Should We Nationalise Childcare?

LGreenMachine360 on 05/04/2026 - 14:46
Last edited 05/04/2026 - 16:31 by 1 other user

I saw this and it resonated.

Would be interested to hear people’s thoughts. My wife works 3 days a week and all that does after deducting tax, travel and parking costs is cover the childcare costs for our two kids. It is a barrier to having a third, which I’m sure the government and the economy would like. She works because she wants to (vs being a stay at home Mum 7 days a week) and I think a few days in daycare is good for kids as well in terms of their learning and development.

I think anything that helps move the needle on the birth rate would be good for Australia. My feeling is that our government isn’t bold enough to make meaningful reforms (Hello gambling advertising! So nice to see you.)

Poll Options expired

  • 328
    Yes, we should nationalise childcare.
  • 193
    No, we should not nationalise childcare.
Financial Childcare

Comments

Best
Search through all the comments in this post.
  • monky on 05/04/2026 - 14:46
    +56

    "Should We Nationali—"

    Yes.

    • askbargain on 05/04/2026 - 14:48
      +20

      Nationalise bargains

      • monky on 05/04/2026 - 14:50
        +2

        The nations that create bargains often don't get to enjoy them!

        • Sinnerator on 06/04/2026 - 07:32
          +5

          just look at Australian gas and oil

      • Muppet Detector on 06/04/2026 - 15:34
        +1

        Nationalise bargains

        scotty did that about twenty years ago.

        And made a profit! @scotty for Prime Minister.

    • Neeerrk on 06/04/2026 - 08:41
      +6

      And pass new law against privatization.

      • supersabroso on 07/04/2026 - 22:42

        Yep agreed, it's impossible to get any worse than our child care centres for education. As such, there's simply no need to pay all these private companies profit margins, they should be not for profit government run day care centres as they are simply child minding services.

    • RTX9090Ti on 07/04/2026 - 22:33
      +2

      to become another NDIS rort?

    • danwylie on 08/04/2026 - 11:59
      +2

      NDIS, private job placement stuff. You'd save so much money cutting out these grifting middlemen

    • Baldwin on 07/04/2026 - 14:11
      -4

      Yes, if you want to cost to go up exponentially and the quality to go down exponentially. Go ahead, nationalise.

      • Flying Ace on 07/04/2026 - 09:07
        +14

        Yeah, because selling everything off and privatising it has been such a roaring success.

          • Snoopy113 on 07/04/2026 - 11:18
            +6

            @Almost Banned: Sounds like you think Albo would be hand raising your kids personally himself.

  • tubeidea on 05/04/2026 - 14:48
    +28

    It will just become another rort. I wouldn't trust this government to organise a piss up in a brewery.

    • mskeggs on 05/04/2026 - 15:39
      +101

      Current private market childcare is hardly optimal, charging as much as it can.
      The government run primary schools seem to do a pretty good job for kids over 5yr, so I’m not sure why the free market is the only one who could look after 0-5 year olds.

      • cloudy on 06/04/2026 - 16:01
        +1

        I’m not sure why there’s an obsession with throwing our youngest and most vulnerable to strangers to look after them is so sought after.

        I remember when my wife was pregnant all we were taught was the more time our youngest spends with family the best. Though having childcare is also fine (fine is not best).

        Now days we say there’s evidence early learning is better. Not sure if this evidence just seems to suit one’s agenda or if genuine.

        But my 3 year old goes to a council run childcare which is much better than private operators but I see babies crying in there all the times and wonder should we really be encouraging more of this?

        • hdog on 07/04/2026 - 06:47
          +1

          The evidence is that formal childcare offers no benefit to children before 3 - except circumstances where home isn’t a great place to be. The education and socialisation that get talked about are largely rationalisations.

          The economic machine has created this situation and solutions where parents (not just mums!) have time and choice to be with their kids are not creating taxation and therefore no interest to government, child development be damned.

          • Dunks on 08/04/2026 - 21:51

            @hdog: I call bs. My daughter went 2-3 days a week since age 1. They learn how to socialise and interact with other kids, and loves going. She knows all of her friends names. It's highly beneficial.

