TimB,
      I think the entitlement mentality is now so ingrained that people just expect the government to find their childcare.
      Looking after your children is the governments responsibility right?

    • TimR says:

      07:58am | 30/03/12

      Well we know where the money will come from. Just slug those ‘rich’ aristocrats earning over $80k. They pay for everything else that Labor’s lazy voters demand but refuse to pay for.

    • Phil says:

      08:37am | 30/03/12

      Kate Ellis appears to be one of the few Labor women with brains. Unfortunately here she takes the party line that Labor know best and we should not be able to think for ourselves.

      My daughters are now school age and my wife and I are highly unlikely to ever need this again, however if I had a child of that age and I chose the local pre school and the guvmint paid say $ 4000 a year in subsidies, then what does it matter whether that is at the local pre school or that much towards a Nanny. It costs the government the same amount of money. If it is a budget issue then to whom it is paid is irrelevant. Hey a Nanny system could easily be open to abuse, I get that but surely it could be worked.

      From what I have seen, all Tony Abbott said was lets look at the option, he didnt say its an honest truth that he would introduce it, at least the libs look at options rather than telling us what is best for us and that they know better.Labor like to keep everyone the same, they dont want pro choice that is the issue here not funding.

    • Borderer says:

      08:41am | 30/03/12

      Is it entitlement or smart comprimise?
      There is a tipping point where childcare costs less than than the parent going back to work. There is a financial benefit to the family at this point. If the parent is single then you must consider this tipping point when weighing up going back to work as opposed to staying on social security, the big benefit in this instance is for the nation in no longer having to fully support the family. In the case of higher income earners, encouraging the parents back to work means they will contribute tax dollars back to the government greater than the subsidy (as opposed to zero for not going back to work at all) therefore the tipping point is net tax contribution.
      To label the program ‘welfare’ is overly simplistic and about as intelligent as many other moronic decisions our government have been making.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      08:45am | 30/03/12

      I’d almost forgotten another one of Gillard’s lies until this articel reminded me.

      How many chilcare centres were they going to open? Oh, that’s right. 250.

      Where are they Gillard?

      Honestly, Kate, I don’t know how you have the gall to put pen to paper. Your lot couldn’t lie straight in bed.

    • James1 says:

      08:51am | 30/03/12

      To be fair Tony, that wasn’t really a lie.  More of an abject failure to implement a badly thought through policy.

      Completely different.

    • Fred says:

      09:00am | 30/03/12

      If it wasn’t for middle class welfare like negative gearing pushing up the price of housing then people wouldn’t be so keen on getting middle class welfare.

      If it wasn’t for businesses constantly lobbying for more immigration and ruining our cities instead of skilling up Australians then people wouldn’t be so keen on middle class welfare.

      If it wasn’t for our punitive tax rates on people who get paid reasonably well for it then people wouldn’t be so keen on middle class welfare.

    • Borderer says:

      10:01am | 30/03/12

      It is sometimes hard do differentiate failure to impliment and failure to initiate so you’ll have to forgive Tony as they all tend to blur together.

      Hooray for the federal failure party!

    • RyaN says:

      10:07am | 30/03/12

      @TimB: Firstly if you changed the tax law to allow personal taxes to be calculated as a family instead of as a per-individual basis, there would be no need to subsidise childcare.
      It would then be palatable for one of the parents to stay home with the children until school age.
      At the moment, single income families are specifically penalised for being such.
      In my last calculation there was more than $10 000 a year difference in take home pay between two individuals in a family working and earning $60k each and one individual in a family working earning $120k.

    • Markus says:

      10:16am | 30/03/12

      @Borderer, as it stands 40% of families have either zero or negative net tax contributions (receive more benefits than they pay in tax).
      I think the government has been well past the tipping point you describe for some time now.

    • Tim says:

      10:24am | 30/03/12

      you’re coming from a position where you assume the government will have to look after the family if they don’t get a subsidy.
      I think that assumption is wrong.

      You also disregard the benefit to the family of continued employment enhancing one’s career later on. Some initial financial pain (whilst the children are young) can be extremely beneficial later in your career.
      Perhaps we could have a HECS like system for childcare payments?

      And as for net tax benefit, currently 40% of families pay no net tax due to all the family benefits available and family assistance is the second biggest program in the budget behind pensions. It’s completely unsustainable.

    • Cobbler says:

      09:18am | 31/03/12

      @Tim B - Childcare raises participation.  The whole point of it is that for every dollar it spends on Childcare returns a greater amount to the economy.

