Cossie's tactic "to buy off some pressure" underlies the Howard government's attitude of total indifference to childcare. The more the Government's feeble attempts at presenting themselves as caring,sharing guys are exposed the better. Its an insult to throw a few dollars the electorates way and hope the problem will sort itself out. Childcare is a major and complex PROBLEM - not 'issue' that low to middle income families alike have to deal with contiually as they face severe childcare payments week in and week out.

GSR

It sounds like a good idea but child rearing costs don’t suddenly stop when the children reach school age.

Instead of funding private schools and transport schemes and family payments, simply have a fixed payment per child similar to the fixed childcare payment suggested in the article. Parents can then decide for themselves their best allocation of resources.

Rob88:
How about a tax cuts for the target group, instead?

What's gone wrong in this country over the past few decades? It used to be that the average Australian family could get by fairly confortably with only one income. They could have more kids than now, own their own three bedroom houses on quarter acre blocks, etc. Now people seem to be running faster and faster just to go backwards. Part of the problem is obviously that we live in a more consumeristic society now and a lot of money goes into financing credit card debt for "necessities" that would have once been considered luxuries. However, it seems like government is taking in more money and spending it less efficiently, and/or that there are fewer people pulling their weight in society. What's going on?

stormont: It's all very well to say people face severe childcare payments, and in an ideal world, the government would throw sacks of money to everyone, but who is going to pay for all this childcare? The short answer would be the middle class who are financially responsible. For them, the biggest struggle is supporting all the hangers on at both ends of the spectrum. They'd be quite capable of dealing with the "childcare problem" otherwise.

Rob88: When in doubt, blame private schools! Never mind that parents who send their kids to private schools are saving the public system money (and why shouldn't all schools get funding?). Never mind that parents who do so are more likely to contribute more into the tax pool to begin with. Never mind that many (or perhaps even most) such parents are not filthy rich (so what if they are?), but are pretty middle class (or even working class) who aspire to better jobs, are careful with their money, and forego luxuries to afford school fees. No, when in doubt, blame private schools!

I fear that for many, a standard government handout would mean more money for alcohol or take away, or a windfall of a new giant television, and within no time they'd be back to whining about how tough it was. Reward responsibility.

Shorbe.. 'comfortably by on one income' yes.. agreed. My parents did it. But.... what has happened since ?

ECONOMICALY/CULTURALLY

1/'FEMIINISM' sent females out to join the workforce, and whatever else you or I might think of that idea, in economic terms it immediately told all the real estate agents "more money to spend" hence, housing affordability became a '2 income' proposition from then on. Now.. we are LOCKED into that economic and social prison.

2/ CHILD CARE .. Now that we have locked ourselves into the '2 income' economics of feminism, we ALSO have to spend money on child care, because the Mums are out working (mostly to pay for child care of course, earning $500 a week and spending $300 on child care or whatever it is)

3/ ECONOMIC LINKAGE. Much of our 'comfortably by' situation previously was based on an economic connection to the rather ruthless exploitation of others. I don't think it is too longer bow string to draw, to suggest that the economic wealth which propelled the settlement of Australia, was derived by and large from the exploitative practices of British Empire Capitalism. (Opium Trade, Manufacturing and Trade in India, Plantations, Slavery etc)

So, perhaps our 'ancestors' chickens are coming home to roost in OUR chicken pen, and we don't like the smell.

Perhaps a return to the better family values of the 50s without the racism which seemed to accompany that generation, would be a good turn of events. Nothing wrong with 'his' work and 'her' work, and females being the primary nurturers, and having a values framework which keeps marraiges together rather than tearing them apart.
Extended family support networks are also of great value in contrast to our hyper individualism.

We could also try St Pauls approach

"I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. ...whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength." Phil 4.12-13

Come on D_B, just a smallpoint here but WAR had a little to do with putting women en masse into paid employment. Feminism may have helped keep us there but you can point the finger at war for putting us there. Of course, as we all know, women have always worked.

To give an example a bit closer to home, I've been reading historical excerpts from a local newspaper printed for the sydney suburb in which I live.

I noticed one of interest that would have alerted me if not for a gap of sixty-odd years. A public notice appeared in the early 1940's asking all mothers to be aware of the brand new daycare centre for their children which had been established for the purpose of allowing women to register for war work

Ro, I quite agree about the relationship between war and the need for 'all hands on deck', in fact, the fact that women went into supportive roles, spilling their 'emotional' guts as the men spilled their real ones on the battle field, underlines the differences in gender and the appropriateness of 'his' and 'her' roles re work and war and in general. The most important factor in our cultural sorting out of roles is 'balance'.

We should never allow ourselves to reach a condition where it is one sided.

I observe that aside from the war, feminism as a doctrine now persuades females that they 'should' work (it appears to me anyway) and not to join the workforce is some kind of social sin.

