I too wonder why people have children if they don't or won't raise them themselves.

Anyhow, I think it's a predictably easy (and hysterical) target to have a go at any form of privatisation, but a lot of the commentators miss the point completely.

Privatisation does not necessarily have to entail the evil harvesting of children in some Matrix like scenario, and indeed, the report doesn't claim that all private centres are in fact problematic.

Ultimately, some form of accountability is required, but no one can provide such accountability better than the customers themselves. If people hold child care centres accountable by taking their children out of centres that aren't up to par, and instead put their children into good quality centres, then those that aren't up to par will change or go out of business. Where there is poor service, there's always a business opportunity for someone else to enter the market. It's the same as with a restaurant, retail store or any other business -- if people don't like the service or product they receive, they take their custom elsewhere. The thing too about private businesses (of any sort) is they can offer a service with a specific focus and are can serve the needs of their customers even better, as opposed to a one size fits all approach.

Are the people who complain about privatisation of child care calling for nationalisation of every single business (ie. communism), or are they just having an irrational whinge? Big corporate chains may be below par, but ultimately, if people keep going to them, then the old saying of "you get what you pay for" holds.

shorbe - there is a market for high quality childcare however there is no profit in it as there is an upper limit to what people can afford to pay. Therefore, except for a select few private centres catering to the wealthy market, only the heavily subsidised community based centres can provide quality care. There is a severe shortage of places so that even the worst centres can always find someone desparate enough to use them. Market forces is fine for consumer goods and services but do we really want this to be what determines the standard of care for our children?

Sajo, I'm with you. Childcare standards can't be set by "market forces": that would be Dickensian. Also, the shortage of childcare places means that even poor centres will continue to operate, and the policing of childcare standards by the National Childcare Accreditation Authority (which sets the minimum standards) is very inadequate. To those who would dismiss the concerns of childcare workers: I would say, wouldn't the workers have a better understanding of childcare than the average punter?

But to cut to the chase: what we are really talking about here is the behemoth ABC Learning, and what we are also talking about is not strictly "private" childcare, unless you include something attracting massive government subsidies as a "private" industry: in fact, it's more like corporate welfare. And rather than being concerned about the growth of this near monopoly, which has been taking over other private childcare centres, the government is encouraging them: they have just awarded ABC learning a large contract to provide childcare to federal government workers.

For those of you who argue kids shouldn't be in childcare at all; what city (or planet or century) do you live in? All my tertiary-educated friends have used/are using childcare, from 1-5 days per week. Sydney mortgages preclude any other option. Mind you, I don't know any stockbrokers.

sajo & Johnj: Again, no one is responsible for himself or herself?

A friend of mine used to live in a suburb that is extremely Jewish Orthodox. I would often see large families (five or more children), and it's not uncommon for the mother/wife not to work. Not only are these families not struggling, but in general, they're doing extremely well, and they don't make a big song and dance and constantly demand someone give them something. How can this be when everyone else is finding it so hard?

At a guess, I would say that these people take ultimate responsibility for their lives, instead of whingeing like so many people in this country. I should imagine that they work hard (and place a strong emphasis on scholarship), don't smoke, drink or gamble. They wouldn't eat out or get take away, yet they're not starving. They're obviously not into the latest fashions, yet they're always incredibly well dressed. I'd say their credit cards wouldn't be maxed out with "must have" consumer items that are, in reality, anything but necessary. They wouldn't take holidays they couldn't afford. Despite having large families, they wouldn't need some 42 square neo-Georgian monstrosity with monthly repayments that would break them if interest rates increased 0.25%. They probably drive good second hand cars, or get new cars only when they can afford them (and then hang onto them for a long time). In short, they're obviously not stupid with money like so many people. Oh yeah, and along with all this, they still find time to be over-achievers in the arts and sciences. Maybe there are more benefits to not getting a $7000 TV than financial...

I'm sick of hearing how hard it is in this country. It's not unless you want to make it hard for yourself. Except in the case of people with mental illness or some form of handicap, poverty in this country is a lifestyle choice.

This government could fund a non profit childcare service but they would rather pay ABC learning centre to do it for them.

Howard will sell all public assets wether we like it or not,
Howard is not a leader, he is a puppet of big business.
Not small business.

In a few short words Sly, you have said what the rest can't do in 350.