Mrs ELSON (3:45 PM) —I move:

That the House:

(1) acknowledges the financial sacrifice made by parents, one of whom chooses to care for their children full-time, rather than return to paid employment;

(2) recognises the social and community value of this full-time care, including the reduced burden on Government expenditure;

(3) notes the social pressure on many of today's women with young children to remain in paid employment; and

(4) welcomes the Government's ongoing commitment to provide real choice for parents by easing the financial pressure on Australian families by (a) continuing low interest rates, (b) the new, fairer tax system and (c) specifically, recognising the value of full-time care by more than doubling of the tax free threshold for single income families with a child under 5 years of age.

In moving this motion, I want to say at the outset that I do not want it to be misconstrued as being critical of many Australian families where both parents work full time. I do not subscribe to the view that, if you talk about the virtues or values of one particular set of circumstances, then you are by inference having a go at everyone who does not fall into that circumstance. That is the sort of negative and counterproductive thinking that says we ought not to have school awards nights because they might make those who are not recognised feel bad.

The fact is that every community, whether it be a school, workplace or society in general, has much to gain in rewarding and recognising both effort and achievement. We must have goals and ideas to strive towards while at the same time recognising that not everybody has the opportunity nor the ability to achieve the same goals. I will never be a professional tennis player nor win a US Open, for example, but I can applaud the achievements of Pat Rafter, and perhaps his success will inspire my grandchildren to strive to reach those ideals.

But what concerns me is that as a society we have spent several years putting enormous store in the value of paid work and career achievements. We have viewed contribution to the market economy and upward mobility as the `US Open' of life. But we have failed to put anywhere near the same emphasis or importance on the personal and social values of parenting. Family life has been relegated to some sort of side game that can be enjoyable but has little real value. In my view, raising happy, well-adjusted children should be at the centre of what we define as success. The choice to care full time for one's own children, particularly when they are young, should be seen as a very valid and worthwhile option.

For many years in this country we were unable to even have a rational debate on families and raising children. Political correctness, as defined by the academics and Labor's elites, dictated that choice for women when it came to their children meant ensuring there was a long day care centre on every corner. To suggest that full-time care of young children is important and worthy was considered akin to suggestions that women ought to be shackled to the kitchen sink and cut off from society.

Fortunately, we have moved a little on from then. But we still have a way to go to fully acknowledge that, far from being cut off from society, women who choose to care full time for their children are part of the backbone of society. The report of the National Council for the International Year of the Family found that the monetary value of unpaid work carried out in Australian households, together with volunteer and community work, is estimated at between $151 billion and $163 billion each year. The report found that families, and particularly women in their work and care in their households and extended family systems, provided the social infrastructure on which formal economies depend. Consequently, family policy should not be conceptualised as social expenditure, and therefore as a drain on national budgets, but as a social investment.

If we were to fully recognise that our market economy, and therefore all paid work, relies on unpaid work carried out in families, we may see a shift in the economic value we place on parenting, let alone its social importance. The motion I am moving today is aimed at recognising the social investment made by families where one partner does decide to care full time for their children. I believe this House should validate and applaud such a decision, realising that in many cases it is a decision which requires financial sacrifice.

In seeking to provide real choice for women, we must address the imbalance between single and dual income families. As the Australian Family Association points out, since 1976 wages have increased by 135 per cent while income tax imposed on the single income family has increased by 435 per cent. Fortunately, the Howard government has provided special recognition for single income families, both in our first round of tax cuts effective from 1 January 1997 and the new tax system to be implemented on 1 July next year. In our first round of tax cuts we increased the tax-free threshold by $2,500 for single income families. While this was welcomed, it was only a very modest gesture of recognition of the value of parents who choose to care for their children full time.

The new tax system goes further by more than doubling the tax-free threshold for single income families to $13,000. Many members will recall that both these measures have drawn criticism from social commentators, academics and the Labor Party, many making the ridiculous claim that these modest gestures would somehow force women out of the work force. What many people fail to recognise is that most Australian women do not consider a career in the paid work force as being far superior to caring for their young children at home.

A Brotherhood of St Laurence study a few years ago found there was a gap between the more highly educated sections of the community who view work outside the home as superior to the task of full-time mothering and the majority of women who are quite happy to stay at home and look after young children. The problem is that the perceived superiority of paid work is a message that seems to pervade a great deal of our mass media.

I was reminded of this the other night when I was watching A Current Affair. There was a story on a Queensland woman who had written and published a highly successful book entitled How to pay off your mortgage in five years by someone who did it in three. As they talked about all the strategies she had developed, the reporter asked incredulously, `How does a countrywoman, a wife and a mother come up with something like this?' as if to imply a diminution of ability and intelligence with each of these nouns—countrywoman, wife and mother. I think that most women have experienced in some form or another the prejudiced view that unfortunately still exists that the decision to have their children is not a particularly intelligent one, that somehow our ability to think rationally and intelligently and to cope with the pressure is decreased after we have given birth, when in fact the opposite is often the case.

As columnist Miranda Devine put it in a recent column she wrote, `Children are viewed as an unprofessional burden.' This is the issue of perception that all women, whether caring for their children full time or returning to paid employment, are faced with.

The recent report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission on pregnancy and work, Pregnant and productive, outlined some of the ridiculous and outdated prejudices that still exist in the workplace. I will seek to discuss these in detail in a later debate in this House.

The third part of the motion acknowledges that, despite the prejudices, there is a great deal of social pressure on today's women to remain in paid work. This is especially the case for professional women, and with ever increasing numbers of young women quite rightly pursuing further education and expanded career opportunities, this is certain to become a more significant issue. For many professional women, a baby is seen as something to fit in around quiet periods at work and to be placed in care at six weeks so as not to cause too much of a blip in their professional development.

In my view, this is a sad ordering of priorities—not just sad for the child involved but also for the mother. When as a society we convey the message that if you are educated and if you are to be a productive member of society then motherhood is something best outsourced to a so-called professional, we are fundamentally undermining the self-worth of many women and robbing them of an incredible opportunity for fulfilment. This approach denies the indisputable benefits to both mother and baby of time spent together in early childhood, not to mention the flow-on benefits of this unpaid endeavour to the family unit and the community.

Why is it that a woman who chooses to work at a day care centre and care for other people's children is seen to have an important job contributing to society but a woman who chooses to care for her own children full time in her house is not viewed in the same way? In fact, in many circles the latter is almost frowned upon. It is a sad fact that even to raise the issue of full-time motherhood as a legitimate and worthwhile pursuit for young women—as the Victorian Premier did recently—is to invite the scorn and derision of many elites.

As I said at the outset, this motion is not about being critical of women who choose to work full-time. It is about recognising all options as legitimate choices. The fact is that so many women who entered the labour market under the Labor government did so because they had to for economic reasons, not by choice. This motion is about putting parenting and the huge range of skills that go with it at the centre court of public and social life. I am not suggesting for one moment that motherhood alone brings complete contentment and fulfilment for all women. But I do believe that our families and therefore our communities will be made stronger when young women realistically view the option of caring full time for their children as a valid and worthwhile pursuit and when all women, with professional careers or otherwise, are able to make that choice without enormous financial and social penalty.

That will taken some shift in public attitudes and practices. But I am proud to be part of a government which has made advances in recognising the value of one-income families and ensuring that Australian families have more of a choice when it comes to the care of their children.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins) —Order! Is the motion seconded?

Mrs Vale —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.