      Nannies won’t do this.  The amount of people sourcing nannies won’t increase much or it will just cause a few select middle class families to switch from traditional childcare to nanny services.  This won’t increase participation in the slightest.  Further, if even one soccer mum gets to get a handback from the government for a nanny service they may have forgone so the can go shopping then it’s a very poor use of public funds.

      This other rubbish the LNP is slinging about it being more flexible is hogwash.  Not a single single-mother working nightshifts will benefit unless the cost is zero.  Somehow I don’t think the LNP will fund a 100% means tested nanny rebate do you?

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      05:43am | 30/03/12

      Crowing on about non means tested middle class family welfare which has been increased from 30% to 50% is hardly something to write an article about. How about the Labor party and Liberal Party axe all middle class family welfare and spend it on what governments are supposed to provide- defence, infrastructure, education, health, pensions etc? Alternatively both parties could implode and die, which would be even better.

    • Flexo says:

      06:46am | 30/03/12

      So what is your alternative to Labor or the Coalition? The Greens? The Australian Sex Party? A governmentless Australia ruled by WarLords? Come on Shane what is your solution? We have either the Liberals or Labor. You bitch about middle class welfare but what is your solution to move away from welfare. You seem happy to punish low income children because of their parents lack of ability to be rich like Shane from Melbourne. Stop bitching like a princess every other day about middle class bloody welfare and all political parties are sh@#t! At some point you have to give a solution or come across as a broken record!

    • Tubesteak says:

      07:38am | 30/03/12

      Mostly agreed. Except for pensions. With and ageing population there is no way a government could support a living pension for the population. That must go, too. You’ve had a lifetime to accumulate enough wealth to develop a decent passive income in retirement. You should have adjusted your lifestyle accordingly when you had the chance.

      A government jumping for joy about wasting money on something that should always remain a private matter is truly sickening.

      The GFC showed us what happens from unchecked interference in the free market. Providing “subsidies” and rebates just increases the floor. It doesn’t change anything.

    • TimB says:

      09:55am | 30/03/12

      I actually wondered about that ‘non-means tested’ bit too. Isn’t this the same government that stood up the other month and crowed about *putting* a means tests on private health insurance? The logic back then was that low income housholds were somehow subsidizing the health care of millionaires….

      So why doesn’t a similar argument apply here?

    • Borderer says:

      10:19am | 30/03/12

      Childcare should be simply be tax deductable for the lower income earner if all primary carers work (so parent in the case of single parents). The household can then make the decision to return to work or not and they can apply to have their tax withholding reduced so they don’t have to wait all year to realise the benefit. The government isn’t paying out, they are either recieving tax dollars or they aren’t, much like if the parent stayed home or worked. It also takes a lot less civil servants to control and monitor.

    • Peter says:

      10:30am | 30/03/12

      Giving working families a higher tax rebate for childcare surely helps working mums get back into the workforce?

    • Fiona says:

      10:44am | 30/03/12

      Interesting that you brought up the GFC tubesteak. Thanks to that, a lot of pensioners have had tens of thousands wiped off their share portfolios, meaning a lot less to live on, while others have to work for years longer than they’d expected to need to. I’d say greed have more to do with this than anything else.
      How are people to deal with this?

    • Tubesteak says:

      11:08am | 30/03/12

      As I’ve sain the past, if you’re within 10 years of retirement then you should get out of all risky asset classes while the market is still reasonably high. You should put your money into bonds and capitalise the interest. Once you retire you can purchase a tax-free allocated pension and live off that income. Just about any financial planner will advise similarly to someone in their mid-50s.

      Those that were in an inflated sharemarket and stayed got burned. That is unfortunate. But it wasn’t the smartest investment strategy. Risk is fine when you’re young but not when you’re old and wanting to realise those assets and live off the income.

      The market wasn’t “greedy” per se. It behaved as you would expect any market. The real fault lay with governments creating distortions in the market but not regulating the resultant behaviour from all market participants.

    • Australia is fighting back says:

      05:53am | 30/03/12

      Gillard has zero children.
      Gillard gave us the carbon tax.
      Australia is not listening or caring about the illegit Gillard commie government!
      The Queensland results was a wake up call to Fed Labor!

    • Flexo says:

      06:40am | 30/03/12

      After the Queensland lanslide victory for the Libs it is just a count down to the of the ALP. No one is listening or caring. Even Swany’s pathetic hard times are coming speech was a non-event. Gillard really buggered up Labor didn’t she?

    • SimonFromLakemba says:

      08:14am | 30/03/12

      Surprised you didn’t add atheist and has a fat arse, would of completed it nicely.

    • meh says:

      08:18am | 30/03/12

      “Gillard has zero children.”   

