Cash could be better spent outside daycare

For example, Australian Institute of Family Studies director Alan Hayes told the commonwealth parliamentary inquiry into Balancing Work and Family in 2005: "Child care is no longer, and has not been for a decade at least, seen as a labour force participation issue alone. Child care is a key contributor to the development, health and wellbeing of children, and this perspective is increasingly acknowledged."

Confounding preschool programs for disadvantaged three and four-year-olds with child care for all infants is a disturbingly common mistake. Nobel prize-winning economist James Heckman has expressed concern that his highly influential findings on the economic benefits of early intervention for disadvantaged children have been misinterpreted. In an article on The Wall Street Journal website, Heckman says: "Science doesn't support universality ... We have to promote (early childhood programs) more cautiously."

The most that can be said with any certainty, based on the evidence, is that older children from socially and economically disadvantaged families can benefit from high-quality child care, probably best delivered on a part-time basis. It is by no means clear that such advantages extend to the broader range of children, nor to full-time formal child care for infants.

The decision to use child care is a personal one, based on each family's individual circumstances. In terms of policy, however, a judgment must be made about the use of public funds.

The evidence suggests that well-designed, tightly targeted programs can be effective for children from socio-economically disadvantaged families, but it does not justify public funding for the expansion of universal child care.