OPINION
Huh.
I’m slightly surprised. Not astounded, definitely not. But there’s certainly surprise at the milder end of the scale.
Turns out this year’s Budget contains actual changes. I’m shook.
Granted, the earth-shattering, grand-scale, society-wide changes I’m longing for still aren’t there, but it’s more than I expected.
Fifty-two weeks ago today, I wrote about my cynicism at the $350 total Cost of Living payment announced in last year’s Budget. It felt like a kick in the teeth after the hardship so many of us found ourselves in. “Give me real change, not [just] free money,” I begged.
(Although to be fair, that payment ended up helping my family through a tough winter and spring, with food and petrol prices what they were.)
But the rest of last year’s announcement felt very much like tinkering around the edges. Like a token gesture rather than a real effort.
This year’s Budget, though. There are some surprising changes in there that I can see benefiting a range of people, particularly those in the low- to middle-income brackets.
Selfishly, I’m most excited about the scrapping of prescription costs. As someone with a chronic health condition who needs regular refills of medication, this is going to be a big help to my own finances.
Five dollars per medication adds up quickly when you’ve got multiple prescriptions to pay for.
I imagine people with serious health conditions will be over the moon at this announcement. And the parents with young children constantly bringing home bugs from daycare will appreciate it, too.
Speaking of young kids at daycare: Two-year-olds are now going to be eligible for some free childcare.
Currently, 3 to 5-year-olds are entitled to 20 hours of free early childhood education a week. From March next year, 2-year-olds will also be eligible.
Yay?
I mean, it’s going to be a huge help for working parents to have that burden lifted somewhat, and that’s a positive.
But this scheme has always missed the mark for me.
Two-and a-bit years ago, I was in the position of having to decide whether to return to work or not after spending a year at home raising my baby.
The assumption had always been that I’d return to work – that is, until my husband and I sat down to run the numbers.
My baby, being not quite 1, would not have been eligible for any free care. So, with the loss of our Working For Families payment and quotes for childcare ranging between $60 and $80 a day, we realised that our finances would only improve marginally by me returning to work, especially when we factored in the time and money I’d spend on commuting.
Plus, I just really love spending time with my kid. Yup, I’m one of those mums.
We made the call that I’d hand in my notice and continue as a stay-at-home parent, despite knowing it’d be a struggle.
Would our choice have been different if we had access to affordable childcare right from when my maternity leave ended?
Honestly? Yeah, it probably would have. And our financial position would be miles better today. But I would have been utterly heartbroken at being forced to leave my baby before I was ready.
I think that sucks.
I know there’ll be many people reading these words, shaking their heads and thinking “tut, tut, don’t have children if you can’t afford them.” Fair, I agree – to an extent.
But that’s going to exclude a large portion of even middle-class earners the way our country is heading. And I don’t think that’s right, or fair. Children shouldn’t be a luxury only the wealthy can afford.
Call me nostalgic, but I miss what it was like when I grew up – it was possible for many, many mums to stay at home until their kids went to school. Most preschoolers went to kindy at age 3, and just for a few hours a day. And all the parents had to pay was a donation, none of this hundreds-of-dollars-a-week nonsense.
The extra free year of free childcare announced in yesterday’s Budget is going to make life a little easier for many working families. I’ll not turn my nose up at it.
But what about the parents of even younger children who have no choice but to return to work? Why do they have to pay such a steep price for something many of them wish they didn’t have to do?
It’s no wonder so many more people are choosing to remain child-free. And if we don’t make it easier for people to raise a family, we’re going to have to deal with the society-wide ramifications of that.
But, hey, we do have some change coming. Substantial change, at that. It’s not what I think we need to get society back on track, but it’s something.
It’s a start.
- Sonya Bateson is a writer, reader, and crafter raising her family in Tauranga. She is a Millennial who enjoys eating avocado on toast, drinking lattes and defying stereotypes. As a sceptic, she reserves the right to change her mind when presented with new evidence.