The early stage of the political debate about whether the government should financially support the cost of nannies, just as it supports childcare centre costs, has been revealing. The debate has been kicked off by the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott. Almost as soon as the suggestion was raised the government attempted to dismiss the idea as too expensive.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Abbott has long been criticised for his negativity towards everything the government attempts, yet here he is not the one being negative. In fact, he is raising an idea for consideration just like leaders of the opposition should. He's playing politics too, of course, but that's a given in anything a political leader says or does.
His proposal has been rejected by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Bill Shorten, as a ''thought bubble in search of an idea'', but that is too harsh. Abbott has suggested that his idea should be investigated by the Productivity Commission to see whether it has merit and whether it is affordable.
Many of the ideas suggested by oppositions are no more than thoughts because oppositions are perennially short of resources to investigate their own ideas. That is because they lack the public service resources available to governments. Oppositions always want policy development on the cheap.
That is not to say that oppositions cannot do some analysis of their own. They should and laziness should not be tolerated. There are always economists in universities and the private sector willing to do pro bono work for an opposition. It is not that such people are just altruistic or politically motivated. If a political party takes up their research it can be a good career move for them.
Smart opposition leaders make use of these friendly networks. So it is surprising that Abbott did not accompany his idea with some preliminary analysis to show that he was on the job. The media was quick to follow up though, by interviewing interested parties in the industry, such as nanny agencies, who were able to raise common-sense issues such as regulation and training.
Nevertheless, with these caveats in mind, Abbott behaved like an opposition leader in this instance. He also sold the idea in meek and mild language, refreshingly quite unAbbott like. He scored some points as a consequence. Maybe he is learning about style.
The government behaved like only a government can. It brought out its big guns. Childcare Minister Kate Ellis produced figures by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Presumably these costings were not produced just that day, but had been in the bottom draw for just such an occasion. Any department worth its salt would have already researched such a proposal internally as the possibility has been around the policy community for some time.
Ellis calculated Abbott's proposal at $2 billion over four years, assuming that a nanny was paid $25 an hour and the rebate was 50 per cent. As both sides are desperate to balance their budgets this was a serious riposte by the government. The opposition won't get away with just floating a proposal to refer the idea to the Productivity Commission without giving some indication of how and when it would respond to a favourable PC report.
The Prime Minister jumped in very quickly too. In fact, Julia Gillard dismissed the idea just as Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, the Greens spokesperson on early childhood matters, offered support for Abbott in principle. Moreover, a range of community commentators thought it was worth discussing too.
In this instance the government runs the risk of becoming a mirror image of the worst of Abbott. It would have been far better to have taken a calmer, more bipartisan approach by recognising that just possibly good ideas may come from outside government circles. To do so couldn't harm the government because Abbott can't do anything until he wins office. That's the frustration of opposition. If after serious discussion the idea came up trumps then the government can always steal the opposition's clothes.
The public doesn't mind where good ideas come from. They just want positive actions and good policies. Even if the opposition then promised to match the government initiative it would be playing catch-up. The government holds all the cards.
At the heart of the government's response is its inclination to be very protective towards its hold on women voters. Both Gillard and her senior women ministers relish the evidence that women voters are disproportionately among the government's supporters. With the opinion polls so dire for Labor it must be comforting to have the relative support of women.
For his part it probably bugs Abbott too, surrounded by his wife and personable daughters, that he does less well with women voters. It contributes to a macho image that holds him back and which he probably would like to get rid of (even if his continued physical exploits don't suggest it).
This is the context in which Gillard dismissed the proposal as a trick by the Opposition Leader to ''sucker women in''.
Apparently an unnamed Liberal MP had unwisely expressed the opinion that this was merely an attempt to win over women voters.
This opinion probably grew out of frustration with the tendency for Abbott to throw up uncosted ideas without consultation, even though the opposition is under severe pressure to find savings. Gillard pounced on it.
Abbott has done himself no harm though in this speculative venture, thought bubble or not.
The government should watch how it reacts in future to such stirring of the policy pot and always strive to show itself to be open to the ideas of others.
John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University.
John.Warhurst@anu.edu.au
