Contact Us

The things that matter most to us - families, neighbourhoods, caring for others, voluntary activity, self-development and the character of people, local economies, local communities - are the things that matter least to our politicians. Political parties of both Right and Left have ignored society for a century in their obsession with the market and the state. Neo-liberalism on the Right (the rule of the market) and managerialism on the Left (the rule of bureaucracy) have dominated politics. Together they have corroded society, undermined personal and social responsibility, weakened community, and turned unique individuals into clients and beneficiaries, customers, labourers and punters, detached from their communities.

The Parents and Citizens Party has been formed to strengthen society and challenge both neo-liberalism and managerialism. There is a tradition in Australia of parents and citizens gathering in local communities (often around schools) to build social relationships and make a difference, for no reward for themselves.
This tradition stands in sharp opposition to the assumptions of neo-liberalism and managerialism.

Social relationships - not the market, or the state - should be the prism through which we assess policy. This is common sense. This is the Australian tradition. Neither Left nor Right. We warmly invite you to join us.

National Council
Call for Expressions of Interest
Click here to express your interest in joining
our inaugural National Council

The policy below is a draft for public discussion.

Parents caring for young children, parents and carers of people with a disability or a mental or chronic illness, and carers of frail elderly family members, know that their role in society is not valued as much as that of people in the paid workforce. Meagre allowances, no superannuation entitlements, and no tax concessions mean financial insecurity and poverty for several million families.

Meanwhile, tax concessions in housing and superannuation cost taxpayers a staggering $77 billion annually. These concessions favour high income earners directly, and property developers and investors indirectly. The stated aim of the housing concessions is to encourage investment in the supply of housing, yet as policy measures they have failed dismally to generate an adequate supply of affordable housing. In the process, parents and carers on low and middle incomes who care for the young and vulnerable are subsidising high income earners and the burgeoning property industry.

This injustice is accepted by both main political parties for the sole reason that parents who are not in the paid workforce are unorganised and unrepresented in the political arena. The property industry and building unions, on the other hand, are well organised and well represented.

We will abolish several of these tax concessions in housing and superannuation which favour high income earners and property developers, saving a significant proportion of the $53 billion and $24 billion respectively for annual redirection into a Parent and Carer Living Allowance.

The Labor/Liberal Status Quo

The Rudd Government will introduce a taxpayer-funded paid parental leave scheme in January 2009 which will pay a primary carer the minimum wage of $544 per week for just 18 weeks following the birth of a child. This payment will be taxed and restricted to families earning up to $150,000 a year. It will cost $260 million annually.

In February 2009, the Abbott Opposition announced a similar scheme for a period of 26 weeks after the birth of a child. The announcement was uncosted.

Neither the Rudd Government or the Opposition have plans to increase the Carers Payment (less than $50 per week) or the Carers Allowance.

Neither have plans to introduce superannuation entitlements for parents and carers who are not in the paid workforce.

The Federal Opposition refuses to mean test Family Payments and the ill-considered Baby Bonus, allowing these payments to continue to people who do not need them.

Our Policy

We propose that a primary carer of a child will receive a Parent Living Allowance payment of $544 per week (the minimum wage) from birth until the age of 16 for periods when they are not in the workforce. It will be restricted to families earning up to $100,000 a year and will not be taxed. It will replace the Family Payment and the Baby Bonus.

A primary carer of a dependent over the age of 16 who has a disability, a mental or chronic illness, or dependent aged frailty, will receive a Carer Living Allowance payment of $544 per week (the minimum wage) for the period they are out of the workforce in a caring role, where they meet the eligibility requirements for the current Carers Payment.

Recipients of the Parent/ Carer Living Allowance will be eligible for taxpayer-funded superannuation contributions at the current 9% levy.

How Will It Be Funded?

Tax concessions in housing and superannuation which favour high income earners and property developers and investors cost taxpayers $53 billion and $24 billion respectively. Tables 1.1 and 2.1 show where these tax expenditures go.

We propose to abolish some or all of this $77 billion annually in tax expenditures.

Acknowledgement: Tables 1.1, 2.1, and 2.2 in Gerard Brody and Elizabeth McNess, Assets for All, Brotherhood of St Laurence, 2009.


Table 2.2 show the income groups that receive the bulk of the superannuation tax expenditures.

The Implications

Abolition of some or all of these tax concessions in housing and superannuation which favour high income earners and property developers, would save a significant proportion of the $53 billion and $24 billion respectively for annual redirection into a Parent and Carer Living Allowance. This would free up a massive pool of resources for transfer from high income earners and the property industry to parents and carers in low and middle income brackets.

It would enable parents and carers to undertake and maintain caring roles without the huge financial disadvantages that follow sustained absences from the paid workforce.

More parents would choose to devote more time, for longer periods, with their children in their formative years. More families and households would be freed from the unsustainable stresses of juggling work and family commitments. More parents and carers would choose to devote more time, for longer periods, with loved ones in need of their care, without the need to incur crippling financial hardship or jeopardise their future financial security.

Expert opinion is divided on the implications for housing of the removal of some or all of these tax concessions. One strand of opinion argues that tax concessions in housing distort the market, and disproportionately favour property investors more than people awaiting housing, and that the crisis of affordability in housing in Australia has not been eased at all by these concessions. Another strand of opinion argues that far too much of Australian capital is tied up in unproductive property investment rather than in investment in the development of products and services for export. Some say that direct public investment in housing supply would yield better results than concessions on investment.

The owner-occupier capital gains tax exemption also attracts mixed opinions. Some economists say this concession encourages too much inefficient investment in property which governments are reluctant to touch for fear of a backlash from owner-occupiers. Others say that because the owner-occupied dwelling is one of the few assets that many ordinary Australians own, it should not be taxed. Others point to alternate and more efficient ways of encouraging asset ownership amongst Australians (a further policy document in this series will specifically address ways of developing capital assets for low and middle income earners).

We invite feedback on these issues as we revise and refine our position. While governments and oppositions in Australian are notoriously fearful of publicly stating their reform intentions, we are committed to open, transparent and fearless approaches to effecting big changes in the distribution of power and resources in Australia to advantage parents, families and carers at the expense of entrenched corporate and institutional interests.

This policy would mark a major shift in national priorities from property to people, from bricks and mortar to relationships. The property industry is robust, and can withstand the removal of tax advantages wrought at the expense of a minimum wage-equivalent subsistence income for those who care for the most vulnerable in the community.