sub49

From L. Wilson, Metaira Pty Ltd

Paid Work and Family Responsibilities Submission

Striking the Balance: Women, men, work and family Discussion paper 2005

Question 35: What are the best ways of incorporating and supporting the value of care into Australian society?

The institutions controlling Australian society increasingly recognise only economic drivers. Economic drivers are thus the best way to incorporate and support the value of care into Australian society. For instance economic drivers have shown their worth in raising the value of the environment to achieve better outcomes. A combination of penalties, subsidies and mandatory standards has made company directors and the wider community take their environmental responsibilities seriously. Economic drivers resolve many other issues, discussed in the paper, which are currently resulting in inequitable, sub-optimal outcomes for Australian families. One easily implemented economic, incentive involves simple low-cost superannuation reforms.

Under the existing Australian superannuation system, anyone who spends extensive period(s) of their working life caring for young, disabled or frail family members within the family ends up as an economic dependent in retirement because the unpaid nature of most caring duties prevents them accumulating adequate superannuation.

The message loud and clear is “Australia does not value its carers, they’re bludgers”.

If Australia is serious about raising the value of care it could learn from the UK experience after Margaret Thatcher started the Home Responsibilities Protection scheme in 1978. The self-esteem increase resulting from this scheme has been priceless for carers. UK women opened government letters to find that years they had spent caring for young, disabled or frail family members gave them ENTITLEMENTS IN THEIR OWN NAMES to retirement pensions. It was only a token but it was official acknowledgement their care had made a difference. The UK message loud and clear today is (unlike Australia!) “the UK values its carers”.

The Australian government could raise the value of care in society dramatically if it introduced a scheme for making DIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS on behalf of primary carers of young, disabled and frail family members, so carers are not disadvantaged and stigmatised in retirement. Other advantages are:

• This scheme could operate in tandem with the recently introduced super co-contributions scheme which few primary carers can afford even if they qualify.
• Making a government super contribution (9% of national average earnings for example) is a simple easily understood incentive provided the government resists the temptation to lose it in the maze of marginal tax rates and benefit tapers.
• A small financial incentive might tip the balance for someone who is reluctant to give up leisure/paid work to do unpaid care on the basis of love or duty alone.
• Such a scheme minimises intrusion on the relationship between the carer and the care recipient.

The Australian government could also raise the status of care in society by freeing up legislative/tax barriers so spouses can allocate their assets within marriage to reflect the value they place on unpaid work. Presently divorce is the only way that accumulated superannuation balances can be split flexibly. Recent legislation allowing spouses to split future superannuation contributions has been delayed but in any case this does not cover balances accumulated before 30 June 2006. The existing spouse superannuation tax incentive does not work equitably because most families only qualify at a time of financial stress so they can’t make the contributions. A spouse who has spent extended periods caring for young, disabled or frail family members and supporting their partner’s career does not deserved to be stigmatised by being labelled an economic dependent of their partner because of outdated, inflexible superannuation rules.

Question 45: What evidence is lacking on the issues covered in this paper? What else does HREOC need to know in its consideration of these issues?

HREOC should not overlook training, migration or inheritances when considering the issues discussed in this paper as they have major implications when seeking improved outcomes for Australian families.

How can Australia alleviate the burden of care on Australian families in the face of a worldwide shortage of trained care professionals? Training resources within Australia are being used inefficiently and so Australian families are unnecessarily constrained in outsourcing their care needs for young, disabled and frail family members.

Currently there are too many three year undergraduate courses to train nurses when there is an equivalent two year course available in Sydney. Why? Likewise there are too many six year undergraduate courses to train doctors when there is an equivalent five year course in Newcastle. Why? It is very expensive to support a student living away from home for an extra year and a very wasteful use of scarce resources. Australia needs to consider developing schemes to provide shorter more intensive training of carers and the use of less highly trained personnel to provide some carer services.

Migration policy can also alleviate the burden of care on Australian families by attracting more resources from outside Australia. Even if Australian training places for care professionals are expanded there are unlikely to be enough local trainees with the aptitude and interest to fill the places.

The UK, faced with a massive care load of disabled ex-servicemen at the end of World War 2 offered free nursing training to girls from poor backgrounds in Ireland, many of whom stayed in the UK for good resulting in good outcomes for both countries and individuals. A properly thought out Australian sponsorship scheme along these lines could be justified as part of an overseas aid package and has to be better than the morally questionable practice of Australia poaching trained care professionals from poor countries.

Inheritances matter because they have traditionally been used to reward adult children performing unpaid care for aged parents. Individuals will be less likely to provide this care in future because increasingly there is nothing left of an expected inheritance if the aged parents finish up in a nursing home.

The prime inheritance is the family home and many Australian families regard it as unacceptable to run up debts against a family home to fund aged care. (After a working life spent paying off a mortgage, who wants to be end their days in the hands of the moneylenders again?) Intergenerational resentment is building within Australian families because the tax/welfare system encourages grandparents to remain in large expensive homes, which tie up capital unproductively, in order to qualify for the aged pension and this imposes extra taxes/unpaid work on younger family members. Consider the feelings of young working Australians whose taxes are topping up grandparents’ aged pensions and who are expected to mow grandparents’ lawns and who are having difficulty affording a home or children of their own. An inheritance levy used to fund aged care services could produce better and more certain outcomes than the current lottery (depending on how long aged parents spend in a nursing home) that passing on the family home has become.