doi.org/10.1017/S1035077200030091
Article type: Original Research
1 January 1992
Volume 17 Issue 1
doi.org/10.1017/S1035077200030091
Article type: Original Research
1 January 1992
Volume 17 Issue 1
Available, Accessible, High Quality Child Care in Australia: Why we haven’t moved very far.
Jacqueline Hayden
Jacqueline Hayden
CITATION: Hayden J. (1992). Available, Accessible, High Quality Child Care in Australia: Why we haven’t moved very far. Children Australia, 17(1), 838. doi.org/10.1017/S1035077200030091
Abstract
In a recent article in Children Australia (16:2, 1991) Moore points out how our system of social services and community work reinforces traditional concepts of family (especially mother) responsibility for the care of children with disabilities. This same attitude reflects a fundamental ambivalence in our society towards the provision of state assisted child care. Like care for the disabled, out-of-home care for young children is assumed to rest within the private sphere, so that state assistance in any form becomes gratefully accepted as a generous gift.
Child care in Australia moved into the political realm with the enactment of the Child Care Act in 1972. This legislation described the conditions under which the Commonwealth Government would distribute funds for capital expenses, and provide some wage supplements to non-profit groups delivering child care services in formal centre settings. Since that time, promises of increased Commonwealth funding to meet increasing demand have become more and more ambitious – 20,000 spaces were promised in 1984; 30,000 in 1988; and by 1990, the promise had expanded to 78,000 new child care spaces to be funded by the Labor Party. As it turned out, many of the 78,000 spaces promised during the 1990 election campaign were not ‘new’ at all, but represented already existing private spaces, now made eligible for funding by a change in policy. The bulk of the spaces meanwhile were targeted for after-school care (much less expensive to fund), when research clearly indicated the dearth of spaces and critical need for infant care (very expensive to fund).