Comment by Susan Barley
I was disappointed by two recent feature articles about election promises targeted at women ("Empty promises: pursuing women's votes" and "Child-care subsidies:only for the rich", GLW February 24).
First, some comments from a working-mother-of-three about the child-care article. Now I don't really believe that there'll be enough money after the election to fund those promises of cash rebates. I think most other women are also pretty cynical about how much they'll really get.However, I want to correct some errors about the cost of child-care and who really benefits from subsidies. I think the article fails to accurately inform people about child-care costs because of an obvious lack of research and familiarity with the issue.
The child-care article relied on one anonymous child-care worker for its major assertion that "only the rich will benefit from the rebate". What kind of worker, what qualifications, what sort of care provided (long day, preschool, etc)? Then 1990 data is used to shore up the allegation. How can statistics that are three years old be used to "disprove" an election promise less than a month old?
Let's look at the arguments used to "prove" the so-called rich will benefit.
The definition of "rich" is pretty outrageous. Despite the article's assertions, a family income of even $800 per week is not rich. It represents two less-than-average working-class wages, the income of factory hands or shop assistants. A family on $800 presently qualifies for child-care fee relief subsidy of around 50% of fees. With two children in full-time care, this family would pay about $140 per week total.
The comparison of a family paying $270 for two children versus a family paying $27 for one child doesn't withstand much scrutiny. GLW shouldn't try to prove a point by comparing apples with oranges, which is what happens when one-child-in-care families are compared to two-children-in-care families.
It is clear from the article that the two-child family is paying full fees for two children in full-time care at a long day centre and doesn't qualify for any subsidy now. The two-child family would indeed have a high income, well over $1500 per week.
The one-child family would have an income of around $350 per week
and is already getting the maximum fee relief available. The two-
child family is paying 18% of its income in child-care fees, or 9% per child.
The one-child family is paying only 7.7% of its income in child-
care fees. Where is the inequity?
If the two-child family is rebated according to the formula proposed by Labor, it will receive no more than $30 per week per child ($60 total) and will be paying 14% of its income for child-care. (7% per child). If the one-income family receives the rebate as calculated by the formula, its child-care fees will represent 6.7% of its weekly income. How does the two-child family benefit more than the one-child family?
In the suburbs, the demand for "free quality child-care for all" would be viewed as forceful charity. People value those things which they have paid for in some way. If we pay even a small amount for child-care, we can retain a level of ownership and control as well as our ability to make demands for certain standards of service.
The larger feature article (Empty Promises) presented stereotyped "enemies" of women, notably the "femocrat" who apparently would sell her own mother/sister/grandmother in order to advance herself personally. The women's movement of 20 years ago fought to end such blinkered thinking and to create a world where everyone was judged on his/her own merits, not by the width of one's shoulder pads.
I am not suggesting that legislating and reforming will bring us real equality. But in the meantime, before the revolution, I am not going to maintain some arbitrary standard of ideological purity and remain aloof from everyday workplace and neighbourhood struggles that can bring about concrete benefits for women who need some relief right now.
It is unfortunate that GLW did not present more thoughtful analysis of the child-care rebate promises and the "femocrat" issue. Is the Australian left really serious about attracting working-class women to radical politics? Then listen to us!
Don't call us "femocrats" if we wear suits to work (it's protective colouration). Don't assume we can't organise ourselves — you might not recognise what works for us: we can and do organise ourselves every day in our homes and neighbourhoods. Come and learn from us! And please don't ridicule our intelligence by promising an analysis of issues and then delivering inaccuracies and rhetoric.