Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4
Send Topic Print
Baby Bonus (Read 9913 times)
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Baby Bonus
Aug 5th, 2010 at 2:34pm
 
Little Kiesha Abrahams would have been born in the first year or so of the introduction of the baby bonus.

Those who are following this story have a fair idea of what life was like for this little girl - born to drug dependant parents. She hasn't been sighted for 3 weeks by anyone aside from her parents.

How many neglected and discarded kids have been born since this baby bribe was introduced? I think the bonus is up to about $5,300 now. What sort of encouragement is that for a junkie or a teenager to  bring a child into this world?

How many children have we in Australia who were conceived just for the money?

...

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/7940504/ombudsman-intervenes-in-kiesha-case

Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 5th, 2010 at 2:54pm by mantra »  
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: Baby Bonus
Reply #1 - Aug 5th, 2010 at 3:20pm
 

I share the gist of your concerns, Mantra, however I would like to clarify that Howard and Costello's ill-conceived 'Baby Bonus' didn't actually impact significantly upon teenage pregnancies - and therefore that the 'boom in teenage mothers' is largely imagined...

Believe it or not, in the year following the introduction of the 'Baby Bonus', the birth rate amongst teenage mothers actually decreased!

As it happened, the largest increases in birth rates occured in older women - i.e. the age groups for whom their biological clocks were running out - and therefore the blip in their birth rates could have been due to demographic factors rather than the tokenistic monetary incentive!?

Here's a link to a relevant article, along with some extracts: -


http://esvc000024.wic055u.server-web.com/studentfactsheets/teenagepregnancy.htm

Quote:
Teenage Pregnancy

The number of births to teenagers has decreased considerably over the last few decades. This decrease is most likely due to the increased availability of contraception and access to abortion, rather than a decrease in sexual activity. Research suggests that knowledge about reproductive matters and access to contraception are necessary to prevent unintended adolescent pregnancy.

It is often assumed that all teenage pregnancies are accidental but this is not always the case. Some teenagers actively plan to become pregnant or don't use contraception, knowing that pregnancy is a real possibility. Planning to get pregnant or being ambivalent about pregnancy may be due to teenagers idealised views of pregnancy and parenting (1).

Some facts and figures

    * The teenage fertility rate has significantly decreased over the last three decades (55.5 births per 1 000 women in 1971 compared to 16 births per 1 000 women in 2007 (2).

    * Australia's teenage fertility rate is substantially less than the United States of America (51.1 in 1998), England and Wales (26.8 in 2003) and New Zealand (25.6 in 2002) (4, 5, 6).

    * In 2003, an estimated 84 218 induced abortions were performed, with women aged 0-19 representing 13 855 (16.5%) of this total number (7). (Accurate statistics on the number of pregnancies terminated are difficult to obtain. Both Medicare data and that from the National Hospital Morbidity database (NHMD) have been combined to provide these estimated figures).




Quote:
Teenage mothers and the baby bonus

All new mothers are entitled to a ‘baby bonus’ on the birth of their child, a Federal Government payment designed to contribute towards the cost of having a new baby (16).

There have been claims that the baby bonus particularly encourages teenage girls to have children. Statistics of birth rates in Australia, however, do not support this claim. In 2005 (the baby bonus was introduced in July 2004), the number of births registered in Australia increased 2.2% (17). However, births to teenage mothers actually experienced a small decrease of 1% in 2005 (18). The group of women who experienced the biggest increase in births was actually women between 35-39 years of age (19).

There were also concerns that the baby bonus received by young mothers was being spent on non-essential items. This included anecdotal reports of other parties (eg., partners, family of teenage mothers) gaining access to the money for their own use.

In 2007, the Government introduced changes to the baby bonus for those under the age of 18. Instead of being paid as a lump sum it is paid in 13 instalments over a period of 6 months (20). Family and Community Services Minister at the time, Mal Brough commented that “the younger a person is, the higher the risk of vulnerability and the less their experience with larger sums of money. Because of this increased risk, the Government decided to err on the side of caution and make instalment payments of the baby bonus mandatory for those under 18” (21).



Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
...
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male
Re: Baby Bonus
Reply #2 - Aug 5th, 2010 at 3:27pm
 
Seeing as how it has been paid in 13 fortnightly installments, rather than a lump sum for the past couple of years, i doubt it has much sway in the decision to have children.
Back to top
 

In the fullness of time...
 
IP Logged
 
bwood1946
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1598
Gender: male
Re: Baby Bonus
Reply #3 - Aug 5th, 2010 at 3:43pm
 
Equitist wrote on Aug 5th, 2010 at 3:20pm:
I share the gist of your concerns, Mantra, however I would like to clarify that Howard and Costello's ill-conceived 'Baby Bonus' didn't actually impact significantly upon teenage pregnancies - and therefore that the 'boom in teenage mothers' is largely imagined...

Believe it or not, in the year following the introduction of the 'Baby Bonus', the birth rate amongst teenage mothers actually decreased!

As it happened, the largest increases in birth rates occured in older women - i.e. the age groups for whom their biological clocks were running out - and therefore the blip in their birth rates could have been due to demographic factors rather than the tokenistic monetary incentive!?

Here's a link to a relevant article, along with some extracts: -


http://esvc000024.wic055u.server-web.com/studentfactsheets/teenagepregnancy.htm

[quote]
Teenage Pregnancy

The number of births to teenagers has decreased considerably over the last few decades. This decrease is most likely due to the increased availability of contraception and access to abortion, rather than a decrease in sexual activity. Research suggests that knowledge about reproductive matters and access to contraception are necessary to prevent unintended adolescent pregnancy.

It is often assumed that all teenage pregnancies are accidental but this is not always the case. Some teenagers actively plan to become pregnant or don't use contraception, knowing that pregnancy is a real possibility. Planning to get pregnant or being ambivalent about pregnancy may be due to teenagers idealised views of pregnancy and parenting (1).

Some facts and figures

   * The teenage fertility rate has significantly decreased over the last three decades (55.5 births per 1 000 women in 1971 compared to 16 births per 1 000 women in 2007 (2).

   * Australia's teenage fertility rate is substantially less than the United States of America (51.1 in 1998), England and Wales (26.8 in 2003) and New Zealand (25.6 in 2002) (4, 5, 6).

   * In 2003, an estimated 84 218 induced abortions were performed, with women aged 0-19 representing 13 855 (16.5%) of this total number (7). (Accurate statistics on the number of pregnancies terminated are difficult to obtain. Both Medicare data and that from the National Hospital Morbidity database (NHMD) have been combined to provide these estimated figures).




Quote:
Teenage mothers and the baby bonus

All new mothers are entitled to a ‘baby bonus’ on the birth of their child, a Federal Government payment designed to contribute towards the cost of having a new baby (16).

There have been claims that the baby bonus particularly encourages teenage girls to have children. Statistics of birth rates in Australia, however, do not support this claim. In 2005 (the baby bonus was introduced in July 2004), the number of births registered in Australia increased 2.2% (17). However, births to teenage mothers actually experienced a small decrease of 1% in 2005 (18). The group of women who experienced the biggest increase in births was actually women between 35-39 years of age (19).

There were also concerns that the baby bonus received by young mothers was being spent on non-essential items. This included anecdotal reports of other parties (eg., partners, family of teenage mothers) gaining access to the money for their own use.

In 2007, the Government introduced changes to the baby bonus for those under the age of 18. Instead of being paid as a lump sum it is paid in 13 instalments over a period of 6 months (20). Family and Community Services Minister at the time, Mal Brough commented that “the younger a person is, the higher the risk of vulnerability and the less their experience with larger sums of money. Because of this increased risk, the Government decided to err on the side of caution and make instalment payments of the baby bonus mandatory for those under 18” (21).



