I totally agree. Even with the new training requirements for child care facilities, I've not seen any improvement in the way children are cared for. Careless workers still exist as do unsuitable ones.. And some of the best carers I have ever met were Asian grandmothers with no formal qualifications at all, but decades of caring for their own and other people's children. Their departure is our loss.
The educational requirement for nannies is ludicrous. Child Protection agencies put children into foster homes where the only requirement is a clean home and a Police Clearance. Foster parents aren't required to have formal child care training, yet they are asked to support and nurture children who may have immense emotional and behavioural problems related to their dysfunctional lives.
Biological parents aren't required to have formal training or diplomas. I hardly see the need for this requirement in a nanny.

I agree with the author that the childcare sector has been made over-expensive because of onerous regulations concerning staff-to-child ratios and staff qualifications. Inability to attract qualified staff also inhibits the expansion of place numbers.

What she has failed to mention is that the sector is subject to government fee subsidies ranging from 50 to 90 per cent and costing $6 billion annually, so that price signals to users are greatly distorted. Effectively the government pays more towards childcare fees than parents do!

If parents had to pay something closer to the real cost of childcare there might be more economical use of services and more pressure on childcare providers and the government to reduce costs.

Big Nana as usual, is right on the money.

All we really need to know is that the carers have practical experience, a first aid certificate and are safe to be with children!

I mean we had better more caring nurses when they learned their craft on the job.

Now that they come out of Universities, a lot of what used to be good nursing is entirely beneath them?

And we're likely to see the same outcome; if carers become overqualified; or learn to delegate! Too many chiefs and not enough Indians; and childcare priced out of the reach of most folk!?

I mean, what do they need to learn, the spoon goes in here and the clean nappies go here; and please don't put the pin through the penis!

Better it goes through your hand to ensure adequate care is always taken

The little tykes need lots of cuddles; and someone who says what they mean and means what they say; and that no really does mean no!

The epitome of a good nanny; and or, responsible parents!
Rhrosty.

People who can afford Nannies shouldn't get government funding, and therefore they can hire whomever then want to. If they want the suck money from the rest of us to fund their lifestyle choices then we should have a say in who it is.

Cobber, I would hardly call nurses, paramedics or hospitality staff as rich people, yet these are the ones who need the nannies the most. Child care centres only open Monday to Friday and close at 6pm. Shift workers can't get child care currently because of this. Female doctorrs also face the same problems, and no, young doctors aren't earning high wages.
Another issue is affordability. If you have 2 or three children needing day care and after school care, it's cheaper to pay a nanny than a child care centre for all three of them.
Finally, there seems to be a huge amount of unjustified envy in the community towards women who have studied and worked hard, whilst bearing children, and reached high paying positions. This envy is a very unattractive look.

Interesting article. I work for one of the Regulatory Authorities for education and care. I'm glad you've done some research on the connection between ratio, qualifications and quality. That is a keystone of the National Quality Framework, and yet there is a paucity of research proving or disproving the link between ratio/qualifications and quality. It seems a commonsense link, but that's what research is for, to provide reliable evidence on whether the "common sense" is actually true.