Mon, 12th May 2008
Julie Bishop interview for A Current Affair - Baby Bonus
The Hon Julie Bishop MP
Deputy Leader of the Opposition
Shadow Minister for Employment, Business and Workplace Relations
Journalist:
What was your reaction to the idea of the baby bonus being means tested?
Julie Bishop:
Well the Labor party has lost sight of the reasons why the baby bonus was introduced. It was designed to arrest the declining birth rate in this country. With an ageing population there were serious consequences ahead for us, for our economy, for our standard of living. Australia’s birth rate had declined to a point where it was below the replacement level, and the government wanted to encourage all women to have more children. If they were thinking about having more children, the government would provide a bonus to support them. Since the baby bonus was introduced we have seen our birth rate turn around and it has been on the increase. No other comparable country can claim success in increasing their birth rate.
Journalist:
Why do you think, I mean obviously we hear talks that people who don’t need the bonus are blowing it on things computer items, colour TV’s you’ve heard it I’m sure, should everyone be receiving it?
Julie Bishop:
There is no evidence that people are blowing the bonus on other things. The fact is it costs money to have a baby and so people will be spending money, whether it’s the baby bonus or their own money, they will be spending it on the costs of having a baby and particularly the period after the birth of the child when costs are quite extensive. But the point about means testing is it will be far too complex to means test a benefit of this type. There’s no plan by Labor on how it would be means tested. What is the cut off threshold for means testing it? Would you means test a women before she has the child or after she has the child? If she had the child in May would you take into account all her earnings for the financial year or if she had it in August would you only take into account two months of her income. These are the sorts of questions that Labor has clearly not even thought about and if it is going to cost more to administer than the savings it wouldn’t be worthwhile.
Journalist:
So you’re saying the whole idea of means testing is really impractical?
Julie Bishop:
Well of course you would means test government allowances in the normal course. But there are particular allowances or bonuses that are paid for the social good. For example the carers allowance is not means tested because we recognise that carers do a wonderful job in looking after people in the community and the government wants to send a message that we support that. The same with having children, we want to send a message that it is a social good for women to have children so therefore we pay a bonus. There are many other allowances that are not means tested.
Journalist:
It seems, going on the poll in the Australian today that a lot of people think that it is only fair that it is means tested, do you think your pushing it uphill here? Do you think that most Australian’s think it should be?
Julie Bishop:
Well you have to look at the motive of the Labor government. They have forgotten that the purpose behind the baby bonus was to increase our birth rate and we have started to achieve that. If we were to take away the bonus Labor has no evidence to show what would happen to our birth rate, and if it turns around again and continues to decline, there will have to be another initiative introduced to support an increase in the birth rate. Secondly, if the cost of means testing outweighs the saving then it becomes an administrative nightmare, and the third point I would make is that before the election Kevin Rudd supported the baby bonus absolutely and now after the election he’s taking a cheap shot at what he calls wealthy people.
Journalist:
Do you think it is just that kind of money grab a way of just saving a few dollars and will it work anyway?
Julie Bishop:
This government is awash with money. They are going to have a $20 billion surplus. This is not about saving money because the cost of means testing would outweigh the savings. This is just a cheap shot at people that Labor considers to be wealthy.