[/quo
very interesting post thy   I wonder where all flatscreen TVs went , opps  i have 3   Smiley
Back to top
 

TPI  VETERAN
bwood1946 bwood1946  
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: Baby Bonus
Reply #4 - Aug 5th, 2010 at 3:45pm
 
Quote:
I share the gist of your concerns, Mantra, however I would like to clarify that Howard and Costello's ill-conceived 'Baby Bonus' didn't actually impact significantly upon teenage pregnancies - and therefore that the 'boom in teenage mothers' is largely imagined...


Perhaps those statistics are correct Equitist - but what about junkie mothers and those from low socio-economic areas?

Have you got those figures?

I don't think it's been 2 years since it has been paid in instalments - but I might be wrong.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
...
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male
Re: Baby Bonus
Reply #5 - Aug 5th, 2010 at 3:47pm
 
My kid is about 19 months old, and we were paid in instalments.
Back to top
 

In the fullness of time...
 
IP Logged
 
what_katy_did
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 148
Melbourne
Gender: female
Re: Baby Bonus
Reply #6 - Aug 5th, 2010 at 4:40pm
 
Quote:
Perhaps those statistics are correct Equitist - but what about junkie mothers and those from low socio-economic areas?

Have you got those figures?


Those figures won't have changed signficantly either.  Unfortunately contraception isn't high on the agenda for drug-affected people, and casual sex, prostitution and sexual assaults are fairly frequent.

Those people have always had a high number of kids and will likely continue to do so, baby bonus or not.
Back to top
 

"Only two thing are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former..."    Albert Einstein
kate_did_what  
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: Baby Bonus
Reply #7 - Aug 5th, 2010 at 4:59pm
 

bwood1946 wrote on Aug 5th, 2010 at 3:43pm:
very interesting post thy   I wonder where all flatscreen TVs went , opps  i have 3   Smiley


LOL...that's 2 more than in my household - and the one that we do have is small and it doubles as a comfuser monitor!

No 'Baby Bonus' had in this household eitherer - and yours neitherer, I gather!?


PS I hope all went well with your son's op, Woody! Unfortunately, my 12 YO seems to have inherited his grandfather's rhythym issues: according to our GP, it was very noticeable last week - along with his murmur. We knew about the murmur and he had a full range of tests a few years back but this is the first time the arrhythmia has been detected (actually, he'd had a specialist ultrasound in-utero because his heart appeared to be forming oddly and he had something like a 1/20 chance of inheriting my heart problem). On the plus side, he's now 7 years older than I was when I had my heart surgery and his grandfather was in his 50's when he got his first pacemaker - but (given the non-urgent nature of the problem) he can't even get in to see a paediatrician until October and paediatric cardiologists have waiting lists of 6 months. Then again, he's having a sleep study (soon-ish!?) to determine whether he needs surgery or other intervention because of sleep apnoea - so they might hook him up to something that monitors his heart issues then (though his grandfather's arrhythmia was notoriously intermittent until he reached middle age)!?!?!? Ah, the joys of genetics, eh!?
Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: Baby Bonus
Reply #8 - Aug 5th, 2010 at 5:13pm
 

mantra wrote on Aug 5th, 2010 at 3:45pm:
Quote:
I share the gist of your concerns, Mantra, however I would like to clarify that Howard and Costello's ill-conceived 'Baby Bonus' didn't actually impact significantly upon teenage pregnancies - and therefore that the 'boom in teenage mothers' is largely imagined...


Perhaps those statistics are correct Equitist - but what about junkie mothers and those from low socio-economic areas?

Have you got those figures?



That link refers to much higher birth rates amongst Indigenous teenagers - but doesn't otherwise break it down by socio-economic status...

However, it does compare Australia's rate of teenage pregnancies with other countries - and we have very low rates overall compared to the US and a number of other countries...

That said, teenage pregnancies are not confined to poorer girls - but it stands to reason that socio-economic status influences the choice to raise children or not (and rates of abortions may well be higher amongst higher socio-economic status girls)...

Either way, I did not support the 'Baby Bonus' as a lump sum - and it would have been far more appropriate, from the outset, to have utilised the same funds to increase Family Tax Benefit payments throughout early childhood...

