16 Comments
User's avatar
Susan St John's avatar

Thanks for this analysis Craig. More children left behind. To whom that hath it shall be given. Could be their motto

Expand full comment
Matt Sampson's avatar

Do we know how much the program costs in total? Wondering how efficient this is vs just directly funding childcare.

Expand full comment
Mike Davis's avatar

Good point Matt. You wouldn't be suggesting that this policy is also as means of funnelling tax money to private ECE providers, would you?

Expand full comment
Winston Moreton's avatar

The government is banking on the trickle by those it benefits and despises those who cannot and do not.

Nice to see their nasty scheming unpacked here with a few paragraphs and graphs

Expand full comment
Merav Benaia's avatar

Did anyone at any point wondered why a family on $150k+ income even needs a subsidy for childcare?

Expand full comment
Jasmine's avatar

They’re probably mortgaged up to the eyeballs for their first home, and are still paying their exhorbitant student loans. Their mums and dads would help out, but are still working themselves. So their kids are in care up to 50 hrs a week ($450/wk in some cities, per child), but they’re sick at least 2 days a month (which isn’t refunded). Formula is $45 a tin (per week) and nappies are about $30 a week too. Childcare was supposed to be 20hrs free for over 3s, but the centre charges an ‘activity fee’ on top - it’s not optional though.

$150k sounds like a good household income, and it is, but some of those people are battling too. Income is only one part of the puzzle.

Expand full comment
Merav Benaia's avatar

Perhaps I should have put a *rhetorical question* disclaimer.

Yes, your analysis is spot on. What I'm aiming towards is how come decision makers don't wonder what have gone so wrong that a family on $150k and above needs assistance.

In general I think childcare needs to be free. It needs to be part of the education system.

School lunches need to be free for all kids.

Tertiary education need to be free.

All of these are investment in our collective future.

Yes, it will require us to pay more tax but why wouldn't you be willing to pay a bit more to get so much more? Who would say no, I'd rather have loans I'll need to pay for years.

Expand full comment
Stephen Reynolds's avatar

Excellent question.

Expand full comment
Russ Sewell's avatar

Craig thank you for the information. Why did One News not interview you?

Just watched the report on this and feel like throwing something at the TV. Completely right wing spin.

As to the scheme being bonkers i actually think it's criminal

Expand full comment
Judgey's avatar

Marvellous analysis, either she can't get anything right or she really has no care for people actually doing it tough or potentially both which given her track record is my picking.

Expand full comment
Judith P's avatar

Thank you for the analysis and sharing this information with the public.

Expand full comment
Robin Capper's avatar

It's almost like it is designed to be difficult to claim (filter out 'the bottom feeders'?) and benefit the better off. Surely not...

Expand full comment
Judith Paulin's avatar

Go Craig!!

Expand full comment
Ange Boland's avatar

No surprise there….

Expand full comment
Mr Anderson's avatar

New coat of paint... I was leaning toward 'rolled it in glitter'

Expand full comment
Anthony Glucina's avatar

This should be a good news story. But all we get are elite socialists trying to cut Tall Poppies down. Again!

Expand full comment