An Analysis of the Australian Government's Jobs for Families Child Care Package: The Utility of Bacchi's WPR Methodology to Identify Potential Influences on Parents’ Childcare Choices
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2018
An Analysis of the Australian Government's Jobs for Families Child Care Package: The Utility of Bacchi's WPR Methodology to Identify Potential Influences on Parents’ Childcare Choices
ISSUES OF CHILDCARE AFFORDABILITY, availability and flexibility in Australia have long restricted choice for parents wanting to use formal child care. To address these issues, the Australian Government developed the Jobs for Families Child Care Package, which passed through the Australian Parliament in 2017. This paper reports findings from a study that employed Bacchi's ‘ What's the Problem Represented to be’ (WPR) methodology to analyse the potential impact of the Package on parents’ childcare choices. Consistent with submissions from peak bodies and policy analysts, Bacchi's WPR analysis uncovered potential lived and subjectification effects, which are likely to diminish the choices of disadvantaged families. Additionally, the analysis identified three discursive effects that complicate workforce participation and childcare choice. Utilising a WPR approach and disrupting the Australian Government's positioning of child care as a means to support workforce participation can inform advocacy that aims to re-centre childcare policy onto the rights of the child.
BallS. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 13(2), 10–17.
6.
BaxterJ. A., HandK., & SweidR. (2016). Flexible child care and Australian parents’ work and care decision-making (Research Report No. 37). Melbourne, Vic.: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
7.
BoydW. A., ThorpeK. J., & TaylorC. P. (2010). Preferences of first-time expectant mothers for care of their child: ‘ I wouldn't leave them somewhere that made me feel insecure’. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 35(2), 4–12.
8.
BradyM. & PeralesF. (2014). Hours of paid work among single and partnered mothers in Australia: The role of child care packages. Journal of Family Issues, 37(3), 321–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14531416
9.
BrennanD. (1998). The politics of Australian child care: Philanthropy to feminism and beyond.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BrennanD., & AdamsonE. (2012). Early childhood education and care policy. In BowesJ., GraceR. & HodgeK. (Eds.). Children, families and communities: Contexts and consequences (4th ed., pp. 255–270). South Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford University Press.
CheesemanS., & TorrJ. (2009). From ideology to productivity: Reforming early childhood education and care in Australia. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 3(1), 61–74.
Department of Education and Training (DET). (2017). Jobs for Families Child Care Package. Retrieved 21 April, 2017, from: www.education.gov.au/jobsforfamilies.
EbbeckM. A. & Dela CernaC. H. (2007). A study of child rearing practices amongst selected Sudanese families in South Australia: Implications for child care service selection. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(5), 307–314.
FoucaultM. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
27.
FoucaultM. (1980). Two lectures. In GordonC. (Ed.). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (pp.78–108). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
28.
FoucaultM. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.
29.
FoucaultM. (1983). The subject and power. In DreyfussH.L. & RabinowP. (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (2nd ed., pp. 208–226). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
30.
GibsonM., McArdleF., & HatcherC. (2015). Governing child care in neoliberal times: Discursive constructions of children as economic units and early childhood educators as investment brokers. Global Studies of Childhood, 5(3), 322–332.
31.
HandK. (2005). Mothers’ views on using formal child care. Family Matters, 70, 10–17.
LancasterK., & RitterA. (2014). Examining the construction and representation of drugs as a policy problem in Australia's National Drug Strategy documents 1985–2010. International Journal of Drug Policy, 25(1), 81–87.
34.
LoganH., SumsionJ., & PressF. (2013). The Child Care Act 1972: A critical juncture in Australian ECEC and the emergence of ‘ quality’. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 38(4), 84–91.
35.
LoganH., PressF., & SumsionJ. (2016). The shaping of Australian early childhood education and care: What can we learn from a critical juncture? Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 41(1), 64–71.
36.
LoganH. (2017). Tensions in constructions of quality in Australian early childhood education and care policy history. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 25(4), 506–518.
37.
Neilson-HewettC., SwellerN., TaylorA., HarrisonL., & BowesJ. (2014). Family, child and location factors and parents’ reason for multiple concurrent child care arrangements in the years before school in Australia. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(1), 52–63.
38.
NobleK. (2007). Parent choice of early childhood education and care services. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 32(2), 51–56.
Parliamentary Education Office. (2010). Australia's Constitution: With overview and notes by the Australian Government Solicitor.Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
41.
PereiraR. B. (2014). Using critical policy analysis in occupational science research: Exploring Bacchi's methodology. Journal of Occupational Science, 21(4), 389–402.
SilvaL. D., & WiseS. (2006). Parent perspectives on child care quality among a culturally diverse sample. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(3), 6–14.
WongS. (2007). Looking back and moving forward: Historicising the social construction of early childhood education and care as national work. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(2), 144–156.