      How is this relevant? It is like ascribing to Germaine Greers comments on her fashion when discussing health policy.

    • Anne71 says:

      08:26am | 30/03/12

      Julie Biship doesn’t have children either…?

    • gobsmack says:

      09:04am | 30/03/12

      What has this silly, partisan comment got to do with to the article?

    • Gomer says:

      10:00am | 30/03/12

      Poor Julia even on her way down she gets no loving. Australians really are going to kill Federal Labor off next time round. Kudos to Julia!

    • S.L says:

      10:01am | 30/03/12

      Australia is fighting back….......... Are you Allan Jones?

    • Phil says:

      10:32am | 30/03/12

      Simon, you are right, but this has nothing to do with the current article. I dont think her faty arse, childless status, nor being unmarried living in sin has anything to do with the article nor her inability to get much done successfully.


      06:32am | 30/03/12

      Hi Kate,

      It might have taken most politicians and leaders slightly longer than normal, to realize and come to terms with the fact that affordable childcare for parents, happens to be a necessity and not a luxury, as always. Especially, for mothers wanting to get back to work for personal as well as financial reasons, it could actually be seen as a life saver, each and every time.

      Now more than ever, more women are contributing to the house hold income and sometimes choosing to get back to work immediately after the birth of their children.  Which was almost unheard of in the previous generations, for the most obvious reasons!

      New childcare facilities opening in Australia, happens to be a very remarkable thing, because I can remember very vividly when I was looking for childcare for my daughter back in the 1990’s, it proved almost impossible to find an affordable and clean day care back then. 

      I am also guessing that affordable childcare did not seem like such a priority back then. Also the message of mothers needing good childcare could be seen as something which could have been swept aside for the time being!

      The really good child care centers were just far too expensive all together.  It just didn’t give some parents any incentive and motivation to get back to work!  Just because as a parent you always tended to want to the best possible care for your children, right?

      Whereas I have always considered having a nanny as an extraordinary and as a symbol of certain kind of wealth!  I presume that nannies would step in to take care of overindulgent families and children with that one on one special care provided with very flexible hours, indeed. 

      Which in turn would make parents’ lives so much easier, I guess. But I am wondering at what cost, really?  Because can we actually begin to talk about affordable nanny care for every Australian house hold?

      I am only guessing it could just be affordable for a certain part of our population, the same way it has always been in other parts of the world for a while now.  For me personally, having a nanny could only be seen as a sign of belonging to an affluent society and for that reason alone it would not appeal to the majority of the Australian population.  Unless we can all get some kind of helpful “nanny rebate” no questions asked. Kind regards to your editors.

    • Loving Qld says:

      06:35am | 30/03/12


      False claims and verballing need to be checked as well. More class warfare from the woman that selectively sees misogamy on one side of the house only.

      Credibility nil. Attacking Abbott from the right is hilarious.


      Or he could simply, oh I don’t know, get rid of the carbon tax boondoggles and save the odd trillion here and there over the coming decades. You know. Little things like that.

      This article is so full of hole sit is embarrassing.

      I smell desperation in he air and boy does it smell good. What is your margin Kate? Hmmm?

    • Tim says:

      07:26am | 30/03/12

      Actually the only part of this article that makes sense is the funding part.
      Tony Abbott is massively over promising on things that can’t be delivered without significant cuts in core government business.
      Just saying he will get rid of the Carbon Tax isn’t going to fund anything.

    • Jimbo75 says:

      08:13am | 30/03/12


      I diagree, in part, of your assessment of where the LNP is at on unfunded promises. Let’s not forget the LNP are the ones who put out the “wait and see what the budget looks like” when it came to the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

    • Tim says:

      08:48am | 30/03/12

      Oh sorry Jimbo,
      They’re just thoughts at this stage aren’t they? Not policy.
      That way Abbott can make a big fanfare about them and when he gets voted in he can quietly dispose of them because they were never promises. Nice.

    • Jackie says:

      02:23pm | 30/03/12

      Unfortunately Kates margin is quite comfortable, especially since the local Libs cant seem to find a decent candidate to run against her. Her seat is Adelaide, spanning across quite a varied spectrum.

    • SimonTigey says:

      05:59pm | 30/03/12

      Most of the funding would come from Nanny’s actually paying income tax. many nannies are paid cash and by allowing a rebate would force people to record on their tax returns, thus making the Nanny accountable to pay tax on their income. Kate Ellis conveniently misses this crucial point.

      Typical labor tactic is to smear, attack, ridicule. It’s probably the most negative government we have ever seen. Labor think they know everything and that everyone else is stupid or irrelevant. Their arrogance, pig headedness and ignorance are the worst i have ever seen.  Confucious said “A fool knows everything, where a wise man knows little”.

