Budget

Do I have any thoughts? Not really. This budget is about as surprising as a film directed by Michael Bay.

I will say this however: rebates, tax cuts, bonus "one-off" payments. These are not good public policy.

They are not policy at all. If there is a structural problem, you need to change the structure; eliminate the problems - not accept them, and try to give people compensation for them. That will never work - it is a band-aid solution to an artery wound.

Worse, giving compensation to these problems can sometimes encourage them. A budgetary example is an increased child-care rebate. Now, I worked in child-care for five years, so I can say quite confidently I know more about the industry than most people.

More...

Firstly, like all social welfare/caring industries, it is hard work, and grossly, woefully underpaid. People who think childcare is a rip-off largely need to take a reality check. If you want qualified people looking after your kids, giving them activities, resources and nutritional food to keep them occupied constructively for hours, a proper OH&S policy, a safe environment for kids to play, and insurance (ye gods, insurance!), then it's gonna cost you.

So, childcare is expensive, but we have a situation with household debt etc. where in most families both parents have to work, and therefore need childcare. Unfortunately families can end up paying most of their second, lesser income on childcare this way. And they hate it.

What's a government to do? We have a situation where childcare - unlike school, for example - only gets minimal government funding. And thus we end up getting a child-care rebate in an attempt to mollify angry parents, for $35 bucks a week.

It sounds like a lot - nearly $2000 a year, but in reality $35 would be lucky to get you one day of after school care, certainly not a creche, or after and before school care. That's how expensive childcare is.

So we have a rebate that costs the government a lot of money - $35 dollars a week for every child in childcare across the whole country, but that doesn't actually help the parents. It covers maybe a fifth of their costs, at most.

Meanwhile, the factors that cause all these problems are still in play. There is another at play, too: the centres themselves.

Most childcare centres - but not all - are run for profit. Some areas only have for-profit centres, and these places - though they care for kids, I have no doubt - also care for their shareholders. They are not charging very much as it is. I cannot stress this enough: childcare is hideously expensive and most centres are under pressure to cut corners wherever they can. The not-for-profit centres (largely government funded) are probably losing money, or just breaking even as it is, but kids may not be happy, and parents may not be happy with the standard of care.

For-profit centres will be making money, but also there, kids may not be happy nor parents.

There is yet another factor at play here, too... Because parents, and kids, have not been happy about the standard of childcare, in the last eight years there has been a massive regulation of the industry.

Minimum standards covering every facet of care, coupled with regular assessment. If you don't pass this assessment, you will - after a series of processes - lose your accreditation and your centre will be forced to close until you fix things.

Before this regulation came in, there would have been few childcare centres that would have met the incoming standards. The centre I mostly worked for was one of the best in the ACT, and it still had a shitload of work to do to meet regulatory standards.

Meeting these many, many standards costs money, and as the industry grew more regulated, the cost of caring was (regulation is mostly finished now) steadily increasing.

This is the kind of environment that the $35 dollar rebate has entered into. An environment that has seen costs steadily rising for a number of years - in excess of inflation. So, needless to say, most childcare centres will - justifiably in most cases - be putting their prices by, ummmm, let's say $35 a week.

This is why band-aid solutions don't work. They ignore the contextual and structural background in favour of something ineffably cheaper (most times) and easier - but also ineffably hopeless.

Parents, who are getting a measly 1/5 of their costs covered at best, are going to lose that coverage immediately because there is a background of higher costs that hasn't been taken into account.

And that's just one example. There are many more. We have a government that's been in power for over ten years. Cuts, rebates and thresholds don't cut the mustard. Reform is what they should be doing - hell, policy; real policy should be par for the course. But it's not. I get an extra $16 dollars a week or so with this budget. That's not even enough for a weekly train ticket.

I would trade that up in a second - heck I would happily pay more tax - if we had a national dental policy, or national tax reform, or a real childcare funding policy. But instead I get two cokes-and-a-hamburger. No wonder we're all so fat.