            • Krankite on 09/04/2026 - 07:37

              @Dunks: Sure but do you have a control child that you didn't send to daycare? Common sense parenting is bullshit because every child is different and you don't get to do it twice with the same kid.

        • EdenKai on 07/04/2026 - 14:11
          +1

          My fiance` works in childcare and in particular with babies and 1 year olds. Her and I have discussed that it sucks to have your child, let alone newborn in childcare, i cant remember where I heard it, but both parents being very present in the childs life at a young age help develop its personality and nature. Like how empathetic they might be or how out going and more willingly to take risks they are. Thing is, with how we are economically and how difficult cost of living is for some, I can see why they do it. Mum and Dad need to work more often or get back to work sooner just to afford everything.

          Im not sure if its a matter of trying to push more of it, but rather making it more accessible to people who really need it?

      • Muppet Detector on 06/04/2026 - 15:39

        The government run primary schools seem to do a pretty good job for kids over 5yr,

        In which state or territory? For how many children?

      • navshaf on 06/04/2026 - 17:41
        -3

        Its hardly a private market childcare. There is so much interference and red tape by this socialist government

        • mskeggs on 06/04/2026 - 18:37
          +1

          So you are unclear on the difference between regulated services and industries that carry few regulations versus profit making and non-profit.

          I don't think anyone is arguing to deregulate childcare as part of nationalising it.
          The regulatory framework seems irrelevant to whether it is a service run for profit or government run.

        • mskeggs on 05/04/2026 - 16:09
          +39

          The community generally agrees essentials shouldn't be subject to highest bidder.
          If you are 50m underwater and out of air you will pay anything for the next breath.

          Why don't you consider more effective ways to meet people's needs than via highest bidder?

          • JIMB0 on 05/04/2026 - 16:16
            -6

            @mskeggs: Food, housing, energy… do we nationalise all of them too? We'll end up waiting in ques due to shortages.

            • Chandler on 05/04/2026 - 23:09
              +26

              @JIMB0: Part of the problems we're having right now with energy are because it was privatised…

              Why pay to keep your coal-fired power plant operational when you can jusy cry poor and have the government do it for you! Maintenance costs don't help the line on the chart go up!

              • R4 on 06/04/2026 - 11:49
                +4

                @Chandler: Privately owned wind and solar is also heavily subsidised - enabling the government to claim that they're the lowest cost energy sources when they're actually not. Energy policy in this country, both fossil and renewables, is a mess.

              • JIMB0 on 05/04/2026 - 23:14
                +3

                @Chandler: It's not really a free market. The government sold them a monopoly. But to try make it not one they introduced a whole system of regulation and oversight that just gets gamed.

                • Chandler on 05/04/2026 - 23:17
                  +8

                  @JIMB0: So then why privatise it in the first place? To make a quick buck?

                  • JIMB0 on 06/04/2026 - 10:28
                    +3

                    @Chandler: It was an ideological move by the Liberal party. It allowed them to pay off debt and claim they are good managers of the economy.

                • larndis on 06/04/2026 - 10:07

                  @JIMB0: Who is 'them'?

                  • JIMB0 on 06/04/2026 - 10:29
                    -1

                    @larndis: The private owners.

                    • larndis on 06/04/2026 - 10:36
                      +1

                      @JIMB0: Maybe some sevices were once state run, but not most.

                      It's definitely a fallacy to say anyone who wants to can just set up their own centre and cash in, so agree a provider can have a monopoly within a geographic area (to an extent)

                      • Chandler on 07/04/2026 - 21:56

                        @larndis: Please note my viewpoint here is skewed by my location (Brisbane, QLD) - this may not be true everywhere, although I suspect it will generally be applicable throughout Australia.

                        Essential services/utilities like power, telecommunications, transport etc are inherent monopolies - the barrier to entry is just too large. The only reason why we have any "competition" in any of these spaces is because of the layer these "competitors" operate on.