      I like this nanny plan, it could create thousands of jobs and may be cheaper for families with 3 kids or more as it may be cheaper to hire a nanny for 8 hours. The nanny agencies could ensure they are all registered and deal with competence and compliance.

      I would not think a childcare degree is necessary for a nanny, although probably desirable. It could be left up to the family to hire an unqualified nanny if they desire.

      Excellent Idea I think, remember the nanny industry is huge in Europe and the US, why not here!!!

    • Cobbler says:

      09:30am | 31/03/12


      If the Rebate is 50% then the nanny has cost you 17.5k in expenditure which 3.5k is recouped.  Hardly self funding is it?

    • Mr. Jordon says:

      06:38am | 30/03/12

      “Gillard has zero children.”

      Julie Bishop also has zero child, is a divorcee and living in a de facto relationship.

      Why does that anti-gillard crowd always ignore these facts?

    • Steve says:

      08:54am | 30/03/12

      Gillard is the PM, Bishop isn’t.

    • ZSRenn says:

      09:18am | 30/03/12

      They’re the anti Gillard crowd not the anti Bishop crowd?

      Just a thought!

    • Peter says:

      10:01am | 30/03/12

      Right wing double standards always win Mr Jordan!

    • Jimmy Jimmy says:

      10:02am | 30/03/12

      Maybe the ALP fan club finally realises Gillard really isn’t the PM…....just a Bob Brown stooge!

    • ZSRenn says:

      11:10am | 30/03/12

      Is it just me or is this guy the most inane blogger you have ever read on “The Punch.” Talk about lowering the tone of the place.

    • SteveKAG says:

      06:40am | 30/03/12


      Sounds like a nanny subsidy to me

    • Markus says:

      08:53am | 30/03/12

      Pretty much. In-home care and family day care are just a group of nannies trapped in a pyramid scheme as is.

    • Rosie says:

      06:45am | 30/03/12

      The choice should be ours childcare, nannies or grannies. They are all little vegemites and when it comes to govt subsides why not distribute it accordingly. It is a sign of a wealthy country and the way we take care of our young will reflect in the nation’s future prosperity. Children are our future and if parents are happy and less stressful all is well.

      I somehow feel that this Gillard Govt is against what the LNP is assuming because the lack of money in the coffers due to their wasteful spending. Their schemes are implemented with very little thought and adding to the nation’s debt so as just to say they are doing something.

    • Emma says:

      06:55am | 30/03/12

      We have had now some estimated 5 articles on this but it never gives you any more information. So it will just be the same all over again. I still think you think before you breed.

    • SteveKAG says:

      08:56am | 30/03/12

      The firghtening thing is that Gillards parents planned her birth tongue laugh

    • Peter says:

      10:06am | 30/03/12

      If only Tony’s parents had used RU486

    • Commiemate says:

      10:26am | 30/03/12

      Leave Gillard’s parents out of this. They know the stife their daughter is in, no need to rub it in.

    • Kass says:

      07:44am | 30/03/12

      It’s more than a decade since childcare has been an issue for me, but I find most of Ms Ellis’s article spurious and divisive.

      I had a nanny for my 2 children and it was the best option for my family.  She was fairly paid, I paid her tax and super and 4 weeks holiday per year. She only did housework that was directly related to childcare. (I’ve never heard of a proper nanny who did all that housework Ellis is speaking of.)

      My nanny cost a huge slab of my income, but it was a far better option for us than the child-care centre we’d tried and allowed more time with our kids as there were no transit times.

      Yes- I know I was fortunate, but I worked hard, tried to maintain a great relationship with our nanny (essential for the sake of continuity for our kids) and I employed another tax-paying citizen out of my income. If you can get past the class-war rhetoric, why shouldn’t a person in a position like mine be entitled to some tax break or child-care rebate?

    • thatmosis says:

      07:45am | 30/03/12

      Dont fund any of them. To have a child is not the tax payers decision but the couples decision, but the tax payer is supposed to pick up the tab for that child to be put into child care. Bullshit.
        If you make a decision to have a child its your decision and you take the consequences, be that extra money for child care or staying home, heaven forbid, and looking after your child yourself. Why should the tax payer be burdened with this and maternity leave and the baby bonus when its a couples decision in the first place.
        Im sick to death of Government giving away tax payers money to people who have made a decision and then expect others to pick up the tab.
        Call me old fashioned but isnt it the parents responsibility to bring their child up, not the tax payer. If people find that they cant afford for one of the couple to stay at home and look after their own child then they shouldnt have that child. Its become the norm now for people to expect the Government to pick up the tab for any number of decisions that a couple make, babies, first home buyers etc and its out of hand. Time for people to take responsibility for their own actions and not expect tax payer bail outs every time they make a decision that effects their own lives.

