Care, choice and quality: Rethinking childcare subsidies through a child-centred and sector lens

When national media platforms float the idea of expanding childcare subsidies to include grandparents and informal carers, it signals a broader shift in how early childhood care is conceptualised in Australia. While such proposals are often framed around flexibility and cost-saving for families, they raise critical questions about what constitutes quality care, who delivers it, and how policy decisions align with the mission of the early childhood education and care (ECEC) sector.

At its core, the ECEC sector is committed to delivering inclusive, high-quality education and care that supports children’s learning, development and wellbeing. Any subsidy reform must therefore be assessed not only on economic or political grounds but through the lens of what is best for children and how services can continue to uphold their mission in a changing landscape.

Children thrive in environments that are safe, responsive, stimulating and developmentally appropriate. Grandparents and kinship carers can offer children strong emotional bonds, cultural continuity, and consistent caregiving. These relationships are often deeply nurturing and form a vital part of many families’ care arrangements, particularly in culturally and linguistically diverse or First Nations communities.

However, while informal care can be protective and enriching, it generally operates outside the regulated frameworks that underpin formal ECEC services. Informal care is not subject to the National Quality Standard (NQS), the Education and Care Services National Law and Regulations, or child protection protocols that guide educator practice. There are no mandated qualifications, ratios, supervision mechanisms or visibility requirements.

This matters. Formal ECEC services provide structured programs based on learning frameworks, early identification of developmental needs, access to allied health services, and opportunities for peer socialisation. These are not incidental benefits, they are essential supports, especially for children experiencing disadvantage or additional needs.

Expanding subsidies to informal carers may risk creating a two-tier system in which some children have access to quality-assured, educator-led programs, while others are funded into arrangements with less oversight and fewer developmental safeguards.

Children in informal care may miss opportunities for early intervention, social inclusion, and structured learning. For vulnerable children, especially those affected by poverty, trauma or disability, this lack of visibility can have compounding effects. Policy must guard against inadvertently entrenching inequality by privileging care models that lack accountability or connection to the broader education system.

From a child-rights perspective, all children deserve access to quality education and care, regardless of their family’s economic or cultural context. Subsidy models must therefore be designed not just to expand access, but to ensure that quality is maintained and that all children are afforded equal developmental opportunities.

If subsidies are extended to include informal carers, service providers will face both philosophical and practical challenges. Approved providers, centre managers and not-for-profit organisations may see changes in enrolment patterns, shifts in family engagement, and increased competition for funding. Staffing ratios, viability of programs, waitlist management, and inclusion support may all be affected.

ECEC services need to proactively position themselves in response to this potential policy shift:

• Articulate value: Clearly communicate the distinct benefits of educator-led programs to families, policymakers and the public. Highlight outcomes, not just outputs.
• Strengthen family partnerships: Build trust and flexibility with families, including those using mixed care arrangements. Respect and acknowledge grandparents’ roles while advocating for the unique role of formal ECEC.
• Enhance transitions: Support smooth transitions between home-based and centre-based care. Use supported playgroups, orientation programs and community links to bridge gaps.
• Monitor impact: Collect and analyse data on developmental outcomes, family engagement, and service uptake. Use this to inform strategic planning and quality improvement.
• Policy engagement: Advocate for a subsidy model that recognises diverse care contexts but maintains a commitment to quality, safety and equity. Call for safeguards, minimum standards, and mechanisms that ensure informal care does not become invisible care.

Supporting families to make flexible choices must not come at the expense of children’s rights to quality care. If subsidies are extended to grandparents and kinship carers, this must be accompanied by robust policy architecture:

• Minimum care standards or registration processes for informal carers receiving public funds.
• Links between informal care and early learning services, such as supported playgroups or transition-to-school programs.
• Mechanisms for identifying and supporting vulnerable children in informal settings.
• Consultation with the ECEC sector to align subsidy reforms with the National Quality Framework.

The early childhood education and care sector has long advocated for policies that place children’s rights, safety and development at the centre. As governments consider reforms to childcare subsidies, it is essential that these values remain non-negotiable.

Supporting grandparents and kinship carers is important, but it must not dilute the commitment to quality, regulated care that underpins the sector’s work. Services, providers and educators must lead the conversation, ensuring that any changes serve the best interests of all children, not just the political or economic agendas of the moment.