on 10-03-2014 01:38 PM
on 12-03-2014 12:32 PM
@just_me_karen wrote:
Meanwhile his 3000 pw week house is unused.
Never let the truth or facts get in the way of a slander.
The house was rented for RUDD by the dept, Abbott told the dept not to lease it but they did for RUDD.... A labor dept renting a house for a labor PM and you now blame Abbott...... yea right.
Also fact, they, the dept has off loaded the lease....
Facts for you..
It has emerged the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet signed a 12-month lease on a house in August, during the caretaker period.
UNDER RUDD, NOTHING to do at all with ABBOTT......
A $3000-a-week house rented in Canberra last year for the Prime Minister has been quietly handed back to the landlord without Tony Abbott having set foot inside.
But the public servants who splashed out on the luxury home will not come clean on how much taxpayers' money they paid to back out of the lease.
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was left red-faced in November after it was revealed in Senate Estimates that it rented the luxury home in Forrest for $156,000, in the lead-up to the September 7 election
So you know.. Facts... not slander,
but then facts dont seem to be a stong point of the left
on 12-03-2014 12:36 PM
on 12-03-2014 12:36 PM
on 12-03-2014 12:40 PM
@polksaladallie wrote:I'd like to know the carer to baby ratio in her centre, and if she pays over the award rates.
Our minimum staff to child ratio is 1:4 for
on 12-03-2014 12:42 PM
'A labor dept renting a house for a labor PM'
that would be a government department. it still exists you know
on 12-03-2014 02:15 PM
@**meep** wrote:
@polksaladallie wrote:I'd like to know the carer to baby ratio in her centre, and if she pays over the award rates.
Our minimum staff to child ratio is 1:4 for
babies and 1:5 for toddlers.Is that acceptable? I have no idea......as to the rest.....You can give them a call.
It is not acceptable to me. It is appalling. But that is the minimum required by law. I remember an article on television about the subject, and there was a very young woman, looked to be still in her teens, sitting on the floor, feeding one baby in her arms, with another in the crook of her leg. She was trying to calm the one on the floor by jiggling her leg. Who knows what was happening to the other two.
My last babysitting job entailed caring for four babies under three, and it is simply not possible. They do not receive the care they should. Something has to give. Most of the time the mother was there too, and still it was difficult. And we were two trained experienced adults.
I asked about Ms Abbott, because, if she adheres to this ratio, she should be ashamed, and if she is not lobbying for it to change, she deserves no respect IMO.
on 12-03-2014 02:18 PM
Genuine question - if the child care centres increased the number of staff per baby, would that increase in staff costs make child care unaffordable for parents?
on 12-03-2014 02:28 PM
What should the ideal ratio be? How is it determined?
on 12-03-2014 02:34 PM
@am*3 wrote:Genuine question - if the child care centres increased the number of staff per baby, would that increase in staff costs make child care unaffordable for parents?
Yes, it will. That has been the dilemna for a long time. As well as that, the wages are very low and so do not attract the best staff.
If governments care about the welfare of these babies, they will do something to address this. It has been proven that whatever care the child receives in the first three years determines how he/she will cope for the rest of their life. Their brains are wired and rewired during this time. The wonderful Steve Biddulph has demonstrated this again and again.
on 12-03-2014 02:36 PM
i hope you find her, she seems far and away the most likeable