Let Parents Choose: The Childcare Evil That Government Created

The Melbourne childcare abuse case has politicians reaching for their usual solutions - more regulation, more oversight, more government.

The real scandal isn’t just what Joshua Brown allegedly did to those children; it is how government intervention created a system that puts ideology above safety and subsidies above families.

Progressive voices demand greater government control of childcare. Conservatives want cultural mandates about traditional roles. Both miss the point entirely. The libertarian solution is simple: let employers and parents make their own choices.

Here’s the absurd truth about Australia’s childcare debate. Even if 100% of parents at a centre preferred female educators, that centre would still be legally required to hire qualified male candidates. The Sex Discrimination Act makes customer preference irrelevant.

This isn’t about fairness - it’s about control. The government has decided that parents’ safety concerns and preferences don’t matter. What matters is conformity to bureaucratic ideals about non-discrimination.

If I ran a childcare centre and wanted to offer an all-female environment because that’s what my customers demanded, the law would stop me. Never mind that 93.9% of institutional sexual abuse is perpetrated by men. Never mind that parents might feel more comfortable with female carers for their toddlers. The government knows better than you do about your own children.

In the absence of government intrusion, the market would sort this out rationally. Some centres would employ only women, others would have mixed staff, and parents could choose what suited them. Competition would ensure quality and safety. Instead, we have a one size fits all approach that serves no one well.

The deeper problem is that we shouldn’t need this massive childcare industry at all. It’s a sad blight on our society that we’ve outsourced the care of infants and toddlers to strangers subsidised by the state.

Several families at my church have three or four children on a modest single income. No expensive holidays, sure, and finances are tight, but their children are safe and thriving. It’s not impossible, but it is counter-cultural and contrary to government incentives.

Government intervention has made dual incomes essential in the minds of most families. Housing costs now represent 10.3 times average annual earnings, thanks to a wildly distorted construction industry and unsustainable immigration. The government inflated housing beyond the reach of single-income families, then offered childcare subsidies as the solution.

We now spend $17.9 billion annually on early childhood education and care services. The Child Care Subsidy provides up to 95% subsidies for second children, creating powerful incentives to use institutional care rather than family arrangements. The government broke the traditional family model, then sold us an expensive replacement.

Research from Quebec’s universal childcare program should terrify any parent. Twenty-year follow-up studies showed persistent negative effects on child development - 10% of a standard deviation lower social development, with significant increases in anxiety, hyperactivity and aggression.

The study found that extensive hours in daycare early in life predicted negative behavioural outcomes throughout childhood and into adolescence. This held true even after controlling for quality and socioeconomic factors.

Government policies encouraging institutional care may be harming children’s development while simultaneously making family-based care financially impossible. We’ve created a system that forces parents into arrangements that research suggests aren’t good for children.

The libertarian approach differs fundamentally from both progressive collectivism and conservative cultural normativity. We don’t want governments either forcing hiring practices or prohibiting them. We want voluntary market mechanisms that respect individual choice and property rights.

Discrimination isn’t aggression, so government shouldn’t prohibit it. Employment discrimination laws violate fundamental rights to freedom of association, private property and free enterprise. Since childcare involves intimate care of children, parents should have maximum freedom to choose arrangements that align with their values.

This means some centres could employ only women if that’s what customers want. Others could have mixed staff for families comfortable with that approach. If parents want to leave their kids with nanna or the neighbour, they shouldn’t be prevented. The key is choice, not compulsion.

Real reform means dismantling the barriers that created this mess. Eliminate excessive qualification requirements that create artificial worker shortages. Reduce the regulatory compliance costs that drive up prices. Most importantly, phase out the subsidies that created artificial demand for institutional care.

A free market would produce diverse care arrangements - family day care, nanny sharing, extended family arrangements. Parents could choose based on their own priorities rather than government preferences.

The Melbourne case reveals how government intervention serves neither children nor parents. We’ve created a system that ignores safety concerns through anti-discrimination laws while encouraging institutional dependence through subsidies.

Government policy cannot create the trust and safety that children need. Only voluntary cooperation and market freedom can achieve those goals. It’s time to let parents choose.