Over four decades now a significant part of the Movement’s work has centred around family policy, social outcomes of marriage, divorce, parenting, and related economics, particularly income-tax policies and financial support for those raising young children.
Most of this work has come under the umbrella of the Australian Family Association, which was established by Movement leaders in the 1980s to focus on such matters.
Unsurprisingly, it was a hot topic for me as I set out on forming a family in 2004. Since this time, I have witnessed many controversial and occasionally welcome policy changes.
Radical Ideology
I have learned a lot about the social outcomes of family structures across USA, UK, European and Australian data sets.
In Australia in particular, I have come to terms with the rather odd situation we find ourselves in. Let’s just say we are an outlier, isolated and not in a good way.
Here, the more radical wing of the feminist movement (the 1970s-1990s wave), has successfully landed legislative reform to satisfy every single one of its original aims – without much opposition and in an environment that discourages debate and questioning of assumptions.
A key pillar of such policy reform is the supply of cheap and easily accessible childcare for zero to five-year-olds. This coincides with an important goal of the corporate sector to make larger profits, and yet to publicly discuss the outcomes for children themselves is still taboo.
The net result of these reforms means most families are under high pressure to leave zero to five-year-olds in part-time or full-time care/preschool in order to bring in two (or close to it) full-time incomes. Of course, this is mainly to service a mortgage or rent payments.
Have Your Say
Leaving ideological feminism aside, consider the impact of the banking regulation changes that allowed banks to issue to couples mortgages based on two incomes and the consequential rise in borrowing/purchasing power and land price increases.
This brings me to an interesting initiative of the current Federal Labor government under the Minister for Social Services, the Hon Amanda Rishworth MP.
In just 10 days, applications from the public will close for those interested in becoming a member of the Parents and Carers Reference Group (PCRG).
This follows the release of the Early Years Strategy 2024–2034, which details how the government wants to support families in a child’s early years. I was interested to read the summary of evidence ‘Why children and their early years matter’ that forms part of the PCRG rationale.
Successful applicants will be appointed as members of the PCRG and will be “given the opportunity to have a say on what the government is doing to support our youngest children”, allowing the government to hear directly from parents and caregivers.
I hope that an adequate number of parents will join the PCRG to represent the most preferred care choice in Australia: parent care. It is reported that 49 per cent of zero to five-year-olds attend some subsidised care, it was highest for three-year-olds (68 per cent) and low (six to 12 per cent) for under one-year-olds. Yet, we know a majority of parents using subsidised daycare arrangements would prefer to use less if they could get away with less paid work.
Mismatch
For example, a large survey of UK parents in 2009 found that less than one in nine mothers preferred full-time paid work rather than caring for young children, whereas three in ten preferred to care for children themselves and do no paid work, and the other approximately 60 per cent just wanted flexibility or no pressure either way.
In summary, Australia has a suite of policies that matches the ideals of less than one in nine Aussie mothers, and is actually too inflexible for or even unwanted by the rest.
Of course, our obsession with subsidised care of young children is very expensive. We’ve reached $10 billion a year, and this case study showed it is a net burden on the Treasury (taxpayer) unlike DIY childcare.
How can we elevate the voices and preferences of the other 88 per cent of mums? Not to mention the dads. Remembering at all times that parents justifiably do what they must to survive, our focus therefore needs to be fixed on the policy settings that have led to this situation, i.e. the frog, though in peril, can’t be blamed for boiling the water.
If you could get involved in this, or someone you know, I personally encourage you. It may not directly help your family, but could make a big impact on future generations of children and their parents.
Stay tuned to the TMC’s interviews, as this topic will likely be covered soon.
We’ve launched the 2024 Fighting Fund — please help by making a generous contribution to the work of the Movement, including News Weekly and our youth formation and training.
