Care subsidies need to factor in parents’ role in children’s lives

Judith Sloan’s article is well researched on the significant role of the primary carer in a child’s life from birth to age two, and in the light of what continues to be revealed regarding malpractice by so-called educators in several childcare centres in cities and towns across our country (“Centre-based care subsidies won’t help young kids thrive”, 23/7).

As the government wants to make more childcare centres available and affordable for more families, what consideration is being given to the fundamental needs of the child who will be left in these centres each day?

While the recent revelations of what has been happening in some childcare centres should, and does appal us, what is not understood is the significant importance of the child to have the same primary carer from birth to age two, not a succession of carers who change from day to day.

In these formative years a baby is totally dependent on the primary carer for their emotional and physical needs, of love and security and a general sense of wellbeing.

While it is well understood that in these days of economic stress, two parents’ salaries are often needed to maintain a basic lifestyle, and home parenting isn’t an option available or suited to everyone, it is unacceptable that a child, with its life ahead, should pay the physical and emotional price of what has been seen as significantly unsafe or unsuitable out-of-home care situations in these vital infant years.

Available family and child support allowances could be adjusted for parents with children in the first two years of life to be the primary carers, and could be considered by governments as a good investment for a child’s, and the nation’s, future.

Stephanie Summers, North Turramurra, NSW

Fund hospitals instead

Greg Sheridan correctly points out that forgiving HECS debt favours the middle classes (“Why does the left wage war against the poor?”, 22/7).

But nothing is more ludicrous than the Labor Party’s health policy of aiming for 100 per cent bulk billing. Their plan is to spend $8.5bn paying general practitioners (some of the highest earners in the land) to render their ser­vices free to patients whom they (the doctors) judge to be well able to pay for themselves.

The money would obviously be much better spent on the public hospitals that are struggling to provide services to the genuinely needy in our community.

Dr Sharon Schwartz, Reservoir, Vic

Right move with HECS

The government’s plan for a 20 per cent reduction in HECS debt is a step in the right direction. While countries such as Finland tax miners and offer free public university education, Australia has been doing the reverse – taxing students while giving concessions to miners.

As we approach the upcoming economic reform conference, it’s time we recognised that policies that promote investment in education and enterprise are essential to lifting overall productivity in the nation.

Burdening young Australians with debt undermines both equity and economic growth.

Robin Clarke, Ballajura, WA

Super reform ‘trick’

I may be late to this party but I have just read James Kirby’s article that clarified what the Labor government’s pending super reforms are actually really about (“Investors squeezed out by new taxes on super”, 22/7).

Promoted as being a tax on the rich, the real effect will be on all of the hard workers who follow the smart financial advice to make voluntary contributions to their super each year to minimise their tax bill.

It will ensure that all of the voluntary top-ups or salary sacrifice contributions will now remain in the normal tax environment to the detriment of workers trying to secure their futures.

Hence the resistance to indexation – this is really the Labor government’s tax maximisation strategy. They don’t want you tucking it away in super, where they can’t get their hands on it, they want in a tax environment. Thank you, James, it finally makes sense.

Jessica Brunner, Perth

Greens losing it

Thank you for your editorial comment on modern Greens (“Left wing will always eat its own”, 22/7).

I was a greenie before the term was invented. I was horrified as a youngster to hear of the clearing of so many trees. I would probably have joined the green movement in its early days.

However, my concern was with their movement away from genuine environmental issues to a collapse of ethical standards. They now ignore important issues that affect us all and attack anyone with a principled point of view. I do feel that our two major parties are both confused and have lost their way. For the first time, I voted for an independent during the last election.

Alastair Bridges, Wanniassa, ACT