6 March 2006

ACT Child Care the most expensive in the country

| johnboy
Join the conversation

The Canberra Times is reporting that we can add the country’s most expensive child care to the list of reasons not to want to live in the ACT.

If the government is responsible for offering free education (and defacto childcare) from k-12 why aren’t they also running free childcare? I imagine the long term economic benefits would be immense.

Join the conversation

All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments

As a parent to be, I waited until my wife and I had the combined fiscal resources to bear children. I would expect that any couple would make every reasonable attempt to do the same, and not just root each other silly until the government gives them $4,000 for a plasma telly.

My unborn child already has a cot, a pram, several tonnes of toys, clothes and a baby seat. I reiterate, My unborn child.

I certainly don’t categorise myself within the same category of people that have no resources, and have to make critical life decisions such as should I buy a pint, a packet of cigarettes, or some baby food?

They are a different kettle of fish, so while one side of the argument is accurate when pitched at one social group, it is also accurate when pitched at the other (in appropriate terms).

On the one hand, you should be allowed to have children, on the other, if you can’t look after them, they should be relocated to somebody who can.

RG, friends can babysit without a permit (however this is outside legal circles and a public liability case would fall on it’s heels), but as soon as money changes hands (eg ‘here’s some money, look after my child’) that’s when the insurance, police checks, health…. comes into it.

I think you can do it if you aren’t receiving payment. Sounds like a good idea. Although my problem is afterschool care. I pay a hell of a lot of money for 90 minutes a day.

In any case, I think there are regulations that might stop that sort of thing. You know, insurance, police checks, health standards and general accountability for looking after such a large gaggle of kids.

I would kiddie pool if all the other parents I know weren’t using childcare.

Unfortunately, most workplaces don’t allow people to take one day off a week for about five years running (until the kid is old enough to go to pre-school, anyway).

You’ve heard of car-pooling – try kid-pooling!

I was talking to some friends about the cost of Child Care, and the pressure on wages etc. Now none of us have children but from an economic standpoint we were wondering why 5 parents in the same location don’t get together and sit each others children one day a week 8.30-5.30 so they have the option to work the other 4 days? Wouldn’t this mean you get weekly child care for only 9 hours of sitting the others kids once a week?

This is just a general idea and as I said I don’t have children so can one of the parents tell me why this sort of thing isn’t done? What are the problems I am not seeing, apart from finding 4 other parents you can trust with your kids?

ORL, my youngest goes to childcare. What she does there is actually a set program created by Early Childhood teachers to further develop her social skills, gross and fine motor skills, oral skills and comprehension skills.

There’s more to childcare than apples and oranges.

And considering childcare workers are paid so little, we should all be bloody thankful that regardless of the monetary amount, they do the job because they love working with children.

Let’s just copy Logans Run (not the end of the movie) just so bonfire doesn’t have to pay taxes that “might” (given that there are many people in Australia paying taxes) go to CCB.

Let’s lower the age to 25 – that way no one will have time to have children, or incur a HECS debt etc.

Don’t forget that we’re “aborting ourselves out of existance” as it is! 😉

It gets real tricky when you start approaching services as user pays. My taxes cover creating & maintaining roads all the way to Tuggeranong. I only drive around the inner suburbs – I should only have to pay a fraction! (etc.)

I guess the debate here is what services should be “user pays”. The classical argument for public utility is that the government should provide things that are beneficial to the majority of society but have little (or negative) economic incentive (i.e. you can’t make a quick buck providing cheap bus fares). IMHO affordable childcare falls into this category.

Let the flames rage on!

And under the bonfire social plan there will be no children at all in our society in 20 years time.

Unless we send all the women home from the workforce (tricky electoral proposition there mate) mothers will need to work.

For a healthy society we want to at least get reproduction up to the replacement rate. The current system punishes people with children.

That needs to change.

Personally i have no children and no immediate plans to have them.

Which doesn’t mean I don’t think as a society we need to find better ways to raise them because expecting mums to stay home doesn’t work any more.

Children are more a contribution to society than a lifestyle choice. Have some and find out.

Your assetions bear no merit beyond your own nose bonfire, which is of course your eternal centerpeice. A problem for you, considering this big group activity is why you can get your smokes when you want, drive your high technology car on roads built by other peoples children.

Bonfire. YOu support social welfare? You do realise that is the dole and single mother’s benefits and OH MY GOD childcare subsidy?

im sorry, i think my point is being missed:

having children is a lifestyle choice.

why must i fund your choice when you have the money to do so.

