While my own children are way past needing child care, a friend of mine has several small children and is dismayed by the huge increase in child care costs over the past decade. So much so that even as a higher earning professional, it is barely worth going back to work.

In our time, we were fortunate enough to have a neighbour with children of a similar age who was not working, and she was happy to take our children for the few unscheduled days a week my wife worked, in return for some small remuneration. This today would be illegal, as our neighbour without the required qualifications, insurance and paper work would not be considered fit to look after our children (and I guess her children.)

David Leyonhjelm made an appeal to completely deregulate the child care industry which was immediately rejected. I however, understand why some regulation is required, but can't understand why a UNI degree is required to look after a maximum of 4 children.

Any push to get women back into the work place is a waste of time if it costs more to put children in child care than is earned by working.

Your thoughts?

All this b/s goes against bringing in a baby sitter for a couple of hours.

As I look at many of the jobs that people do and the way they perform their responsibilities I wonder what case they could make for earning more than the lowest staff member in a child care centre.

Not meaning to be rude, but why should (say) and accountant, a news reader, the law-trained bureaucrat in government, or back bench politician expect more $$ and superior conditions to someone in child care?

Then again, why should most of the career politicians in the Senate, Party men and Party women all and never an original thought among them, imagine they are worth more - a multiple in straight out pay alone - than a child care worker?

Just going that small step further to ask why the bloody hell do we fork out the $1+million pa that it takes to keep a member of the federal Senate? Tot that up for the entire Senate and then do a comparison with childcare centres. You could close the federal Senate for a day, a week or even forever and not only would no-one die because of it, but the community might be better off as a result.

We have lost all relativity. Of course parents, mothers & fathers and those who are required to take over their responsibilities for them are performing complex tasks of high responsibility and urgency. Can that be always said of members of the federal Senate though?

'Any push to get women back into the work place is a waste of time if it costs more to put children in child care than is earned by working. '

far better for husband and children if she spends a few years at home. They should be of more concern than money. Also frees up the job market.

If the expense of childcare forces mothers to stay home with their children then the costs are justified. I'm with runner on that one.

I WATCHED MUCH OF IT UNFLD
AT ONE STAGE/one guy run\40 pecent/of chld care/via a nEW-way
john howard somehow paid for/it

the scam worked so well the bankers busted the dude/thAT thunk it/and the govt that legislated it/moved on/and it ecame normal

its nanny state
but dont we all deserve better
i disagree about tying one partner/to te home
but when mum went to work/thats when the jobs got shorter and the hours longer and the cost of everything changed/it was a co=incidence/no doudt

war revealed that one who know
guiding many who never touched a spaner/or a rivit gun\is all the skill base most jobs require/anyone can do it/child care could be done/like schools/but then ya need a full time nappy changer/and nappies by the ton

boy look what the nanny state/has done
no teenager can look after a kid
they need phd/nothing less

EACH AND EVERYONE VEXED
with/plenty of hexed debt

SM I asked some knowledgeable females why the child care centres are so expensive. They immediately blamed the councils, and told me that the majority of child care centres are local council run.

The girls also mentioned child to carer ratios and the need for a full time registered nurse. They threw up some numbers...30 kids $80ea a day, is $12,000 a week....take out 5 carers, 1 nurse, rent and other fixed costs...is there money left...I don’t know....but the girls reckon the council sets the market rates.

As for the privateers, the fixed costs of running any business in Australia has steadily grown in the last 30 years; from utilities to rent all consume a greater percentage of your incomings. We have a pay forward tax scheme that takes capital out of the market and a nanny state social mentality that has made it illegal for a neighbour to mind a few kids every day.

SOG,

You see that is where the problem starts. In a junior school there are nearly 30 kids in a class with 1 teacher and in the first years, one teacher's aide. There is not necessarily a nurse, but someone trained in first aid, with contact details for medical assistance if required.

Two trained carers and an assistant to do the heavy lifting and the paperwork would be sufficient and would cut the wages costs by over 50% and probably the fees by 25%, making work possible for tens of thousands of women.

Have a look at the basic business model, and you will find some clues as to why child care is so expensive.

Firstly, it is a very labour-intensive operation. And unlike our "top private schools", they do not have the luxury of economies of scale. Their charges are less likely to conform to rules that limit their behaviours, and there are numerous opportunities for "events" that require the dedicated effort of one, sometimes two staff to rectify. Very few pupils at top private schools wee on the floor, for example. Or not a great deal, anyway.

This is also why the ratio differs from junior schools. The kids have started to learn the basics of self-discipline, and are therefore easier to control en masse.

You also have the demand factor. Any responsible parent is going to ask, "what is your carer/child ratio"?, and will almost certainly favour the higher statistic - which will naturally cost more.

The "off-market" opportunities exist, but are limited. It requires from the purchaser a level of integration with the community that tends to be at the opposite end of the social spectrum to the "busy professional". A case of who-you-know, rather than what-you-know. These informal operations tend to be small enough - three, four kids, tops - to stay under the radar of officialdom, and are usually highly satisfactory to all concerned.

At one time a sister in law was a "Family Daycare" lady.

They & their homes were vetted for safety, & they were given a bit of training. They had back up assistance available, if required.

These ladies were usually mothers with young kids at home, & were allowed to "mind" a maximum of 4 kids along with their own.

It worked for her, giving her some extra income enabling her to stay at home with her young ones. It also worked for the parents who's kids got a quality home environment, at a lower cost to the parents than formal daycare.

My son had 2 family day carers, both of whom he loved.

I wonder if the fact this system was too hard to unionise could have been it's problem?

