In times not all that long past, our grannies were our nannies. I would rather see nannies; than more, for profit childcare.
We already employ nannies on many outback stations? Nanny being a euphemism for teacher, kitchen hand/relief cook and bottle washer upper; and claim a tax deduction against the cost of her/his employment.
The same as would apply to a multi-skilled cow herding/milking gardener-handyman or helicopter flying, bull-dozer driving, diesel mechanic?
Our most skilled carers are our grannies, who usually have learned from a lifetime of hard won practise; and, if fit and active, ought to be encouraged/allowed to work at simple supervisory child-minding, for say twenty hours a week; at say, a tax free $5.00 an hour, which would not see them lose any other entitlement or pension; all while adding to their almost foregone discretionary spending?
Which in turn, if common, would add some relatively modest and entirely manageable stimulus to the economy and increase GST revenues.
It really should be left to the parents to decide who and how they care for their children?
However, we don't want to create more welfare for the rich? Therefore, State supplied child care should be means tested, along with not for profit organisations?
This might even encourage the employment of nannies and or massive howls of protest from those, who profit/earn millions now, from chains of institutionalised child day care centres? Rhrosty.

A stumbling block could be, people are sue mad these days. Who would pick up the tab for litigation.

The author obviously missed out on having "trained parents" or "qualified childcare". Otherwise, he would not be so disrespectful of the "qualified childcare" proponents, university educators, and those pushing for a nanny state.

Unless one wishes to rock the boat -- many would in this era where morals and truth are paid little respect -- the fashionable thing to do is to be politically correct. Emma Alberici of the leftist ABC TV's influential 'Lateline' program, obliged with "the scientific research is clear and unchallenged that every child should be in pre-school by the age of three and it should be provided by the state".

Of course, governments know best. Ask any of the socialist elite.

Some of the most capable people I have ever met have not had formal qualifications. On the other hand, some of the formally qualified people I have met have proved to be the least capable.

Dark clouds are on the horizon.

The government’s next diabolical step which is covered by this article, is to deny access to your children except by those with an official university brain-washing degree on the government's side.

If you're going to have a baby and want to save your child's spirit, don't let the government know: give birth secretly at home, hide them well, perhaps in some hidden cellar and educate him/her yourself or through a network of trusted relatives and friends.

Don't be tempted by financial-assistance offers: once the government knows that you have children, they will grab them, lay their dirty hands on them, process them in their machinery, turning your own children into robotic clones, religion-less cogs in their social-humanistic machinery and "progressive" work-force, denying their parents and family of origin, such that you will only wish you never had them in the first place.

Have your children at home in secret? Avoid the baby bump? All public contact? Make sure the mother doesn't give the game away by screaming during delivery. Suppose the pelvis refuses to dilate and the only option is a Caesar?
Hide them in the cellar?
So how would one explain all those nappies, baby food, formula. What would one do if one of the kids developed a life threatening illness as a direct consequence of being deprived Vitamin D? What if he/she/they died from said illness?
Would one bury them in the back yard in the dead of night, in secret? Why?
So some Nut Case can deprive their kids the sort of scientifically proven intellectual head start that pre-schooling provides?
Better one should consider tubal ligation and or a vasectomy?
A course of action which would prevent pregnancy/children and or the transfer of seriously flawed genes? Like those that cause or create pea brains that tend to overheat and smoke, if ever seriously engaged? Rhrosty.

Dear Rhrosty,

<<Better one should consider tubal ligation and or a vasectomy?>>

This is indeed one of the options. Responses can broadly be categorized as:

1) Migrate to an acceptable country, if there's any willing to accept you (where religion is respected and children are not forcibly brainwashed by humanist/socialist ideology).
2) Try to change the situation using democratic means (extremely difficult in the Australian hopeless single-member-per-district electoral system).
3) Open revolt (of both violent and non-violent varieties), including attempts to split the country into smaller units (just as the South-Sudanese were no longer willing to be oppressed by the Muslims from the north).
4) Covert underground operations (the hiding of children would fall in this category).
5) Protest, calling on the international community for help (including setting oneself on fire as they do in Tibet).
6) Surrender (tubal ligation/vasectomy would fall in this category).

<<Would one bury them in the back yard in the dead of night, in secret? Why?>>

Because there are still a few that believe that the integrity of the spirit is more important than the survival of the body.