    • glenm says:

      08:43am | 30/03/12

      @ Thatmosis ,
      By that logic you can scrap all state and federal funding to schools, and hospitals.
      I dont think you have really thought this through..

    • Markus says:

      10:35am | 30/03/12

      @glenm, education and hospitals are available to everybody, and getting sick is not a lifestyle choice. Your examples have nothing to do with the argument made by thatmosis.

    • thatmosis says:

      11:11am | 30/03/12

      glenm, get a grip, the Government provides schools and hospitals for all out of our taxes because everybody is entitled to an education and medical care. Now having a child and expecting the tax payer to fund you decision is a different thing altogether. Its like saying, ‘I want a new house but cant afford it so I’ll get the tax payer to buy it for me”. Can you imagine the furore if that happened but you seem to think its okay for a person to make a personal decision and then expect others to foot the bill. . This nanny State menatlity has got to stop and people made responsible for their own decisions.

    • Tubesteak says:

      12:28pm | 30/03/12

      The reason the government provides universal healthcare and schooling is because of market failure and the result of said failure.

      The private sector would only ever provide these things to people that can pay an amount that would represent profit to the private operator.

      This means many people would go without and we would have an increasing underclass of people with no education and no means to cure their ailments. This would be a significant drain on our society. Having well-educated and healthy consumers is much better for society. Having a bunch of uneducated sick people getting angry with their perception of a growing wealth divide is very bad.

    • Anne71 says:

      12:28pm | 30/03/12

      @glenm - No, I don’t think YOU have really thought this through. Schools and hospitals are available to everybody, not just the “working families”.  Baby bonus,  subsided childcare and paid parental leave are basically funnelling taxpayer’s money to one segment of society at the expense of others - old age / disability pensioners, for example.  You know, the ones who really are unable to support themselves.

    • P says:

      12:31pm | 30/03/12

      You said “everybody is entitled to an education and medical care”.  Why is it such a long stretch to see that childcare can offer eduction and care to some of the younger “everybodies”?  They are future taxpayers. They are society’s investment.

      As for people asking society to fund their housing - do you think this doesn’t happen? Either directly through state public housing and federal rent assistance, or indirectly through pensions and welfare such as the dole?  We fund a lot of adults who are not likely to ever offer future taxes to society.  Why not fund children (indirectly through their parents) who will contribute later?

      Taxes are all about funding what is socially important but individually harder to make work.  You drive on tax-funded roads, drink tax-funded water, enjoy tax-funded entertainment, benefit from tax-funded research, depend on tax-funded law enforcement and national defence, the list goes on.  Any one of these can be dismissed as bad-value from an individualist viewpoint (maybe you don’t watch ABC/SBS, eg) but, macroscopically, socially, they are important.  That’s why we pay taxes.

      The alternative is to replace our society with an anarchic and disparate group of hermits.

    • Tim says:

      12:49pm | 30/03/12

      because childcare isn’t an essential service that should be available to everyone like the other things you mention. Taxpayer money in the form of welfare should only be used for the most needy in our societe.
      Childcare subsidies are not for public benefit but rather about private benefit for the parents financial position.
      That’s why taxpayer money shouldn’t be used to fund it.

    • glenm says:

      01:05pm | 30/03/12

      @ Markus,
      Smoking is a lifestyle choice,should we let all the lung cancer patients die?
      Education of childrens starts from Birth and childcare programs provide educational benefits, Why would funding schools and childcare be any different?
      The reason for funding childcare is because without it the private sector could not provide this service, Thanks for making my point. Without childcare we creat a new underclass of those who cannot afford to go to work.
      Childcare subsideies are available to single mothers so thay can study or work, you know so thay can get a job and look after themselves.

      My point was the simplistic attitude that as its the parents descision to have children they therefore dont deserve government assistance in the form of childcare is ignorant.
      About as ignorant as scraping healthcare and schools funding.

    • thatmosis says:

      01:45pm | 30/03/12

      Glenm, I ve read some crap in my 60 odd years but you almost take the cake. Almost, Joolia beats you by a fat arse.
      My basic premis is, why should the tax payer pay for the decisions made by couples or singles to have a baby. Its a personal decision and therefore is the responsibility of the parents to make financial arrangements to either stay at home or work and pay someone else to look after their child. The average tax payer had no input into the decision making but is expect to support this decision financially. If a couple have a child knowing that it will cause undue hardship on their finances then they should defer this decision until such time as they are able to better afford it. The expectation today is lets make this decision and then get the Government to subsidize us because we cant really afford to do it. Simple, cant afford it, dont do it.

