May 25th 2013

  Buy Issue 2900

Articles from this issue:

CANBERRA OBSERVED: The federal Budget: Swan's swan song

EDITORIAL: Family policy is more than paid parental leave

HOUSING: Home ownership still out of reach

TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Which broadband policy should Australia adopt?

SCHOOLS: The national curriculum's ideological agenda

ECONOMIC AFFAIRS: A debt-free way to lift output and employment

PROFILE: Left-wing veteran of Australia's 'history wars'

NATIONAL INTEREST: Australian appeasers, past and present

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: The Islamic origins of Syria's civil war

WORLD CONGRESS OF FAMILIES VII: Why natural marriage must be protected

LIFE ISSUES: The unheeded cry of post-abortion grief


CINEMA: Choosing darkness or choosing light

BOOK REVIEW How to win the marriage debate

BOOK REVIEW An unusual story of World War II

Books promotion page

Family policy is more than paid parental leave

by Peter Westmore

News Weekly, May 25, 2013

With the Labor government and opposition engaged in a bidding war over which party has the better paid parental leave scheme, there is a danger that this issue will obscure the wider need for a coherent and fair family policy.

Over the years, governments have established a number of programs to assist families at different stages, and the existing arrangements reflect this complexity.

For example, when a baby is born, parents are able to claim either the baby bonus, which is of particular benefit to parents caring for their children at home, or the government-funded paid parental leave scheme, but not both.

Both the baby bonus and paid parental leave are subject to an income test, but the criteria for payment are slightly different.

For growing children, the government provides support in the form of income-tested family tax benefits and, for low-income parents, the parenting payment, which is subject to both assets and income tests.

For families on income support, there are additional payments, including rent and telephone subsidies.

Because of the large number of mothers in the paid workforce, governments have created a number of schemes to assist them. The child-care benefit is income-tested, and is payable for children in approved child-care facilities. The maximum payment is about $10,000 per child per year for children who are in child-care for up to 50 hours a week.

On top of the child-care benefit, there is an additional child-care rebate which meets 50 per cent of out-of-pocket child-care expenses, up to a maximum amount per child per year.

There are additional payments to assist with education expenses for low-income families, and special payments to assist meeting health-care costs for children with disabilities.

The complexity of the system of family payments is such that every family is treated differently, depending on family income, whether one or both parents are in paid work, and the number of children in the family.

Additionally, the system currently actively discourages mothers with young children from staying at home to care for their children.

One of Australia’s leading social scientists, Dr Barry Maley, looked at the family payment system some years ago, and found that it had a number of unintended side effects.

He said, “There are many kinds of payments and benefits for parents, including child-care subsidies. They have developed in piecemeal fashion to constitute a mess which is anything but efficient or equitable. Targeted welfare has created poverty traps and work disincentives.” (Families, Fertility and Maternity Leave, CIS Issue Analysis, September 16, 2002).

Where paid maternity leave comes from employers, it adds to the cost structure of those businesses compared to those who do not. Where it is provided by governments, it effectively amounts to a subsidy from single-income families (which pay tax but are not eligible for paid maternity leave) towards families on two full-time incomes.

Similarly, the child-care benefit is an indirect subsidy from single-income families to families on two full-time incomes.

Additionally, the system of means-tested benefits encourages dependence on government payments and disincentives to self-reliance.

In light of this, the focus by both the government and opposition on paid parental leave has little to do with creating a coherent family policy, but is directed towards winning swinging voters in the run-up to the election.

Whatever happens before September’s election, there is a clear need to look again at the tangled, confusing programs which constitute family policy in Australia.

The principle which should underpin a coherent family policy was identified clearly by Barry Maley as treating all families equally, whether mothers are in the paid workforce or not.

He said, “If policy is to be fair to all children and families, without privilege or discrimination, and the same for families where mothers are employed as for families where mothers are not employed, the obvious way of achieving this is to establish a tax credit or cash allowance of equal value for all dependent children.”

He added, “A tax credit, rather than a welfare handout, is important in not discouraging work effort for higher incomes, and in allowing people to keep more of what they have earned, rather than see themselves as government supplicants.”

Additionally, there should be a uniform payment to reflect the range of out-of-pocket costs incurred in having a baby and bringing it into the family, like the Baby Bonus.

Where families suffer acute hardship or children have special needs — as for children with disabilities or families suffering the effects of unemployment — supplementary payments should be made through the welfare system.

There is no question that the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, is seriously interested in improving family policy in Australia, as he has said. He should take the opportunity to do it.

Peter Westmore is national president of the National Civic Council.

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am