Opposition MP says child care funding makes families dependent
Federal Liberal MP Jamie Briggs wrote in the Australian Financial Review that: “But what comes with these big-spending Labor governments is not just debt, higher taxes and more regulation; it’s a society that is more and more dependent on government and its handouts. Take, for example, childcare. Already the government spends nearly $4 billion a year in supporting parents to send children to care. This is driven in part by the need for an increasing number of families to rely on two incomes to pay a mortgage.” Mr Briggs made the point that the Government increased regulation – and costs – and then increased child care subsidies to match. “The expansion of government is creating a transfer payment dependency. Pensions, disability support, family tax benefits and childcare support, among others, create a cycle of dependency for millions of Australians. The dead hand of government with its Centrelink chequebook encourages many Australians to believe that there’s no other way of life than putting your hand out.” Minister for Early Childhood and Child Care Kate Ellis rebuffed him: “Parents deserve to have peace of mind knowing that their children are getting high quality care while they’re at work if they choose to return to the workforce after having children.That’s why we’ve introduced the National Quality Framework for child care. We want every parent to have access to the highest quality care for their kids.” What do you think?
Where are the labels for men on the ‘prowl’?
Opinion writer Hannah Betts has asked the question. What’s with all the labels for women who are looking for a bit of fun, or maybe even a relationship? “Another day, another degrading animal epithet slung in the direction of womankind. For one lesson of contemporary popular culture is that men get to be men, while women must take on the identity of various predatory felines.
Top Comments
I think if welfare is creating dependency, then we really ought to do away with all of it ... so I say withdraw the state and federal funds that develop cities, residential centres, schools and roads ... especially those that lead to affluent wealthy areas ... let them degrade and ruin and see how much the recipients of "invisible" welfare like the withdrawal of government money. Would love to see a piece in this mag about the various levels of welfare. Direct welfare - income subsidy being the least of the welfare costs. Maybe I'll write it one day .... in my spare time ...
I don't think childcare rebates etc. creates dependency. Not at all.
What it does, is allow me to return to work and not pay my ENTIRE wage to childcare, effectively working for free.
It also allows me to get out of the house and 'just be me' for a few hours per week, exercise my brain and stay attractive to the workforce.
This way, once my children no longer require 'intensive care' I will still have something to offer and be up to date, rather than having to start from scratch.
And that way I can pay back the support I have been given, with interest, as I should have many years left to work.
As it is, I won't be able to afford to go back to work once we have our second child, because childcare will cost more than what I earn. I'm not kean on that option for my future life...