    • glenm says:

      01:47pm | 30/03/12

      Childcare funding is available to anyone if they want to have a child and they meet the financial criteria. This is no different to unemployment or health care. If I am never unemployed and I dont need to collect unemployment does that make it a non essential welfare benefit to me? Childcare subsidies allow people time to work which generates productivity and creates taxable income. This in turn delivers a public benefit with increased tax income and reduced unemployment payments.

    • Markus says:

      02:16pm | 30/03/12

      Smoking is taxed heavily to compensate for its risk factor. In fact cigarette tax revenue is ten times the cost of smokers to the health system, so smokers are paying for non-smokers too.

      Again, illness is not a lifestyle choice.
      Unemployment is also, as a rule, not a lifestyle choice. Having children is.

      And as has already been pointed out, 40% of families pay zero or negative net tax after family benefits, so their employment is of no public benefit.
      There is no unemployment benefit reduction, as choosing to raise your children is not unemployment.

    • P says:

      02:54pm | 30/03/12

      @Glenm I’m arguing FOR support.

      @Tim “Taxpayer money in the form of welfare should only be used for the most needy in our societe” [sic] - who is more needy than a child, unable to work or look after themselves?  They are more needy than ANY adult, save those with severe health issues or disabilities.  Also, education and healthcare are no more “essential services” than we define them to be (most countries don’t offer them at the level we do). Why not childcare?  More socially progressive nations (such as those in Scandinavia) see it that way - it’s a consequence of affluence expanding what is “essential”.  Is the NBN “essential”? It wasn’t needed at all a few years ago… but it’s not the 1970s anymore.

      @ Markus “40% of families pay net negative tax”.  True (not me, by the way), but a pointless argument.  100% of pensioners pay negative tax.  Shall we stop assisting them?

      @Anne71 Schools are available to children/teenagers, hospitals only for the sick. Not “everybody” as you say.  Nonetheless I wouldn’t advocate cutting funding because I don’t personally need them right now. Living in a society means my taxes aren’t all about what I get back.

      At a societal level, having children is not a choice, anymore than needing a productive population, clean water or a defence force.  The mistake is to see CCB/FTB as “for the parents”.  It’s actually *for the children* - and everybody should be entitled to that benefit as a child.  We’re all just too old to have gotten it as children ourselves, but fortunately the next generation will see the benefits, and will pay taxes to support the generation after them receiving it, too.

    • Tim says:

      03:10pm | 30/03/12

      “who is more needy than a child, unable to work or look after themselves?  “

      Sorry, you would be correct if the childcare benefit actually went to the child, but It doesn’t, it goes to the parents. It is a private benefit for the parents.

      “100% of pensioners pay negative tax.  Shall we stop assisting them?”

      No, but we should look at curtailing spending in this area and limiting the pension to those who truly need it. The pension is the number 1 spending item in the budget and is growing extremely fast.


      Wrong, having children IS a choice and the benefit most certainly is not for the children. It is a private benefit for the parents. If a larger population is needed, then we should be increasing our skilled migrant intake which is far cheaper.

    • thatmosis says:

      10:10pm | 30/03/12

      P, whatever your on I want a kilo. Your arguements just dont add up and what the hell has the NBN got to do with Childcare. By the way the NBN, although costing and arm and a leg is only being taken up by about 8% of the people it is connected too as it is too expensive unless you happen to be very wealthy, a real waste of money as is the childcare rebate, maternity leave and the baby bonus.
      Your arguement that the children today are the adults and providers of the future means nothing, what we are talking about is the government and the by proxy the Tax Payer paying for those that decide to have a child. Why??? Is it because people are dependant on the governemnt for so many things already that they expect to be paid for having a child or is it that couples are so overcommitted financial wise that they really cant afford a child unless the tax payer pays. Whichever way you look at it its still the tax payer paying for someones decision and not taking responsibility for their own actions.

    • Anna C says:

      08:01am | 30/03/12

      I don’t like subsidising child care because I think parents should cover the costs themselves.  I am even less in favour of subsidising nannies.  This is just a bridge too far.

      As far as I’m concerned if you choose to have children then you should pay for them yourselves without my help.  I get SFA in the way of subsidies from the taxpayer because I am childless and don’t know why I should subsidise other parents so that they can continue to afford the lifestyle that they have become accustomed to when they were DINKS i.e. a big house, nice car etc. 

