Submission on the key issues facing the Productivity Commission Inquiry. The March 2014 Work + Family Policy Roundtable seminar on the future of ECEC in Australia drew attention to the following points of relevance to the PC’s current Inquiry: The goal of early childhood education and care The provision of high quality children’s services is fundamental to good social and economic outcomes in Australia. While much has been made of the economic benefits of such services, such as improved female workforce participation and children’s educational outcomes, it is vital to remember that good societies are created by good care systems and economic benefits are a means not an end in this context. Children and their wellbeing and development should be the central concern of Australia’s early childhood education and care system. Further, the benefits of women’s labour market participation (and men’s) need to be considered in relation to their care responsibilities over the life course. Having a paid job should not be a compulsory activity when care responsibilities are substantial. To this end, we do not believe the goal of an early childhood system should be labour market participation. A system that balances the activity of work with the activity of care over the life-course is preferable. A service not a market ECEC is a social and community service that directly and indirectly contributes to the provisioning of social and economic needs. While some elements of ECEC have been commodified, ECEC cannot be understood in market terms any more than can the provision of health or education needs. Attempts to apply market principles to the allocation of ECEC resources will result in inefficiency due to the public goods characteristics of ECEC; pervasive asymmetries in information and bargaining power; and the limited number of providers in most geographical locations. The costs of inefficient resource allocation are borne not only by individual children, parents, families and communities but also by the public sector and the state - in the form of the cognitive, emotional and social costs for children affected by poor quality care and their use of services in the longer term, such as remedial education, community support, prisons and other related services.
Submission on the key issues facing the Productivity Commission Inquiry. The March 2014 Work + Family Policy Roundtable seminar on the future of ECEC in Australia drew attention to the following points of relevance to the PC’s current Inquiry: The goal of early childhood education and care The provision of high quality children’s services is fundamental to good social and economic outcomes in Australia. While much has been made of the economic benefits of such services, such as improved female workforce participation and children’s educational outcomes, it is vital to remember that good societies are created by good care systems and economic benefits are a means not an end in this context. Children and their wellbeing and development should be the central concern of Australia’s early childhood education and care system. Further, the benefits of women’s labour market participation (and men’s) need to be considered in relation to their care responsibilities over the life course. Having a paid job should not be a compulsory activity when care responsibilities are substantial. To this end, we do not believe the goal of an early childhood system should be labour market participation. A system that balances the activity of work with the activity of care over the life-course is preferable. A service not a market ECEC is a social and community service that directly and indirectly contributes to the provisioning of social and economic needs. While some elements of ECEC have been commodified, ECEC cannot be understood in market terms any more than can the provision of health or education needs. Attempts to apply market principles to the allocation of ECEC resources will result in inefficiency due to the public goods characteristics of ECEC; pervasive asymmetries in information and bargaining power; and the limited number of providers in most geographical locations. The costs of inefficient resource allocation are borne not only by individual children, parents, families and communities but also by the public sector and the state - in the form of the cognitive, emotional and social costs for children affected by poor quality care and their use of services in the longer term, such as remedial education, community support, prisons and other related services.
Submission-WFPR-Attachment-4.docx