                        Most electricity retailers are just buying in bulk (long-term contracts) from generators and selling to consumers cheaper than the consumers can buy it direct. No one outside the existing market is setting up new generation (excluding residential solar and private use commercial/industriral). AGL & Origin own most of the generation capacity used by the public.

                        Most telecommunications retailers are just buying network access in bulk from the larger network operators and selling it cheaper than consumers can buy it direct. No one outside the existing market is setting up new backbone connections. Telstra, Optus, Vocus, TPG, Uniti & Superloop own most of the non-NBN infrastructure used by the public. Most mobile operators are just selling access to Telstra, Optus or Vodafone cell networks.

                        Most transport operators are selling individual services (Uber et al) or routes that are unpopular or not serviced by existing operators (Greyhound, Rex et al). No one outside the existing market is setting up new major transport services.

            • Save Medicare on 05/04/2026 - 16:24
              +25

              @JIMB0: Why should energy not be nationalised?

              • Ponsonby on 05/04/2026 - 16:35
                +15

                @Save Medicare: "That's what a free market does" - you do realise that child care is heavily subsidised?

                • larndis on 06/04/2026 - 10:06
                  +5

                  @Ponsonby: Agree, child care is heavily regulated and subsidised - VERY far from being a free market

            • BlueSkyAPI on 07/04/2026 - 16:33

              @JIMB0: If you visit Venezuela their petrol is very cheap. Just a long queue to go with it

        • srven3 on 06/04/2026 - 15:41

          way too many far lefties who want more daddy nanny state government on here mate, I gave you an upvote

    • ssfps on 06/04/2026 - 02:44
      +4

      It's already a rort.

  • Yummy on 05/04/2026 - 14:53
    +17

    Somalialise

    • mskeggs on 05/04/2026 - 15:40
      +9

      You came so close to contributing to the discussion!

      • bargaino on 05/04/2026 - 15:49
        -2

        Yes, we have such rorts now, not only from Somalis, and the proposed system would eliminate that.

    • Benoffie on 05/04/2026 - 16:45
      +5

      It's ok Yummy, some of us got the reference

      Others need to enrol at a place of learing…

      • brendanm on 05/04/2026 - 17:05
        +8

        I only enroll my children in quality learing centres.

      • tenpercent on 05/04/2026 - 22:39
        +4

        A place of learing? Like a peep show establishment?

        • Meconium on 06/04/2026 - 13:49
          +1

          No, a Shakespearean theatre of course.

  • ihbh on 05/04/2026 - 15:38
    +16

    Should We Nationalise Childcare?

    What about aged care, dental care, housing care?

    Let's pull the money out of our a*ses and fund it all.

    • mskeggs on 05/04/2026 - 15:41
      +30

      You do understand we at least partially fund all those things through taxes, and for things everyone needs, having a profit seeking supplier involved doesn’t result in the lowest costs.

      • JIMB0 on 05/04/2026 - 16:06
        +30

        History has shown that having a government subsidised profit seeking supplier only serves to enrich the supplier.

        • Ocker on 05/04/2026 - 18:35
          +16

          the NDIS is a perfect example

        • mskeggs on 05/04/2026 - 16:12
          +7

          I agree.
          Much more interested in arrangements like we have for water and sewerage or primary schooling than setting up another rort because "the market" needs to be involved.

        • BlueSkyAPI on 07/04/2026 - 16:35

          Agree. But struggling to come up with any example of what worked well (regardless of industries).

          Any good examples you can think of?

      • ihbh on 05/04/2026 - 16:18
        -6

        Yes, but if we try to nationalise everything, we become a communist regime that pretends to provide all of those things.

        • Yttrium on 05/04/2026 - 21:28
          +11

          we have nationalised hospitals and they are going pretty good, compared to the oecd

          • Muppet Detector on 06/04/2026 - 14:19
            -1

            @Yttrium: Our nationalised hospitals are collectively, performing terribly but they are only performing as well as they are because they are quite heavily augmented by the private sector.

            They do seem to provide great care in most emergency type situations in highly populated areas. The folks who live rural or remote seem to be left to fend for themselves a fair bit though.