Seriously, I do not understand what the Libs were on about, with their '1 for the country' campaign...

After all, little children are supposed to be sacred - and it is fundamentally wrong to compound either the absolute and/or relative socio-economic disadvantage of any child...

Therefore, there remains a fine line between encouraging poorer people to breed younger by default due to perceived and real lack of upward mobility - and further-disadvantaging such families as some twisted form of punishment...

Methinks that the ways of addressing such complex socio-economic challenges is a topic for another thread/day...
Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: Baby Bonus
Reply #9 - Aug 13th, 2010 at 12:03pm
 

Here's a fascinating qualitative assessment of some of the multiplier-impacts of the Howard Govt's ill-conceived Baby Bonus: -

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2009.01126.x/pdf

Quote:
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2010; 50: 25–29 DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2009.01126.x

Original Article (text-converted, with footnotes and references removed)

The impact of the baby bonus on maternity services in New South Wales


Samantha J. LAIN,1 Christine L. ROBERTS,1 Camille H. RAYNES-GREENOW1 and Jonathan MORRIS2

Background: In 2004, the Federal Government introduced the baby bonus, a one-off payment upon the birth of a child. Aims: To assess the impact of an increase in the number of births on maternity services in New South Wales following the introduction of the baby bonus payment in July 2004.

Methods: A population-based study, using NSW birth records, of 965 635 deliveries from 1998 to 2008 was carried out. The difference between the predicted number of births in 2005–2008, estimated from trends in births from 1998 to 2004, and the observed number of births in NSW hospitals in 2005–2008 were calculated. We also estimated the increase in cost to the health system of births in 2008 compared with previous years.

Results: Compared with trends prior to the introduction of the baby bonus, there were an estimated 11 283 extra singleton births per year in NSW hospitals by 2008. There were significant increases in the number of deliveries performed in tertiary, urban and rural public hospitals; however, the number of deliveries in private hospitals remained stable. Compared with predicted estimates, in 2008, there were over 8700 more vaginal deliveries, over 1000 more preterm births and over 45 000 extra infant hospital days each year. Compared with 2004, in 2008, the estimated cost of births in NSW hospitals increased by $60 million,

Conclusions: The increase in births following the introduction of the baby bonus has significantly impacted maternity services in NSW.



Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 13th, 2010 at 12:15pm by Equitist »  

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47067
At my desk.
Re: Baby Bonus
Reply #10 - Aug 13th, 2010 at 12:10pm
 
The baby bonus should be scrapped. We should be trying to reign in the population, not having more children to parents who are doing it because of the money.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
...
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male
Re: Baby Bonus
Reply #11 - Aug 13th, 2010 at 12:10pm
 
Yes, heaven forbid that needy young families would be given assistance.

Far better that the money go towards more allowances and overseas junkets for government ministers and bureaucrats.  I hear they're doing it really tough at the moment.
Back to top
 

In the fullness of time...
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: Baby Bonus
Reply #12 - Aug 13th, 2010 at 12:14pm
 
Quote:
Introduction

The baby bonus, a cash payment introduced in 2004 by the Australian federal government to increase fertility, has attracted media attention and public debate over its merits.

An increase in births in Australia has been reported since 2004.1 In New South Wales (NSW), following the introduction of the baby bonus, there was an increase in births to women having their third child or higher and the reversal of a downward trend in births to teenagers.2 The impact of the baby bonus on birth rates has been evaluated, but not the subsequent effect on the healthcare system. Media reports have claimed that an increase in births has placed more pressure on maternity services3 and births have been shifted to local hospitals to reduce the pressure on tertiary hospitals.4

The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the baby bonus on the NSW health system, by measuring the increase in absolute numbers of patients utilising maternity and newborn services and the corresponding increase in costs.

[...]