      Why aren’t today’s parents willing to make the same financial sacrifices like in my parent’s day?  In the olden days parents accepted that when they chose to have a child they would have to rely on less income and didn’t expect the taxpayer to make up the difference so they could continue to enjoy their pre-child lifestyle.

    • Mayday says:

      08:08am | 30/03/12

      “That includes over 500 new centres opening in the last year alone.”  Ms Ellis are you referring to the re badging of the now defunct ABC centres or private centres who have made the investment with their own funds?

      What happened to the 240 pre schools that were promised?

    • Stephen says:

      08:09am | 30/03/12

      More party political hype from another job seeker come the next federal election. How is it all these highly paid apparatchiks seem utterly incapable of placing the will of the people before their party (and feminist) ideology.

      Any subsidy means the government is spending someone else’s money on something the contributor neither wants or needs. Governments of all colours, but especially the left, see the tax system as a political hammer…and the populace are fed up with it.

      Ellis, like many of her ilk, still presumes that we are dumber than rocks, and her propaganda can justify continued abuse of the principles of fair taxation. You’re out of touch, Kate.

      And will soon be out of Parliament.

    • TimR says:

      08:15am | 30/03/12

      Just scrap the rebate altogether and save billions! If you can’t afford to have a kid, don’t.

    • Steve says:

      08:56am | 30/03/12

      I can’t afford this Labor government, I wish I could scrap them.

    • RED says:

      09:19am | 30/03/12

      Form a party so I can vote for it.

    • seanr says:

      08:46am | 30/03/12

      I’ll let everyone else debate childcare. I just wish to say that I loved “The Magic Pudding” as a child, along with “Dot and the Kangaroo” and “Snugglepot and Cuddlepie” although I will admit the Banksia man scared the crap out of me.

      I’ll be reading these great Australian works to my children as well, they’ll deal with Banksia man better than I did.

    • James1 says:

      08:56am | 30/03/12

      I found the Magic Pudding himself quite terrifying, due largely to the way the version my dad read to me was illustrated. 

      I found a copy of Dot and the Kangaroo on VHS a few years ago, and bought a VHS player at a garage sale so that my daughter could watch it.  She has watched it maybe 8 times since, and absolutely loves it.  It was good to see that such classics are indeed timeless.

    • Anne71 says:

      12:31pm | 30/03/12

      I loved The Magic Pudding too! And the Muddle-headed Wombat.

    • Martin says:

      09:36am | 30/03/12

      “We’ve brought impressive and historic reform to the childcare sector.”

      I fell out of my chair laughing at this point. It’s one thing to talk about how you’ve increased the amount of funds available. It’s entirely another to go on and spin your increases as “impressive” and “historic”.

      ... and if you’re talking about some other “reform” you’ve done (though given how Labor are bandy-ing that catch-phrase about of late, I doubt it) - here was the perfect chance to mention it instead.

    • Gabby says:

      10:12am | 30/03/12

      If the government wants to give families rebates for child care costs then fair enough families should be able to spend it where they want - child care, nannies, family day care, kindy… but nannies need to be regulated then too and adhere to the same policies, regulations, curriculum etc that all the other child care services have to adhere to. Otherwise gosh I’ll go back to being a nanny! Same pay and I’ll just get to play with the kids all day! No more paperwork, planning and programming according to the National Curriculum, following health and safety, policies and procedures, recording and documenting every thing I do and there will be less kids for me to look after and less stress! Sounds good! Unfortunately it will affect the hard work us Educators in the child care are doing to be professional and provide high quality care on minimum wages… and it may cause many Educators to leave the child care centres for the easy option of being a nanny…

    • amy says:

      10:40am | 30/03/12

      oh my god….....

      the magic pudding is an Aboriginal!

      I never noticed that before….

    • Edward T. Head says:

      11:52am | 30/03/12

      Subsidising nannies (for those who can afford nannies) is yet another example of how the party of economic liberalism has lost its way under Abbott.

    • SirenP says:

      12:59pm | 30/03/12

      Depends on the definition of ‘nanny’. I go to a playgroup where there are ‘nannies’ in attendence with mainly under 3 year olds. None have any formal qualifications and are usually overseas students travelling post-high school. They are very nice young women who try hard to improve their english language but their interest in the children they are ‘nannying’ is minimal and not very ‘warm’ - they are just saving up for the next leg of their big trip. They are provided with a small wage, a mobile phone and the use of a car to transport the children - and they have the care of the children 10 hours a day, 6 days a week. Needless to say, their stays are short and the children have to then adapt to a new nanny. Our child attends a very good day care centre 2 days a week, is supplied with good food, a stimulating environment and has become a very sociable little man.  Nannies should really be a private expense but if payment comes in be limited to those with the relevant child care certificate - just like the child care centres..