            But for the non urgent stuff… typically absolutely atrocious and it's a brave person who exposes their non urgent care needs to the mercy of the state.

        • zfind on 06/04/2026 - 21:46
          +4

          Not sure if joking or you’re confusing socialism with communism somehow, but they’re not the same.

          Free-market socialism is the only current working socio-political system that effectively balances meeting the needs of the populace who fund it and the desire for economic growth.

          Flopping out the c-word at any mention of something other than firebrand capitalism needs to die already.

    • S Baldrick on 06/04/2026 - 10:15
      +4

      What about aged care, dental care, housing care? Let's pull the money out of our a*ses and fund it all.

      If we taxed billionaires and multi-national corporations properly, we could unironically fund all of these

      • brendanm on 06/04/2026 - 17:01
        +6

        Also if we properly taxed the stuff people dig out of the ground

        • Muppet Detector on 06/04/2026 - 17:29

          Grave robbing is a criminal offence.

          • brendanm on 06/04/2026 - 17:44

            @Muppet Detector: If people are going to do it we should at least get a cut of those sweet jewels.

            • Muppet Detector on 06/04/2026 - 17:57

              @brendanm: Interfering with the corpse (particularly the family jewels) is usually frowned upon as well.

      • tenpercent on 06/04/2026 - 12:32
        -1

        They would leave or spend more money to offset gains and bring down their taxable income.

        • S Baldrick on 06/04/2026 - 18:03

          If Norway can do it, surely we can give it a go?

          • zfind on 06/04/2026 - 21:50
            +1

            @S Baldrick: They have the nuts to make moves that might (will) impact corporate profits, Australia doesn’t. We can see from their example the corps still hang around to profit seek even if it’s $10bn a year instead of $30bn

            How we aren’t harvesting billions off our gas and pumping it into childcare, elder care and health care I don’t know. And people here think it’s normal.

          • tenpercent on 06/04/2026 - 20:32

            @S Baldrick: That's a bit different to taxing billionaires and multinational corporations.

            I welcome a future where Australia as a nation profits from its mineral wealth in a similar way to Saudi Arabia. Norway's way is piss-weak and half-arsed, tbh.

        • Crow K on 06/04/2026 - 20:36

          Gina Rinehart would go overseas and dig up Australian minerals there, somehow, let's discuss taxing someone else

          I know she flies Pauline around but that can't be a good enough reason to decide delicious billionaire boot is on the menu for licking, surely

    • larndis on 06/04/2026 - 12:30
      -1

      Yes, we should properly fund and provide all those things, for the betterment of society

      • Muppet Detector on 06/04/2026 - 14:46
        +2

        Yes, we should properly fund and provide all those things, for the betterment of society

        The question is, where do we stop?

        If we're going all in balls to the wall, I say we also add in

        • legal services,

        • maximise access to an equal and just education for every child,

        • school meals

        • and to go really wild,

        • in the interests of a well rounded childhood for the betterment of society,

        • one or two extra curriculars for the kids,

        • a sport/physical activity for sure, something like swimming (where appropriate) or a group sport and

        • one from the arts whether that be engagement in a music or performing arts type program and

        • involvement in some kind of community service suitable for their age.

        => quite a bit of that could even be at least partially supported by volunteers or older peers/mentors (as part of their community service).

        But, we need to work out a way where we're not only managing the truancy, but we need to be able to capture most children to deliver a curriculum that they're able to access.

        But if we're really serious about providing things for the betterment of society, I think we also need to look at including the kids in state and foster care. Absolutely atrocious management and handling for this sector, who are probably among the most vulnerable members of our society.

        At least Qld has got a Royal Commission in the works, but I don't think any of the other states or territories have.

        • larndis on 06/04/2026 - 17:00

          Yes, we can and should do much better for children in the out of home care system. State and Territory Governments should prioritise delivering a quality education in government schools, rather than facilitating the shift to non-government schooling. Poor attendance is likely an indicator of other issues at home or school - we should address those issues rather than focusing on truancy. The cost of accessing the legal system is absolutely an issue - currently, sadly, justice is really only available to people who can afford to pay. Lots of other issues in the justice system should be addressed eg. treatment of victims, police culture, oversight of prisons, etc.