Results

From 1998 to 2008, 965 635 women delivered 981 178
infants in NSW. The number of women giving birth had a
gradually declining trend from 1998 to 2004, despite an
increase in births in 2000 (see Fig. 1). Following 2004, and
the introduction of the baby bonus, the number of births
increased to 89 140 in 2005 and continued to increase to
91 315 in 2006, 94 531 in 2007 and 94 864 in 2008.


When comparing annual numbers of factors relating to
pregnancy and childbirth with the predicted numbers based
on the underlying trend, three distinct patterns of trends
emerged
, shown in Fig. 2.

The first trend pattern involves a declining trend from 1998
to 2004. From this trend, the numbers of births were
predicted to continue to decline; however, after 2004,
the observed numbers of births increased.

This trend was seen in the number of vaginal deliveries
(as shown in Fig. 2), instrumental deliveries, the number of
births in rural, urban and tertiary hospitals, the number of
infants admitted to a special care nursery or neonatal
intensive care unit and in the total number of infant
hospital days.

The second trend pattern shows an increasing trend
from 1998 to 2004, which was predicted to continue
to increase. The observed numbers also increased from
2005 to 2008, although at a steeper rate than predicted.

This trend was observed in the number of women receiving
regional analgesia or anaesthesia, the number of women who
sustained third-or fourth-degree perineal tears and the
number of multiple births and the number of preterm births.

The third trend pattern, as illustrated by the number of
births in private hospitals, has an increasing trend prior to
2004. The number of observed births continued to increase
from 2004; however, it was less than the predicted increase.
The number of emergency caesarean sections (those
performed after the onset of labour) and the number of elective
caesarean sections (those performed prior to the onset of
labour) also followed this trend.

The trend prior to the introduction of the baby bonus for
each variable is also illustrated in Table 1 as the average
annual percentage change from 1998 to 2004. For example
from 1998 to 2004, the number of births in tertiary hospitals
decreased an average of 1.1% per year. Table 1 also features
the absolute impact of the increase in births in 2008 on the
health system compared with pre baby bonus trends.

Compared with predicted estimates, in 2008, there was an
increase of over 11 000 singleton births, 8793 normal vaginal
deliveries, 2190 women receiving regional analgesia or
anaesthesia, over 1000 more preterm births each year and over
45 000 extra infant days in hospital. There were 4752 more
births than predicted from prior years’ trends in tertiary hospitals,
6105 in urban hospitals and 2964 in rural hospitals;
however, there were
over 5000 less births in private hospitals
than predicted
.

Figure 3 shows the estimated costs of births in NSW from
1998 to 2008. From 1998 to 2004, the estimated cost of
births remained steady at just under $700 million, except for
2000 when costs increased to approximately $710 million.
The total cost of births in NSW in 2004, immediately prior
to the introduction of the baby bonus, was approximately
$700 million. This increased by $38 million in 2005 to
$738 million and increased another $60 to $798 million in
2008.




Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 13th, 2010 at 12:36pm by Equitist »  

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: Baby Bonus
Reply #13 - Aug 13th, 2010 at 12:26pm
 
Quote:
Discussion

The findings of this study show that the introduction of the
baby bonus payment had a significant impact on the NSW
health system. Compared with trends in births prior to
2004, there was a significant increase in the number of
women delivering babies in NSW hospitals and subsequent
increase in the demand for maternity services. The increase
in numbers of normal vaginal and instrumental deliveries,
women requiring regional analgesia or anaesthesia, preterm
births and number of infant hospital days has an impact on
hospital staffing requirements, available hospital beds and the
total cost of maternal and neonatal care.

