I think I’m becoming a complete sook as I get older. When certain news stories appear in the paper or on the TV, I simply refuse to continue to follow them. Anything that involves cruelty to children fits into this category.

But I have taken a big breath and read the details of the recent horrific saga about a 26-year-old man living in a south-western suburb of Melbourne who worked in multiple childcare centres for eight-and-a-half years. His name is Joshua Dale Brown and he is an alleged serial child abuser.

If that’s not bad enough, there is a further accusation that he used bodily fluids to contaminate the food given to completely dependent children.

It turns out that Brown had worked at 20 centres during his time as a childcare worker – early childhood educator, if you prefer the official government term – since 2017. The parents of around 1,200 children have received notification that they should get their children tested for chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis. Brown, it seems, was responsible for the ‘care’ of the littlest ones – from five months to two years.

The reason I am making an exception in this case is the questions it raises about public policy and the vast sums of taxpayers’ money that are doled out to subsidise centre-based care for babies, toddlers and pre-school children.

Let’s not forget that childcare subsidies are one of the fastest growing expenditure items of the federal government, with around $16 billion flying out the door this financial year. By 2028-29, that figure is expected to be close to $18.5 billion.

Don’t get me wrong here: I’m not saying that this is mainly a matter of dollars and cents. It is dreadful, abominable and any other adjective you can think of that describes the horror of the situation.  Defenceless children without words are trustingly placed in the care of strangers on the assumption that the centre owners and workers are well intentioned and that the sector is well regulated by governments.

The reality is that it only requires one weak link for the safety of children to be endangered. Predatory adults are always likely to target places where children congregate – it’s not just childcare centres but schools, sporting clubs and the like.

Copious regulation and intermittent inspections are unlikely to make much difference, although the vigilance of co-workers can surely play an important role. Workers who move around places of employment a great deal may be waving a red flag, although casual employment is common in the childcare industry. Relieving teachers also move around.

There is also the issue of the shortage of qualified – or nearly qualified – childcare workers. What this means is that the operators of centres may feel they can’t be too fussy when it comes to engaging staff to fill vacancies or cover staff absences. In other words, short cuts are likely to be taken.

Unsurprisingly and appropriately, there has been an outpouring of outrage about this latest incident. But it’s not the first, and it won’t be the last. Last year a pedophile childcare worker in Queensland was sentenced to life, with a non-parole period of 27 years, having pleaded guilty to over 300 charges of child sexual abuse. He had worked mainly in religious-based childcare centres.

Most commentary has focused on even greater government regulation and on the need for a national approach, including a public register of childcare workers. (Both the cases cited above did not involve workers moving between states.)  Workers’ mobile phones will be prohibited, and CCTV will become compulsory save in nappy changing areas.

There is even talk of banning male workers although it is not clear why female workers can’t act inappropriately given the potential monetary reward from publication of child abuse material. One way or another, most male workers are likely to be forced out of the industry.

A common perception among left-leaning journalists is that the main reason for the problems in the childcare industry is the dominance of for-profit providers. This point of view is championed by Adele Ferguson of the Sydney Morning Herald. The fact is that around 70 per cent of all childcare places are provided by for-profit operators. The community sector, often funded by local governments, is shrinking.  Gifted with free capital and premises, these not-for-profit centres have some advantages in terms of paying slightly higher rates of pay to staff.

But the regulatory burden and the reluctance of local governments to provide capital for upgrades and new centres mean any solution that involves significantly less reliance on private providers is unrealistic. There is also the point that the last thing that any operator wants is for children to be harmed in their centres. Look at the tanking share prices of the private childcare companies to understand that their understandable concern is reinforced by commercial considerations.

The bigger picture here is the overwhelming emphasis placed on subsidised centre-based childcare as the way in which young children are minded out of home.  This makes sense for a Labor government because there is clearly scope for childcare workers to be unionised in a centre which is not available in other settings. Nannies, for instance, are unlikely to join a union.

It is surely time that we had the discussion about whether some of the vast expenditure currently directed to centre-based childcare could be better used in other ways – like financing one parent to stay home longer and to look after little ones until they are out of nappies. Given the sums of money involved, this is not as far-fetched as it might seem.

Many families are currently being subsidised by close to $40,000 per child per year in centre-based care. The point is often made that families need two incomes to survive, including paying the mortgage. This would be a solution for some families.

After all, the government has scrapped the ‘activity test’ which required the users of subsidised childcare to participate in the labour market, be in training or education or volunteer. My option would involve allowing one parent to care for a child (or children) at home, and similarly not face an ‘activity test’.

Of course, the childcare providers wouldn’t be happy with this change, but they would just have to adjust. And there might be some net loss of jobs in the labour force as mothers decide to concentrate on child-rearing for a few years. It will suit those for whom work interruptions don’t carry large penalties – they will generally be lower paid workers. And for those parents who find it necessary to remain in the workforce, making the cost of a nanny tax-deductible would also expand care possibilities. If this is seen as too generous for very highly paid workers, an alternative would be a capped tax rebate.

Of course, free choice and the Labor government are difficult to squeeze into the same sentence. There will be a flurry of activity, more regulations will be put in place, childcare fees will rise even more and subsidies along with them. But in time, there are likely to be more incidents because that’s the nature of the arrangement.