Health Dept moves to clarify 'free' child care plan
By Robyn Skinner
Limiting the number of children under the care of registered providers is not punitive but a matter of safety and the child's development.
That's according to David Kendell, Chief Environmental Health Officer, who faced angry child care providers at Town Hall meetings last month as he tried to explain Government's Child Care Allowance initiative.
The allowance provides $800 per child per month to families making less than $70,000 a year. Confusion stemmed from Government's reference to the initiative as "free". Daycare providers questioned whether they were limited to charging the $800 provided.
Social Rehabilitation Minister Dale Butler addressed the issue, confirming that qualifying families will have to pay anything above $800 charged by their child's care provider.
Although providers are limited to the number of children they can care for, they are still able to set their own fees, he explained.
Mr. Kendell said the Department is encouraging people to contact them should they need help abiding by the limit.
"If the child care providers have quality daycare in the interests of the children at heart they will strive to comply," he said. "On a case-by-case basis we have been working with child care providers to facilitate compliance.
"We encourage all who wish to set up a child care business to contact us so that we can offer advice and assistance. Please contact Environmental Health. The number is 278-4976."
Explaining why the limit is imposed, he pointed to the Department of Health's role which falls under the Children's Act 1998, and states that they must ensure the operator and staff of daycare centres are qualified.
They must also ensure the centres are safe, of good quality and appropriate to the needs of the children – and smaller groups means lower risk of infection, according to Mr. Kendell.
Jennifer Attride-Stirling, Health Promotion Coordinator of the Department of Health, added that ensuring safety with caregivers was much like ensuring it with restaurants.
She said: "The 3:1 ratio for infants is an international standard that is in place for the safety of babies.
"Restaurants don't complain that our hygiene regulations are running them out of business; they know that they are in place to ensure the safety of the public.
"Likewise, restaurants and bars understand that the indoor-smoking ban is to protect the health of employees and patrons. By the same token, the three to one ratio is in place to protect babies. Importantly, the ratio is a long-term investment.
"For example, the hazard with hygiene is primarily acute (food poisoning), but the child ratios protect against both acute hazards (physical harm, abuse and neglect), and sub-optimal chronic outcomes (lack of quality care, weak relationships, lack of quality experiences, poor learning), which would have an impact on children's social, cognitive, emotional and psychological development in the longer term.
"The three to one ratio is for long-term investment not just short-term insurance.
"We need parents and the public to appreciate the value of investing in the future of their babies."