          You can argue thin edge of the wedge, where does it stop, etc. But most of this is common sense and would likely pay for itself, albeit years down the track when the current governments are long forgotten.

          Not all, but lots of these things are state responsibilities. State Governments would seemingly much rather announce a new road or other infrastructure project than investing in any of these things. Why is that? Because most voters don't care about these things.

          • Muppet Detector on 07/04/2026 - 17:13

            @larndis: I forgot, to that list I believe that school uniforms should be compulsory and that public school uniforms should be provided free of charge. (Including a pair of decent quality school shoes and sport shoes and regulation school bag and hat).

            Whilst a uniform does stifle individuality, it also reduces the divide between the kids with money and those who don't (and everything in between).

            We can help them to shine on their own terms and express their individuality in other ways.

            Additionally, I'd even extend to the schools laundering the uniforms similar to how some employers do who provide their staff uniforms.

            Makes sure every kid at least gets to start with some nice clean and well maintained, presentable clothing and might help the parents out a bit too.

            School stationery as well and whatever else they need to access the school curriculum.

        • BlueSkyAPI on 07/04/2026 - 16:39

          I'd go somewhere else during working prime years and come back when retired.

          Now if everyone did the same….

    • Dack Smith on 06/04/2026 - 17:42
      -1

      All medical care, child care, housing and essential food should be completely funded by the government to benefit all Australians.

      It’s time to massively increase taxes and defund defence so we can use the money for more useful things closer to home.

      • Muppet Detector on 06/04/2026 - 18:00

        It’s time to massively increase taxes and defund defence

        What about the prosecution?

    • Antikythera on 07/04/2026 - 17:30
      -1

      of course aged care is gonna be nationalised.
      the boomers are starting to need it.

  • peppermint420 on 06/04/2026 - 23:30
    +9

    don't have kids if you can't afford them, the taxpayer already subsidises your lifestyle choice.

    • ThadtheChad on 07/04/2026 - 15:22

      don't have kids if you can't afford them, the taxpayer already subsidises your lifestyle choice.

      By that logic, shouldnt the subsidies increase the higher tax you pay, instead of severely curtailing CCS.

      Following on from that "dog eat dog" level of thinking, perhaps they should tax the childless more, as my kids will likely be paying for their pension, healthcare and retirement. Following on, we should actually incentivise kids born to higher SES, top 10% of households because there is a direct correlation between education and wealth outcomes for kids when they reach adulthood. They are likely to be in the top tax bracket/div-293 and will be the principal taxpayers in the future.

      Does all of this sound absolutely fked? It should, because this is no way for a society to function.

      We support each other because an inherently Australian value is to give each other a fair go.

      • Muppet Detector on 07/04/2026 - 15:48
        +4

        We support each other because an inherently Australian value is to give each other a fair go

        Already given a lot of support.

        130 days paid parental leave.
        12 years 'free' education childcare
        12 years subsidised childcare outside of school
        18 years family benefits to help with other costs
        14.3 years free health care more if the kids don't start to pay tax until later

        And now people who have even said that they don't need any more help are asking for it anyway?

        On top of that, there is no childcare assistance for anybody who doesn't work mon - Fri, 6 am to 6 pm.

        From the OP

        "She works because she wants to (vs being a stay at home Mum 7 days a week)"

        Wants more children even though she doesn't want to look after the ones that she already has.

    • tenpercent on 07/04/2026 - 09:32
      -1

      The government subsidises your lifestyle choices too.

      • topherboi on 08/04/2026 - 07:32
        +1

        Which lifestyle choices are you referring to?

        • tenpercent on 08/04/2026 - 22:20

          If you share peppermin420's lifestyle choices I'll be happy to identify which of those are subsidised by government spending.

  • joka on 05/04/2026 - 16:48
    +8

    Let’s just nationalise everything and pay all our income to taxes and let the government control everything. Sounds familiar?

