[purplekitty]

PurpleKitty, spinning a highly personal agenda towards its inevitable end has very little to do with valid concerns and a lot to do with presumptions;

"low paid"
"suss"
"recently arrived migrants"
"scary possibility"
"seriously exploit women"
"no meal breaks"
"black economy"
"cash in hand"
"surrogate wife"
"lack of engagement"
"limited ability to meet developmental needs"

In Eva's view, the sky really is falling. The LNP is not even in government yet.

If these concerns did not have some validity I would agree with you. It has nothing to do with which side of politics has suggested it. Are they untrue and fanciful?

[Livsh]

While I would like to say 'i agree' the idea of agreeing with ANYTHING that comes out of Abbot's head is repugnant!

Edited to add...Eva Cox's article is about as lack witted and ill-informed as Tony Abbot!

This post has been edited by Livsh: 29/03/2012, 04:43 PM

[purplekitty]

Edited to add...Eva Cox's article is about as lack witted and ill-informed as Tony Abbot!

No, not possible.

[sqawk]

Im not sure whether the concerns regarding nannies doing other tasks is necessarily a concern. The previous poster who had concerns re the nanny doing "cooking for the children, cleaning up after the children, children's laundry, driving the children around..." I think most child care centres do the first 2, esp cooking/preparing meals, I know some LDC where children have all 3 meals and snacks provided. They also certainly clean up after the children, and some will wash clothes etc that get dirty during the day etc.

Obviously the system could be rorted and some people may then choose to have a "nanny" that basically does cleaning and laundry all day but I think some safeguards in the system could limit this substantially. To start with the system prob should only be for children <4 or 5, perhaps it could be limited to families with 2 or more children (or nanny share etc). I also think by bringing in a rebate, a lot more families would use a nanny and nannies would be able to be choosier who they worked for, and would prob avoid families that expected excessive cleaning/household tasks.

For the record I have a nanny 3 day/week for my 2.5yo and 1yo. I expect very little housework (except for meal prep/serving, cleaning up after meals, tidying the toys at the end of the day) and as a consequence my nanny spends most of the day playing with, reading to, doing craft with and taking to playgroup or park my children. They get a fantastic experience and that is the most important thing for me. A rebate would be great and as childcare places are very hard to get in many places, is prob a very viable option for increasing participation in the workforce.

[kadoodle]

I think the expansion of LDC and home-based CC is much easier to regulate and cost-effective. I haven't read the Cox article (she gets up my nose), but I feel that subsidising nannies may look good but be financially untennable.

When DH and I only had 2 children and both worked long hours, often encompassing overnight shifts, a nanny was a necessity. But the idea that our professional, middle class lifestyle be propped up by the taxes of boilermakers and waitresses is a bit galling.

A subsidised scheme which is means tested for working class, disadvantaged, return to work or isolated families where both parents (or the sole parent) works shifts has potential. But that's not the votes TA is chasing, is it? This is a vote grab for those who want more middle class welfare and the cheek of him doing it is beyond obvious.

[minidiamond]

As someone who's never used/needed childcare but will in the next 2 years, I have one main question.

Is a nanny much more expensive than day care ? Ie. can people on low incomes afford it, even with subsidies ? If the answer is yes, they can, then yes, I'm for it.

By my understanding (sorry uneducated thus far), LDC is maybe $50-60 per day and there's a 50% rebate ? And a nanny is say $25 per hour ?

But if the cost of a nanny is simply out of reach of low or even medium income earners then it shouldn't be introduced. And does the new proposal include regulation of the nannying industry ? If so, (which it should), won't that cost a bomb ?

[Peevish]

I totally disagree with Eva Cox. Her whole argument is centred on the idea that nannies are poorly qualified and exploited. She hasn't provided any evidence for this being the case, it is simply a broad concern that because someone can afford a nanny they must be exploiting them. That's right, all us nanny users are nothing but exploiters.

Not once in her article does she examine the benefit for the child of having quality in-home care or in fact any evidence about the effect of daycare on children's wellbeing. It's all about the exploitation. And as for her argument that long daycare centres offering extended hours are the solution where parents work long hours. Sure Eva, I'd love to see how happy my children are when I collect them at 8pm in the evening. I think they would love to spend 13+ hours in a daycare centre.

[bellb]

I agree with it, especially for those with younger children, say 3-12 months returning to work. I think that age group need 1 on 1 care more than socialisation, and at the moment very few mothers can afford this.

If you have to return to work when they are that young I think this is a great option.

[Gangnam Style]

Apparently this is to come from the "existing budget envelope" that child care rebate etc already comes from. How exactly is he going to manage that without cutting someone else's service?

[purplekitty]

I totally disagree with Eva Cox. Her whole argument is centred on the idea that nannies are poorly qualified and exploited. She hasn't provided any evidence for this being the case, it is simply a broad concern that because someone can afford a nanny they must be exploiting them. That's right, all us nanny users are nothing but exploiters.

I don't think anyone is suggesting the vast majority of people who use nannies are exploiting them but regulation is required to make sure they are adequately qualified and paid with appropriate conditions in a subsidised scheme.
I've seen here and in the US (where labour is poorly regulated) nannies being taken advantage of.