Pericles,

While I agree that there is more labour needed for a group of say 30 kids from 2-5yrs, the need for 7 highly qualified carers is well over the top. Two well trained carers, and 2 unskilled helpers should be more than sufficient.

Recently I travelled to South Africa and stayed with a friend whose wife is a dentist. I happened to see where she left her child for daycare. It was a small privately run facility with 15 children run by woman that was an ex kindergarten teacher with 2 unskilled assistants, with an enclosed yard, an area with educational toys, and a place for kids to sleep. The cost per child for 4 days a week was $200 per month. The play centre had been running for more than a decade with no problems and the kids loved their time there, and my friends could certainly afford a lot more if they wanted.

Ignoring the difference in labour costs, what is wrong with this model? why do we feel the need to regulate child care to the point where many that need it cannot afford it.

As a parent I would say that my limit would be three ages 1-3, and five at a stretch with none of the usual tummy, ear and respiratory bugs in evidence.

However feminists are emphatic that it is only 'quality' of time that matters: their feminism-informed advice therefore enabling any idiot to mind 20 or more, like piglets in pens and Maccas delivery as required (saves the feminist mum from wasting time in that drive through for their dinner). Read a book? Nah, leave the idiot box blaring.

Fact is, stuff up those early years and society pays later. In some cases, not so many years later either.

Is the main problem that parents do not want to pay for the extent and quality of care they don't have the time and probably not the inclination either, to deliver themselves?

OTB, if we paid everyone the same, where do we set the pays, at the top, the bottom, or the middle.

Then, if you get paid the same for a low skilled job, what's the point in advanced education?

As for child care fees, they're a joke. Always have been, always will be.

It's just further proof that the whole system is arse up, because if you don't work you can have your kids in CC for free, paid for by the ones who do work.

rehctub,

I am not suggesting that everyone be paid the same. Some comparisons are useful though in the hope of dragging this discussion out of the usual rut.

As many would realise, the government has no money of its own. All that money is taken compulsorily from the Australian taxpayer. I would like to see value for money always being obtained for those taxpayers' dollars.

Consumers of government benefits need to realize that there is no bottomless bucket of 'guvvy' money. When they demand more and enhanced services such as for child care, they must also realise that the money has to be taken from somewhere else.

When parents demand a superior service to what they would likely be providing at home themselves and to top it off a risk-free environment for their children they must be honest about that and frank about where they reckon savings can be made elsewhere.

Why would most workers imagine that their own work, and I gave some examples earlier, should always be paid more than the *professionals responsible for the superior, high-skilled, risk-free services they are demanding for their children? Why do they imagine that a child care worker could manage a higher number of children and better than they themselves might be capable of?

*professionals - accredited, how else to meet the applicable Standards, government regulations and insurers' requirements?

To cut to the chase, of course parents should be paying for what they are demanding. A similar example might be the person who demands expensive traffic calming in her street but moans about increases in Council rates.

While some politicians appeal to populism while in opposition, or as a protest party (Greens), it is very different when they are required to balance a federal Budget where there are very few 'discretionary' expenditure dollars available.

Of course childcare at the standard and availability expected and demanded by parents is hugely expensive. I am only surprised that so many imagine that their own routine, precedent-driven and most likely 'all care and no responsibility' jobs are worth more. How unrealistic is that?

I still need to have it explained to me why women on supporting parents benefits, that is, paid by the taxpayer to mind their own kids, should have any access to child care.

If there is some reason they should at least pay back the money they were paid to mind their kids, for the same number of days.

Because they feel entitled Hasbeen and because they are very likely warring against their extended family* who might help if they reciprocated in some way.

*extended family - especially his (PAS).

Ok onthebeach, so tell me, why should one mother who earns say $120K per year, pay more to have her child looked after than one on say $30K per year?

After all, it's the same staff doing the same job and the child receives the same level of care.

This whole rob from the rich to look after the poor system we have is the catilyst of the right of entitlement issue so many today rely on. It's time they be wiened off the tax payer tit.

If you really do want a fair system, Children, regardless of where they are from should be treated equally.

recthub I have to agree, I get some Parenting payment at the moment that tops up the income of my hubby. I am not employed because I choose to spend my time at home with my kids. But I got a letter from Centrelink to say that I am eligible for 24hrs of childcare for my son who isn't yet in school. Essentially that means I can sit at home on my butt and receive parenting payment while the government pays for my children to be in childcare. I think the Government should subsidize childcare based on the amount of hours someone works. Regardless of how much they are earning at the time. That way the people working and paying taxes are the ones getting the benefits. Also, it may help free up the childcare system a little from the children who are there to give mummy a break.

Bec you're so right in what you say.

While I like to believe you're a great mum, there are losers out there who don't work, yet get to drop their often unwanted kids off so they can either party or hang out with their other teenage friends who don't have kids. it's been a joke for years.

BTW, it's not the government that provided you with that child care service, it's the high income earners who not only pay for these kids, but also pay huge amounts to have their own cared for, all so they can go off and earn the dollars to pay the taxes in the first place.

It's a crazy mixed up world this entitlement world we are now trying to dismantle.

I respect the fact that while you may not use this service as intended, you at least appreciate the efforts some go to to provide it.

My son has only ever been to child care for 5hrs. While I was helping his father go to post surgery check ups. I don't need the service, as far as I am concerned it is intended to provide care so that people can work. Which provides government revenue.
It really annoys me when people have the attitude that they should receive more for doing less. Whilst a salary of $150,000 may sound really nice people forget that a massive chunk of that is taken in tax. Personally I think it sucks that the Government thinks a Lawyer in Melb should work all day to pay for me to have free time without the kids that I bought into this world.