So, most women now work. But do we have balance ? Has it brought is more happiness ? I don't know about you, but the thought of working 38hrs to benefit only from say 10 of them, (the rest going toward expensive child care) is to me repulsive.

I think if there was less family income, housing prices would have to crumble, in line with purchasing power. Women would have more time to enjoy the delights of Child nurturing (when young) social involvement, home management and best of all, any kind of work from home job they care to think up, including running a home based business.

Thanx for pulling me up on the War thing, thats the beauty of such a forum as this, we often don't include important and relevant information which has bearing on the topic. It all helps :)

Shorbe: Nobody is blaming private schools. I’m simply suggesting that we fund the parents rather than the schools. The parents will decide how to spend the money. Most would spend it on schooling. Under the present system, the government allocates the money to private schools using a procedure that is open to political manipulation. Fund the parents directly and give them the choice.

DLC: Tax cuts are good but they provide a greater benefit to high income earners. Those in greatest need are probably in the lowest tax bracket.

BOAZ_David, everyone should be encouraged to find their own level. I am now working part-time, while my wife works full-time, having been part-time for 8 years. My wife is earning more than I did and this has freed up some of my time to get involved in some interesting contract work. Unfortunately Australia's tax/super/award systems are really not set up to suit this kind of flexibility, particularly trying to work around school holidays. I suspect that if I did the sums I would probably be better not having a regular job at all, just doing contracts, but that's a BIG scary step and one I am not prepared to take. I can understand any working mother's reluctance to give up work altogether.

I wouldn't call us frugal, but we only run one car, don't go overseas every year, don't smoke at all or drink (much), aren't real good consumers and aside from a mortgage we don't have any debt. I feel that we have found a reasonable balance between work and home, expenditure and income. Consumption of goods is not satisfying in itself, it is what you do with them that is important. Sharing a meal and a bottle of wine with friends is different from eating and drinking alone.

Hey groovers,
Did I miss something or was there absolutely no mention of the idea that whats best for the tin lid should influence the decisions regarding childcare?
Surely in the early years a biological parent (either one) should have some role in the childs development. Plonk 'em into daycare and gripe about spending too much on daycare.Hmmm.
Yes there are economic factors to consider, but are they really being considered at all?
How many daycares could be created if we redirected funds from all the silly military shenanigans, and a significant proportion of the silly terrorism shenanigans? If more people throw in the towel and stay at home to enjoy time with their developing kids, the kids develop better. It would free up heaps of employment making it harder for the IR nonsense to gain hold.
One of the great whinges of the student union movement is that VSU will affect womens education by affecting childcare. It should not be a compulsory thing to have to subsidise daycare for others. Those determined to go to uni will make their own arrangements, and the minorities will cry foul.
Kind of like the real world, most will make their own arrangements and some will want the government to provide everything.

Social systems have ususally determined how childrens have been raised wheither they where fuedal, tribal, medieval or contemporary -whatever, the modes have always differed buit kids have been cared for.

There was a brief moment of time when just like in Leave it to Beaver and reflected in the womens magazines of the 50's and sixties, mum wore an apron, made the kids lunches and Hoovered the house while the old man worked.

But that was really an anomaly in the history of childrearing - more kids have been brought up by wet nurses, nannies, grandparents and other members of the extended family than by their birth parents -

the mother had to return to the fields or the factory or the sweat shop so childrearing was delegated; alternatively they could afford to farm the little buggers out - not that far removed from how it is today.

Feminism has had little to do with it and the role that economics plays in the equation is now much the same as it was then - it has always been a determinant on how where and by whom chilldren are raised.

What has changed is the degree of social interconnectedness that allowed for children to be supported - again under the influence of economics - so to offset that we need public policy to support the kids some other way; Saunders approach is sound and rational.

Some take child rearing as their complete focus and good on them - many would like to but cant - some have dual agendas in their lives but are no worse the parent for it.

I think Peter Saunders suggestion that the money be given directly to the parents in preference to paying the money as a rebate does seem to have merit, but it does raise the question of just how much others, who don't have children, should subisidise those who do.

I would suggest that the cost of child-care, as well as the difficulties parents face in trying to access these services is yet another example of what has not been properly factored in when economists make their claims, as cited Peter Saunders in "Australia's Welfare Habit" that Australian living standards have more than doubled since the 1960's. (I have had more to say on this in another post in response to another article by Peter Saunders at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3737#12173).

The costly shambles that is the Australian child care industry precisely illustrates why some necessary services should not be left to the private sector.

How is it that obtaining and using child care services has become such a nightmare for many working parents in Australia, whilst a much less affluent country such as Cuba has been able to provide free 24-hours-per-day child care to all of its citizens for decades?