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.

Derek@Booroobin, as you are admirably fully focussed on your children and one gave up work, maybe the mother of the children, that person is no longer paying into superannuation, you've forgotten old age.

What happens at the other end, after child rearing? The partner who 'gave up' work outside the home reduces capability to earn a reasonable income for his/herself and reduces security in older age. Or are the children then expected to be grateful for the 'sacrifice' and take in mum or dad as the case may be?

I made the mistake of being a stay at home mum after my first child was born. When my then husband thought he could do much better with a woman who was 'more ambitious' it sure left us when he left for greener pastures, with a much, much lower standard of living then if I had continued working and made use of child care.

I have a teenage daughter. I teach her that under no circumstances should she have an expectation that any man will be willing to support her. Women have the babies and will have to take full responsibility for that fact, for themselves and their children. A man willing and happy to contribute is a bonus. I was very fortunate that my ex made very little difficulty paying what he was supposed to for his son.

Before anybody thinks I am bitter or resentful, I am not. I am very happily (re)married. The fact remains, that nowadays, women are expected to make their own way, and so they should.

Yvvon,
“How old are HRS”

If you are age prejudiced, then what age would you prefer. I can give whatever age you prefer.

If someone is paying tax, then they should have some say in how their money is being spent, and it is now questionable when someone is having their children raised by someone else, and then another person has to pay for it.

There can come a time when people have to work longer and longer hours, to pay more and more tax, and are getting less and less time to spend with their own children.

I think we are at that time right now, and the government surplus we currently have can easily dissapear in a few years with an eventual decline in the resources sector, which then means increased taxes, and more time has to be spent in the workplace.

But I know that the best time I spent with my children was when they were very young.

As HRS says -
'If someone is paying tax, then they should have some say in how their money is being spent, and it is now questionable when someone is having their children raised by someone else, and then another person has to pay for it'

This is the more relevant issue. Why should someone pay at all for someone else's kids?

The author of the article says - 'In a prosperous country such as Australia, the wellbeing of children must be front and centre of all policy developments.'

Justice should be at the front and centre of all policy developments. It is much better to have a just society than a society full of kids paid for by taxpayers who want their taxes spent on things that everyone can benefit from. People who have children seem to think it is their god-given right to have other people help pay for them. Then they winge and complain when not enough is spent. Having children is an economic decision as much as any other and the burden should be on the person who decides to have kids. Why should someone on thirty thousand dollars a year be paying for the child care of someone on a million dollars a year? If you want to educate children properly you might start with showing them what justice means.

Having kids is just one option among many that people have in the way they spend their time and money. It is not better or worse than any other option. If you make taxpayers pay for this then why not for all the other options. I might like to travel or I might like expensive cars where is my government subsidy for that.

yvonne wrote '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.'

This is incorrect...first six years of childs life is emotionally formative years...childrens naturally loving depended bond with their parents is the foundation...one or both parents missing meaningfully in childs life in this period and you get a emotional/'dynamically responsive feelings to each moment' normal mechanisms becoming maladapted...

so if the parliament wanted to force the government to do right by our children, then the most effective step to produce healthy children and with it a healthy dynamic society is to increasingly support the mother and father to be at home with their young children.

After age of 6, when childs sense of increasing independence starts developing, with their parents in close vicinity for security and confidence...curious energy drives their education and development...its natures way and we should find ways to work with this and augment it...

But the most destructive effect on the child is psychological attack by one of their parents for oppressive and dominating control of childs mind and (and suppress soul) behaviour...yes keep that up to age of 10 and beyond and you will have a broken child or 'robot'...for here the child has no known way to escape, like a scared animal being totured in a small cage, where can the child run to when all their natural instints is to run to their dependent parent when threatened...but its the parent who is traumatizing the child...

Sam

yep, there's way too much government in oz, derek. i'd do away with all of it, if i could persuade ozzies to run their nation democratically. no visible progress, but nagging passes the time and is cheap.

on the more localized question of child care, i wonder if we shouldn't be forming 'extended families' of 6 to 20ish adults and associated sprogs. some could look after kids while others pursue income. and change roles as convenient. no personal experience with this, but i have read that the kibbutzs in israel during the 1920's and 30's ran like this, and worked well.

trouble is, even if a good idea, setting it up in a suburb might be too hard.

Yvonne,

How has it turned out?

Well, the home occupation of my wife (ceramic art) has now supported our family for a few years. My wife was one of the Founders of an art gallery, Peace of Green, which has managed successfully as an unincorporated collective of artists for some 13 years.

13 years after the birth of our first of five sons I left the comfortable, but not ethical, world of banking (after some 22 years) to found an independent democratic school with parents, teachers and young people. I am proud to say that I was a continuously (annually, by students and staff) elected (by secret ballot) Staff of the School.

We downsized and downsized, financially underwrote the school as necessary, have no personal debt, no real estate, own what we have, live simply and aim for a sustainable life. We expect to work for as long as we can. I'm in the process of establishing an organic farm.

The Queensland Labor Government saw to it that their power and complete disregard for our human and financial investment and our human rights, was greater than our passion and the enormous benefits to our children of learning and growing in a safe, just and peaceful democratic place of real life learning. They shut down an education enterprise, stopped the voluntary efforts of staff and interrupted learning that so benefitted young people of all ages, including those that the State rejected from their own schools after labeling them and taking away their self-esteem. We're still paying costs arising from the dismissal of a Supreme Court action. But that battle's not over.

As your nom de plume suggests, Demos, democracy in community can happen when the people want it and have the time to invest. It takes hard work, but the rewards are immense. Our learning community proved it worked, particularly when it was separated from gross government interference, and was self funded. I hope participatory democracy evolves, and communities make their own decisions (like Massachusetts Town Meetings), but always protecting and upholding the rights of individuals to be free and responsible.