Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Kennedy for this motion, because this is about choice and fairness, and it is currently untenable for one parent to care for children at home if they wish to do so. Fewer young people are having children. Our current birth rate is just 1.5 for every couple. Over half of Australians under 35 have delayed parenthood due to cost pressures. We seem to have forgotten that parents are the first and best teachers, and parents should have the choice to raise their children at home if that suits their family best. During the last decade, the proportion of one-year-olds in child care has gone from 25 per cent to over half. We pay for private childcare centres—over $30,000 in many cases—to fund the care of a child, but we place very little value on the parent or, indeed, the grandparent.

Real wages have not kept up with the increased costs of living. Each household now needs two full-time workers to cover a mortgage and just the absolute basics. There were 1.2 million two-parent families who were eligible to receive Family Tax Benefit Part A in 2001. Now that's just over 600,000. That's because we haven't lifted that threshold limit of $120,000 for eligibility for Family Tax Benefit Part B. Going back to when I had young children, when as a family we very much relied on Family Tax Benefit Part B—my husband was a tradie—there were just over 26,000 families, in 2001, who received Family Tax Benefit Part B. Now it's only 7½ thousand, because the thresholds have not kept up.

Going to the motion from the member for Kennedy, when we look at tax distribution, it is fundamentally unfair to families where one parent is at home raising children and one parent is going off to work. Looking at families where two parents are each earning $100,000 each—a total tax income of $200,000—they pay $41,000 in tax. If one parent earns $200,000 and the other does not earn an income outside the home because they're doing the most important job of all, that being raising children in the home, that same family would pay $56,000 in tax. So $41,000 or $56,000, and the same income is coming in under the main roof. That is patently unfair and must be addressed.

Looking at lower-income families, a couple earning $60,000 each would pay $17½ thousand in tax. If there is the same amount of income in a family, $120,000 under that roof, but one is out earning and one is taking care of the children, they pay $26,000 in tax—22 per cent of their income versus just 14 per cent for the previous family's scenario. This is unfair. This is disincentivizing families from caring for children themselves.

Yes, we've got paid parenting leave of 26 weeks a year. But then what happens? What happens when the baby's 26 weeks of age? No family in Australia can afford to stay home with them still. They bundle them off to child care. I see them in the morning, at 6 or 6.30 am, in the dark, having to drop babies off. And I talk to so many families in my community. They say the ultimate dream for their family is to be able to have one parent staying home and raising the children and one going off to work for just those early years. This is about choice. Many women would like to go back to work—absolutely; that is your choice. But at the moment we're taking away that choice from families where one parent doesn't want to go back into the workforce but wants to be able to stay home and see those first steps and hear those first words.

So we must do better. It seems patently obvious to me that we need to do income tax splitting. When you have children who are under school age, it is a fair thing to do. It's something the government must absolutely do. If we want to lift our birth rate, we have no other choice aside from making sure we have incentives there for families. We're then valuing families and valuing the role of the stay-at-home parent. We did that in 2001, but now it's 2026. I feel that that value is not there and not being recognised. We can do better.

See this speech in context