Im all for spending public money on worthwhile things including social welfare, health, education, housing, public infrastructure etc.

but just tell me why i should effectively subsidise someone elses childcare costs ?

its nonsensical and leads to a general ‘see a cow milk it – gimme more free gravy’ mentality.

which leads to a second and unrelated point – yes women should stay at home and raise their children. or should we just hand them to commercial child carers for social engineering?

its called committment. to your children.

i wish i could find that leunig cartoon ‘Thoughts of a Baby Lying in a Child Care Centre’ which summed it up nicely.

And what are you really paying for?
Some chick to feed your kid apples and oranges while you are at work?

Lucky I don’t have that “want a child gene” going on so I’ll never have to worry!

Oh and bonfire, we are talking about the baby boomers, who are now “known” for their lack of family needs.

Sure their parents babysat their children for them and that was ok. But now? Most baby boomers don’t want to do that, so parents have NO choice but to 1) have mum stay at home and barely survive on one wage or 2) both parents work and the child goes into childcare.

People can’t live on one wage anymore – unless one earns over $60K on their own.

Try living off $400 a fortnight with 3 children, paying rent, food and utilities. We had NO extras – an extra (if you want to call it that) was a 70c lemonade icypole for the kids.

I went back to work.

True Thumper but when your husband is away with the navy, you have little choice but to take carer’s leave when your children are sick.

I normally use my 2 weeks sick leave for the kids, however, now that I have bronchitis and asthma, I have had to use it for myself – the first time in 3 yrs.

Society still “expects” the woman to drop everything to take care of the kids. What about the father taking a day off once in a while for the sick children? That way the people in the office could “marvel” at his nuturing attitude as opposed to “attacking” the mother who is expected to do it.

So I’m not the only one who saw Logans Run? Good-O

bonfire, if you don’t feed childcare with your taxes, who is going to grow up to pump your gas and clean your office?

That we do this whole civilisation thing as a group to ensure we keep making babies effectively obviously escapes you. But thats ok, were your conceit an actual thing I could wade slowly through it, so I understand why you feel the urge to say these things.

I think Bonfire sits in the “Government isn’t allowed to spend money on anything”-camp. Oh yeah…except police, and places to lock people up and “rehabilitate” them.

I’m reluctant to say it, but sometimes you gotta spend money to make it. More mums out working = more money being spent = more vibrant local economy.

Plus, we’re in the middle of a skills shortage, so I think potentially putting half the workforce out of the picture for a few years of their lives isn’t the best idea.

Yep, they were all euthenased at 30. Good plan! I like it a lot.

Bonfire, I don’t think my husband will support me. He’s a bit busy with his girlfriend. Anyway, according to Peter Costello, YOU are the one letting the country down. Everyone should be having more children.

LG, sleeping well at night knowing she did as she was told. And chortling at Bonfire’s dinosaur attitude because it’s funny.

What’s that movie called where the people who are a certain age die so as to not put “pressure” on the rest of society? (Logan’s Run???)

Perhaps the point isn’t that children are a “lifestyle choice”, we should introduce mandatory euthanasia for anyone over 45yo.

Right bonfire?

lg that may be your solution, but just explain why i should fund your childs care with my tax dollars. you gave birth you should bear all costs.

do i get a tax break for my lifestyle choices ?

perhaps a coal rebate to run the stanley steamer ?

the problem with these ridiculous subsidies is that once you get on the teat, you never want to get off.

why cant nana babysit the little darling. or stay home until the child is of school age whiel your husband supports you.

sure, there may be a few sacrifices like one less trip to maccas or one less dvd or whatever else you blow your discretionary income on, but while you have the bucks to spare why should i subsidise your lifestyle choice.

The problem bonfire is that society wants people to make that lifestyle choice.

In which case more incentives would appear to be needed.

Perhaps you would prefer the parents stayed at home and lived off the government?

Yes it is a “lifestyle choice” – and their taxes, when they are older will pay for the many things you will need as you get older.

It’s a circular argument.

having children is a lifestyle choice. if you cant cope with paying chidcare fees, get a vasectomy.

shit.. the canberra times is reporting something ?

I delivered pizza to a house on friday night that had one of those “complimentary” CT issues sittin on the doorstep. It was yellowed and old, and been there since the Friday before.
Even free, noone reads it.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.