    • Occam's Blunt Razor says:

      01:50pm | 30/03/12

      Dear Minister,

      You state that you provide in home care - but draw the line at Nannies.  Respectfully - WTF??

      Nannies and Au Paires should be part of the options for parents.

      Funding - means test - many other things are - why not this?

      Other source of potential extrea government revenue - remove the tax free status of superannuation income streams.

    • Jackie says:

      02:18pm | 30/03/12

      An article & policy clearly written by a woman without children. For many families nannys are the only answer, childcare will not look after the toddler & take the older kids to tennis. Parenthood is a massive juggling act & governments must accept that one size does not fit all. Obviously any type of childcare must be means tested but instead of turning this into another class warfare issue it would be better for this government to look at more options.

    • Eloise says:

      03:54pm | 30/03/12

      Having just returned to Australia, I am astounded at how my grandmother, my mother - and I survived having kids without all the handouts, carparks, benefits etc, simply for doing what’s been done at least 7 billion times in the past 110 years - reproduce. Before anyone says “yeah, but 50 years ago things were different and mothers stayed at home”, remember that during WW1 & WW2, the women HAD NO CHOICE but to raise a family single handedly if the man of the house was fighting overseas. They didn’t have TV, DVDs, computers to entertain little Johnny. They didn’t have microwaves, vary rarely had refridgeration, no washing machines - it was all done by hand. And then these same women worked in the roles which had been vacated by the men, or in the woman’s land army, factories, etc. Very few had cars. They all managed, and their kids were generally better behaved than they are now. What has happened to Australian parents that has made them so ‘weak’ (am excluding those parents who are ill or disabled)? Our grandmothers & mothers were able to cope in times which were really tough - no the “deprived because we only have two flat screen tvs and one car” so called ‘tough times’ we constantly hear about. How come parents could be parents and take responsibility many years ago, and without the entitlement mentality and the forelock tugging “but it’s the hardest job in the world” whine that I constantly here back home in Australia. Try raising a family in parts of India, Asia, South America where you have no handouts - very little food - clean water has to be fetched each day, no free medical assistance for 3 or 4 hours, and more likely than not, if you’re lucky to afford school for your kids, your daughter probably won’t be educated as it’s deemed not as important to educate girls.  Am sure someone will reply with “but it takes a village”....but if you just constantly TAKE from the village, there will be no village left.

    • Jackie says:

      10:56pm | 30/03/12

      The major difference is the generational support those women had.  We live in a different world, Grandmothers are still in the workforce, not looking after the Grandchildren, we also dont live within walking distance of our family support networks anymore. It is not comparing apples with apples. there is no village, whinging about it will not bring it back.

    • Rusty says:

      04:11pm | 30/03/12

      Who wrote this rubbish for you Kate?? you could not explain it on 891 adelaide the other morning! you sounded like a first rate moron as usual. Where are the 250 new childcare centres you promised? You are happy for the taxpayer to fund illegal immigrants but help for taxpaying citizens is a crime is it?

    • Edward T. Head says:

      07:18am | 31/03/12

      According to reports today this nanny scheme is going to cost 2 billion dollars!

      2 billion dollars of middle class welfare so that Abbott can get the top job. The bloke is an economic vandal!

    • Snagspotter says:

      08:36am | 31/03/12

      What interests me on Tony’s Nanny moment is the change in strategy, probably introduced by Peta Credlin (who in many respects is Tony’s nanny). After the blunder of his paid parental leave announcement as ‘policy’ he had to own it . So ,Peta has said on the nanny front ,’ run it up the flagpole, see who salutes and say you’ll throw it to the Productivity Commission when in power, in the meantime back on your bike’. Problem solved, no ownership, no promises ,no commitments leave the media to run with it.
      It’s all about showing Tony as a caring new age guy who thinks about the gels.

    • Soames says:

      05:35pm | 31/03/12

      The problem is, it’s Australia’s working population that relies on Governments’ assistance for what is essentially a private family matter, not one for the other side of the population who carve their own destiny through balancing their own financial committments without a thought of ANY government handout. And that’s what it is, a handout, cynically embraced by every shade of politics, like a handout at the pollong booth on election day, to convince you they have a solution to what is your own management problem. It’s a smelly socialist idea, imported straight from the history books of Marxism.


Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house


Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?


Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”


Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings


Tim says:


From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:


Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving




Read all about it

Sign up to the free newsletter