I think this debate ignores one salient point, that many will be at the mercy of the system with no choice, thanks to various welfare changes introduced by the last government and largely maintained by this one that make women go out to work except if they're 'kept' that is. Perhaps the danger here is that industry, particularly the exploitative employers of semi and unskilled workers such as retail, hospitality, property/business services desire thousands more sycophantic drones, childcare standards may be dropped to facilitate cheaper child care for disadvantaged women so they can serve industry, rather than family, first.

And consign taxpayers to paying for their brats to be looked after so they can do whatever they like. I know many who get childcare paid who don't work at all. At our cost.

How does that work, and why? I'm sick of it.

This time not only are we paying the child care costs but they want us to pay to keep the damned child care centre running. But we won't own it. Why not? We'll be paying for everything, it's ours.

Do these people understand the word "parent"? It means you take responsibility for your child or children. You pay for them and you raise them.

If they are going to act like this then remove the kids from them totally. And have them sterislised before they do it agan. Anything less extreme they do not understand.

Joel's article is well thought out. I would like to address the situation of profit making childcare centres. Surely making profit and providing quality education and care are antithetical concepts. ABC were infamous for squandering their profits in using strong arm and standover tactics. Our government apparently supports these business practices because they then gifted the ABC with 22million dollars...not as a loan...was it a reward? Why should we expect any different when Julia Guillard was not even aware of any regulations in the childcare industry?
Surely not for profit centres (of the ilk ABC decimated in the quest for the mighty dollar) actually provide more quality care and educational opportunities for children. They at least esteem children for their own value rather than the dollar value they might represent.
The government would have been better off using that money to support not for profit centres...and using the opportunity to allow ABC to die from the consequences of their own actions.
I would like to see the government showing their integrity by supporting not for profit centres in the same way they have chosen to support ABC Learning Centres. Otherwise all we have learnt from this debarcle is that the government does not even care to research the companies they give money to... and we all may bow to the God of the mighty dollar!

Sofisu, I totally agree with everything you have said...

Why the government didnt buy out ABC I will never know.

actually -
I think I might go and borrow copious amounts of money, open a string of businesses, get a large bulk of the australian population dependent on me, buy out all the smaller businesses in my industry, skim all the profits, hit the wall, then wait for the government to bail me out.

I had some relations who had a childcare centre - it was going ok until they heard that ABC were intending on building a new centre a block away from theirs. They contacted ABC hoping they would buy their already established centre, but no - it was cheaper to build their own and send my relations business broke.

WHy would it be cheaper to build a centre, well, for one thing ABC owned the only major supplier of childcare centre equipment so obviously they could purchase everything a whole lot cheaper than the non-ABC centres.

ABC should have been left alone as a business and allowed to go bust. The government should of then reopened the centres as a non profit services.

I wonder where that scumbag Eddie Groves is?