The Coalition’s baby bonus exemplifies a mindset, rather than a sensibly policy to deal with the juggling between work and childcare. Clearly, the Coalition was not listening to the (mainly) women who are doing the juggling, whose constant cry has been for better maternity leave, more childcare places and the tax deductibility of childcare costs.
The baby bonus, announced by Prime Minister John Howard has a major plank in the launch of his policy platform, is directed at giving incentives to women to stay at home with their children for the first five years. Under the plan women who have a baby after July 1, 2001, receive a tax refund (as a refund of the tax they paid the previous financial year) of up to $2500 year for five years. If a woman goes back to work during the financial year she will lose the refund for that year. Those not in the workforce will get a flat payment of $500.
It is an absurd policy to encourage people not to work – particularly from a Government that railed against welfare dependency. Like the health-insurance rebate, it is badly directed. Many women will be in fairly high-income households and can stop work, get the rebate and still live fairly well on their partner’s income. It is middle-class welfare. It also encourages women’s dependency on partners and discourages their independence. Fortunately, the amounts of money involves are so small, that the incentives for women to give up work will be small.
Nonetheless, the thinking behind the scheme is indicative of Mr Howard’s backward thinking and his being out of touch with the modern world. Money aside many women do not want to be at home with the children full-time. They want full-time and part-time work, not only for the money but also for the social and intellectual stimulus. Moreover, they want their children to have the social stimulus that can be gained through the interaction with other children in childcare – at least some of the time during the week.
If the Coalition were serious about helping women juggle work and children, it would offer tax deductibility for childcare. It is one of the great injustices of the Australian tax system that business can deduct computers, cars, travel and the like, but women cannot deduct childcare. At present tax law says it is a personal expense, but obviously women cannot go to work without it, so it should be deducible. Labor – if it were concerned with the plight of women mothers – should make that promise.
Both parties should look at shortcomings in maternity leave and address the shortage of childcare places.
The Coalition has offered a mean incentive in a misguided attempt to return to some 1950s “”ideal” of having the little woman stay at home with the kids.
It did better with its aged care policy with $50 million a year over four years in increased subsidies. But that is a surprising amount coming from a Government that has insisted there is no crisis in aged care. The money will depend on the outcome of a review on pricing arrangements for care. The Coalition has concentrated its funding on direct subsidy now, whereas Labor has gone for a more long-term approach by increasing capital funding and loans and a promise to impose benchmark’s in care and improve wages and conditions for aged-care workers. Events over the past five years have revealed some sad shortcomings in standards of aged care in some nursing and residential homes. It will require better monitoring of standards as well as just more money to avoid more horrible examples of sub-standard care emerging.