    • RockyRaccoon on 05/04/2026 - 21:21

      Ah yes then we dont have to worry about inflation as this will be their problem, ironic as the govt is the greatest contributor to that ……

      Sorry my inner child came out, after my adult self took over, I beat the hell out of it for being so naive 😁

  • McMaferMur on 05/04/2026 - 18:40
    +7

    Why want 3 if cant afford 2?

    • Herbs on 06/04/2026 - 08:36
      +1

      Also, they'll be contributing to an already over-populated planet.

      • AUBRX on 06/04/2026 - 18:37

        They don't care, they don't even think that deeply.

    • Muppet Detector on 06/04/2026 - 18:41

      They can afford a Labrador though.

      Probably costs more in food, rego and medical than the two kids combined. Unless it's a service animal. Got to afford those if you need them.

  • bargaino on 05/04/2026 - 15:47
    +5

    States, not national.
    States run the existing school systems.

    Funny how he does not mention one of the biggest reasons - one of the great threats to our society alongside AI and global warming.
    Population collapse. Free childcare for all would remove one of the barriers to having children. So long as it doesn't just mean house prices going up more.
    And no means testing - or we just create more class segregation, with rich kids going to private childcare.

    • JIMB0 on 05/04/2026 - 16:08
      +1

      It would boost household income which will lead to increased borrowing capacity and higher house prices.

    • tenpercent on 05/04/2026 - 16:11

      And no means testing - or we just create more class segregation, with rich kids going to private childcare.

      Rich people will still send their kids to private childcare for better faciliites, better educator to child ratios, perceptions, not wanting their kids to mix with the poors and the riffraff, etc.

      Any government run ones in rich suburbs will still only have 90% rich kids in them because of geographical enrollment restrictions (real, i.e. most people won't drive out of area to take their kid to/from preschool, and rule based i.e. postcode residency restrictions). So at best this possible social class segregation will only impact a small minority of poorer kids who for some reason live in rich suburbs.

      • bargaino on 05/04/2026 - 16:28
        +1

        I guess it depends where you live. Yes, postcode segregation is real too. Its not as bad as Sydney here (yet).

    • wackedupwacko on 05/04/2026 - 18:58

      The thing is advanced developed countries are all seeing a population decrease BUT humanity is still seeing big population increases.

      We legitimately have a problem at a global level - but a t a country level it's the opposite so it's a bit hard to solve with just this.

      Global warming I would argue is most directly tied to our explosive population growth as a species across the whlle planet.

      • bargaino on 05/04/2026 - 19:51
        +1

        Nobody is suggesting free child care in Somalia or Afghanistan. We are talking about Australia.

        it's a bit hard to solve with just this.

        So do more than one thing?

        Australia can't do much about global warming, but we can do everything possible to avoid the fate of Greece or South Korea. They have got to the point where having a family is abnormal.

    • Muppet Detector on 06/04/2026 - 15:09

      States run the existing school systems.

      Under the umbrella of a national curriculum augmented by some federal funding.

      But it's certainly not a system that provides an equal or just education for every child. Needs a lot of work.

      Free childcare for all would remove one of the barriers to having children.

      Sure, but there are so many more. As someone out the other side, if you're struggling with the costs of childcare, you most probably can't afford children anyway because the expenses just continue to increase and escalate as they get older.

      Then there's the issue of what happens should a child become sick or is otherwise excluded from or unable to attend school/childcare if both parents are working, particularly the early days of childcare when they seem to be magnets for anything until their immune systems get better developed.

      And this free childcare, does this apply to those whose working hours aren't between Monday to Friday, 6 am to 6 pm?

      FIFO type workers?

      In the interest of avoiding that class segregation that you mentioned, you would need to make that care available 24/7 wouldn't you?

      How about before and after school care once the children are school aged?

      Oh, and atm, there is no subsidised childcare for children over 11, so if both parents are working outside of school hours, anybody from 12 years old is effectively left unsupervised.

      It gets expensive real fast, doesn't it?

      • bargaino on 06/04/2026 - 17:01
        +1

        Sounds like a "we can't do everything, so let's do nothing" kind of answer.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join