By nature, maternity services have times of heavy demand
and an unexpected increase in birth rates, as seen immediately
following the baby bonus, is likely to cause periods of acute
overload on the system. This pressure on maternity
services occurred at a time of staffing shortages. In 2002,
the Australian Medical Workforce Advisory Committee
estimated that there was a national shortfall of over 1800
midwives8 and recently there have been reports of overstretched
midwives and burnout because of the increase in workload.
9

The increase in births in rural areas places huge demands
on a health system that in the past decade has seen the
closure of up to 130 rural maternity services nationally10 and
has an ongoing issue recruiting and retaining obstetricians.11

However, a report projecting future obstetric workforce
requirements published in April 2004, one month before the
announcement of the $3000 baby bonus payment, stated
that demand for obstetric services was being moderated
because of declining birth rates.11

After the introduction of the baby bonus, an increase in
births has been seen in rural, urban and tertiary hospitals,
but not in private hospitals. Our recent study looking at the
impact of the baby bonus on birth rates showed that the
number of births increased amongst women of socioeconomic
advantage, who would be more likely to use a private
hospital, as much as those who were rated as socioeconomically
disadvantaged.2 Under state legislation, private hospitals
have a specific capacity,12 and so the additional supply of
maternity services has been met by the public sector.


The impact of the increase in births has not been uniform
across maternity services; compared with trends prior to
2004, the greatest increase was observed in normal vaginal
deliveries while the number of caesarean deliveries performed
did not increase. The rate of caesarean sections has
been steeply increasing for the last few decades,13 with the
highest rates observed in private hospitals.14 The increase in
the number of vaginal deliveries rather than caesarean sections
may reflect the increase in births at public hospitals
and /or the population of women who are having the babies.

Our recent study showed that following the introduction of
the baby bonus, there was a significant increase in births to
women having their third child or higher, while the number
of women having their first child did not increase.2
Multiparous women are much more likely to have a vaginal
delivery than women having their first child.15


The estimated maternal and infant costs associated with
birth increased significantly following the introduction of the
baby bonus.
We have used a simple method of calculating
costs in this study and we stress that all costs are an
approximation. We have conservatively assigned the DRG with the
lowest average cost for both mothers and infants with the
information available. The cost calculations are consistent
over time using Australian Refined DRG version 5.0 classifications
for all years at 2007 /2008 costing estimates6 ensuring
that the cost estimates before and after the introduction of
the baby bonus are comparable. Antenatal and postnatal care
received at a hospital has not been factored into cost calculations
nor has any out-of-hospital costs, such as midwifery
care in the community after discharge from the hospital.

Therefore, the total economic impact of the baby bonus on
the health system is potentially considerably greater than our
estimations. The increase in births will also have future cost
implications relating to childcare, healthcare and education.  


To our knowledge, this is the first study to look at the
impact of the baby bonus on maternity services in Australia
and the associated costs. The major strength of this study is
the large population dataset, which provides current data on
all births in the state. The main limitation of the study is the
inexact method of cost estimation as the MDC does not
assign DRGs to births. However, this study is still useful for
policy makers because it highlights the impact the baby
bonus, a Federal Government initiative, has had on state-run
maternity services and the additional cost which appears not
to have been factored into the original policy.




PS The above text extracts were text-converted from this source:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2009.01126.x/pdf

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: Baby Bonus
Reply #14 - Aug 13th, 2010 at 12:51pm
 

This report certainly adds weight to the arguments that the Libs are piss-poor socio-economic managers - and that targeted socio-economic engineering handouts should be avoided because it can pose enormously challenging and costly multiplier-effects!

The Libs' ill-conceived percentage rebates on Child Handling and Private Health Insurance - and publicly-funded pseudo-private training and education handouts - had similarly wasteful and counter-productive impacts!

BTW, I note that, after the Libs had totally bastardised the former community-based not-for-profit Childcare sector (i.e. privatised and stockmarket listed it to the point that it became a costly production-line for-profit Child Handling industry), the Labs increased the Child Handling Rebate - because the overall costs to families and the community have skyrocketed since the dogmatic economic irrationalist Libs first interfered!

Today the Federal Libs have announced yet another way of counter-productively interfering with the State education system (and undermining the State Govts) - by paying bonuses directly to 'high-performing' teachers (presumably also in pseudo-private schools), rather than properly funding the entire public school system.

Alas! When will the Federal LibLabs learn that appropriate levels of overall funding, delegation and empowerment deliver far better outcomes for citizens than micro-managed and badly-targeted grafted adhoc programs!?

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Send Topic Print