I have checked the list of the unprofitable child care centres. Some are sited on expensive real estate - they probably have high demand for their places and others are sited adjacent to another 6 child care centres. It would be sad to see the child care centres closed because they are sited on expensive real estate when there is demand for their services.

It would be exciting to see the existing child care centres run as cooperatives but the article notes that there is a leadership vacuum, the workers aren't unionised, community groups are dormant and governments are leery of putting 30,000 additional workers on the government payroll.

With the looming economic downturn many grandmothers are looking at their reduced pensions, looking at their houses and calculating how much they can earn caring for children in their own homes and deciding whether they work through the local council or work by word of mouth.

Seeing that Treasuries State and Federal, along with economists - have failed in terms of the economic theories they have treated us all to over the last thirty odd years; and also in light of the reconsideration of government issued bonds and control of the finance secotr by some more re-regulation etc that is currently going on leads me to ask:
Why not government ownership of ABC Learnign Centres?

And further to that: why not also a reversal of the utilitarian 'right' and left wing/secualr alliance by givernment giving true equity to mothers who wish to choose to stay at home to rear young children as well as provide for Aussie Mums and Dads to have even more children?
The DLP have policies and are running on the Federal Senate ballot paper at the next Federal election.
Please consider.

Webby, what the hell do you want more children for. The country is overpopulated now, we are running out of sustainable resources, particularly water. Get a brain.

David

"what the hell do you want more children for"
I assume that is a question and not a feigned sense of indignation?
Why to sustain our population of course; other wise we will have to continue bringing in people from overseas.

" The country is overpopulated now, we are running out of sustainable resources, particularly water. Get a brain."

We are under-populated if you put aside the glazed over look of Tim Flannery and others who appeared overnight who get trumped up awards for alleged contributions to science.Our water and natural gas are plentiful and just need harnessing and long term infrastructure; decentralisation is the way.
All our national policies need to be done over the LONG-term, like our sycophantic love of all things Chinese and culturally Kevin 07.

Next question Webby - why do we need to sustain our population? Why not let it gracefully decline, as it would do without government intervention, and there would be less stress on our water, our resources would last longer or could be shared more widely with other countries and we could lead the world in demonstrating that an economy can survive without the lazy capitalist demand for ever more people to create ever more demand for ever more crud using ever more resources.

Another question Webby - when would you consider Australia, or the world, 'full' from a population point of view? Do you think it is, say, half full now? Because if we are about half full now, then in fifty years time we will be absolutely full, and in another fifty years there will be twice as many people as we can provide for - except by then the planet will be so degraded and befouled that wars will be fought over scarce resources like water and billions will die in misery and hunger. Call me quirky, but I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy when a bit of restraint, foresight and forward planning could prevent it.

Posted by VK3AUU, and Posted by Candide,

I hope you two don't have kids, or don't intend to have kids, because if you answer yes to either then you are just Hypocrites!