Why bother having a child at all, if it is going to be raised by someone else.

But no one should be asking those types of questions I suppose. Not politically correct.

If the author would like top of the range child care, then pay for it. Not only that, how about parents pay enough to provide a decent wage for the dreadfully low paid childcare workers who have the most abysmal conditions. Don't ask fellow citizens to subsidise your lifestyle choice.

Further, how about the parents spend some time with their children to give them the education that parents crave. Sometimes I wonder if some parents these days are abdicating their responsibility to the state in the form of Child Care, After School Care and Vacation care. It seems to me that some homes are merely a place where the children are fed, watered and sent off to sleep at night. Where's the time spent doing homework, having a talk, kicking a ball outside in the yard, taking the dog for a walk etc. What's more important the McMansion or a well-rounded child?

The issues raised about child care have now apparently extended into the wellbeing of children.

Respecting the human rights of children ought to come first and foremost. Legislating all the International Human Rights Law ratified by successive Australian Governments would support those whose responsibility it is to care for children.

Its fascinating from the perspective of someone who's never availed themselves of childcare, and almost abhors the thought of handing over very young children to someone I don't know, and whose values are unknown to me.

The best place to ensure the wellbeing of children, that is undoubtedly in their best interests, is at home with their parents and in the company of family and friends.

What is being sought in terms of staffing, simply serves to replicate the numerical relationship between parents and their children. It seeks to place an economic cost of properly caring for children. Yet there are no guarantees in this of efficiency or effectiveness. It is gambling with the lives of young people. It's specious to suggest that replacing parents with other people in the same numerical but not compassionate, loving proportions that reflect families' values, beliefs and standards, and then expect someone else to pay the cost. The decision to have children carries with it responsibilities, which necessarily include compromise and sacrifice so as to accommodate another young person into family life, and ultimately into society at large.

I wonder what people think the role of parenthood really is. I wonder if parenting has become second best to adults' needs, material gains, wealth accumulation and careers. I wonder if an unspoken idea has worked: that parents simply produce children for them to be handed over to others, like the State, to ensure the greatest level of conformity possible, so that they are far easier to control, regulate, discipline and bow willingly to authority in the process ceding all their rights and power to others.

Childcare is not in the best interests of or for the wellbeing of children, but for adults whose time and energy is distracted by other things.

How old are HRS and Zahira? Come down to today's world. Contrary to popular opinion it is not about McMansions. People in McMansions can afford a nanny to care for their children.

The author raised an important point. It is not just about giving parents money. I think this debate should also extend to children in lower, middle and upper primary school years. The success of a person's future is largely determined by the care and education in the early formative years.

After age 10 or so, you've generally missed the boat to alter the course of somebody's life.

it begins with the relation between ozzies.

if the other people on this continent are strangers and competitors, then all you have should be given to your own children.

if you regard the other people in this nation as your colleagues in a communal enterprise, then every child should be the responsibility of us all.

the first model is traditional in the rich, the second more characteristic of the poor. no surprises there.

until oz makes an overt commitment to one of these models, or some mixture, it's pointless to talk about childcare- the nuts and bolts need a political base to locate and direct funds.

Demos,

If the latter were to be the case, as I often find it to be amongst people in our wider community:-

- firstly, I would communicate directly with people considering giving up their children to other people for several hours a day to see if there was another way (but then many people in this Maleny district have previously seen there are better ways and changed their lifestyles, sometime dramatically, as we have done personally) to accommodate and embrace children into their family lives;

- secondly, see if there were ways to resolve a pressing need for childcare, like finding someone the family knew to support them by looking after the children;

- thirdly, I would be looking for or suggesting some form of non monetary trade for the care given by others in order to keep monetary costs to a minimum, except for out of pocket expenses;

- fourthly, the very last place I would look to was government or politicians to resolve what was actually a personal, or perhaps, community, issue.

In our family's case, we made a number of decisions before our first child was born and one of those was to sacrifice one income in order that a parent was home for our children. Later the single income was supplemented by a second, small home based business income. In our opinion, money, and material wealth had to become a poor second to the needs of our children.

The problem we have in Australia is that community has become a rarity and nuclear lives and housing, separates too many of us from each other, so that we don't communicate and don't seek community solutions, but wrongly look to government, which simply maintains the status quo of higher than necessary taxation by government at our expense to keep everybody's needs satisfied.