Who could have imagined that the end result of the massive community campaign to save community-run childcare centres in 2022 would be the closure of two highly rated council-run centres?
The resulting $34 million Building Blocks Partnership children’s services infrastructure project will displace every child enrolled in two council-run centres – denying continuity of care to more than 100 families.
How did we go from rescue to eviction? Poor planning, or something darker – the same playbook used to undermine council-run aged care?
The clue lies in the original source of the childcare angst. In 2022, Port Phillip’s proposal to sell community childcare properties sparked a passionate campaign to stop the centres being treated as surplus real estate rather than essential social infrastructure.
The community rejected that distinction, because once those sites were sold, the local, community-run model would likely be gone for good.
In response, local state and federal politicians rallied to save the centres. Bingo: the State Government allocated $16 million and council somehow found another $18 million. Council kept advocating for $10 million from the Federal Government, but to date no official application has been made or funds received. Somehow, the victory was set to became a ‘decanting’ problem.
Since 2022, it has become obvious that council has failed to secure a way to accommodate the five community centres during construction — other than by displacing children currently enrolled in council-run centres.
The only solution council found was to protect continuity of care for children in community-run centres by stripping it from children in council-run centres. Council enrolled children would be moved as required, so other kids could have continuity of care.
Yes, read that again. Children enrolled in council care are having their continuity of care eroded because council successfully advocated for $16 million to upgrade childcare.
After many years of planning, this is the best council could come up with.
But there’s more …
Then came another revelation: council centres are chronically underutilised, despite lengthy and complex waiting lists for care. The explanation? Staff shortages.
History repeats, again
TWiSK has reported previously on council’s decision to get out of aged-care services — meals, home support and social connection activities. Once, these were cherished local services, loved by participants.
But as more federal money flowed into aged care, compliance became a hassle and councillors watched participation decline until it “wasn’t worth saving”.
Now we are told that council childcare is ‘half full’ – who knew? And that’s used to justify closing two council-run centres with highly rated service levels.
Was this the plan all along?
We’ve been here before. Organisational chaos muddies the waters while council services are undermined.
The decision about Coventry asks a small group of parents to carry the burden of risk and inconvenience for the greater good. This has already happened at St Kilda North – and it was chaos.
But the recommendations to council don’t ring true. Why are council-enrolled children being asked to exclusively carry the burden? Why are council-run centres operating at around half capacity when there are lengthy waiting lists? Why wasn’t the federal contribution followed up? Why are councillors, parents and staff given information so late in the process?
If council is fair dinkum about childcare, it needs to stand up for the children currently enrolled and find a solution that doesn’t treat them as second-class.
Finally, I’ll bet my playlunch that Nina Taylor, Josh Burns and community-run childcare parents did not campaign for this kind of chaos.
