childcare is a ‘canary in mine’ warning for wider problems in policy delivery

It’s such a familiar pattern. When a big scandal breaks publicly, governments jump into action, ministers rush out to say they’ll “do something” instantly.

But how come they hadn’t seen problems that had been in plain sight?

Who can forget then-workplace relations minister Tony Burke insisting he’d been unaware, before media revelations, that organised crime was in the CFMEU? After a Nine media expose, a large portion of the notorious union soon ended up in administration.

When a childcare worker was charged with some 70 offences last week, Education Minister Jason Clare immediately declared he’d introduce legislation in the new parliament’s first sitting for the removal of federal funds from errant providers.

After ABC reporter Adele Ferguson had exposed serious safety issues in the system on Four Corners in March, the Albanese government announced it would be “exploring” various measures to strengthen Commonwealth powers “to deal with providers that put profit over quality and child safety at risk”.

In another expose, Ferguson this week revealed substantial problems in the training system for childcare workers.

Federally, childcare comes under the education minister, and there’s also a dedicated minister for early childhood education (Anne Aly last term, now Jess Walsh). Basically, the federal government funds the system while the states and territories regulate it.

Anthony Albanese made major promises for expanding childcare in his 2022 and 2025 election pitches. The government also supported higher wages for workers in the sector. Albanese has nominated “affordable childcare” as the legacy he wants to leave.

It’s all the more surprising, then, that the government didn’t seem to spot a plethora of problems in an area so central to the prime minister’s ambitions.

The government points to the division of responsibility between Commonwealth and states.

But surely that explanation doesn’t wash or, if it does, the relevant federal and state ministers, public servants and the regulators have not been doing their designated jobs effectively.

In various human service policy areas, there are split responsibilities, which differ in specific arrangements. Politically, this often brings blame-shifting, and arguments over money and accountability.

The federal government attaches conditions, for example, to funding agreements for hospitals and schools, which fall under state responsibility. But in practice, there are slippages.

Split responsibilities, whatever their precise form, can never be “set and forget” – rigorous, constant scrutiny needs to be built in.

Childcare policy has its complications. But, in terms of complexities, it is nothing like, say, running the nation’s defences. There are not unknowns.

The obvious issues within childcare include funding, safety, workforce numbers and training.

The childcare revelations will inevitably lead to new regulations – ironically just as a debate about the desirability of easing excessive regulation in some sectors has become fashionable. In many policy areas, there are tensions between regulation and costs, and no unanimity about where the trade offs should be struck.

The childcare imbroglio highlights the challenges when public policy is substantially delivered by the “for profit” private sector. Social services expert Gabrielle Meagher, professor emerita at Macquarie University, says, “It’s very difficult to regulate across the gaps governments open up when they fund policies that they don’t deliver themselves”.

The childcare issue also invites much wider questions about how “governing” is working. Such as, are ministers too distracted?

Today’s ministers spend more time than ever in the media, and travelling (part of the modern “permanent” election campaign). This takes a large amount of their attention. The prime minister is in the media most days.

One has to wonder how much of this is a diversion for ministers from detailed policy work, especially as they must bone up on “talking points” because, given the 24-hour news cycle, they will be quizzed about issues outside their portfolios. They usually feel obliged to offer an opinion, rather than saying “sorry, that’s not my bag”.

What about the public servants, who are formally responsible for policy advice, implementation and supervising?

We saw with Robodebt shocking behaviour by some bureaucrats. There have been substantial reforms since then and, apart from that, the Albanese government has boosted the numbers and strengthened the capability of the public service.

But is it fit-for-purpose? If it were, wouldn’t the problems in childcare, apparently well-known among many parents, have filtered up through the system to the ears of ministers – even allowing that regulation rests mainly with the states?

Apart from failures by state regulators, one issue is who is telling what to whom about the sector. The federal minister responsible for early childhood education visits dozens of childcare centres. But on those visits, the minister will be talking to managers, who will have their own set of concerns. The minister is less likely at the centres to encounter parents who have had a bad experience.

This goes to a wider problem: in areas of human service delivery, providers of services will usually be organised, while consumers lack the same coherent and forceful voice. Complaining through the media may be only way for families using a service to bring things to light.

But what about the complaints that do flow into government departments, and ministers’ offices? Surely these give a channel for the red flags that point to a policy failure?

Bureaucrats say all this communication amounts to a great deal of “noise”, but the challenge is to identify what it signifies, in terms of substantive problems to be addressed.

When programs are growing very fast, the risk is that corners are cut in delivery. We saw this, disastrously, years ago during the global financial crisis when the Rudd government rolled out the home insulation scheme. A royal commission was damning about the failures of the program, which was marked by several deaths and many household fires. Safety had been compromised in the pursuit of speed and the delivery framework was inadequate.

There are many lessons from the childcare policy failures. A big announcement does not automatically mean a successful policy delivery. Programs can be working on some fronts while flawed on others. All new or expanded policies should come with detailed evaluation arrangements which are then carefully monitored. And while ministers will boast publicly about how well a policy is doing, they should be constantly demanding to know from their bureaucrats where things might be going wrong.