Paid Parenting vs. Child Care Rebate

This article is about an idea my mother suggested to me once in conversation. I thought it very interesting so I'm writing about it.

Mum suggested that alongside the child care rebate, there should also be an option for stay-at home parents to be paid by the government as though they were a child care worker caring for as many kids as they have full time. They would get superannuation just like everyone else, and their time spent taking care of the kids would count as time in employment. The particulars of the idea would have to be fleshed out by someone who knows more than I do about the facts and figures involved, but presumably because child care is typically one carer for six children, a parent would have to get a fraction of this amount, with loading for each additional child.

Such a system would have many benefits. For starters it would encourage people to stay at home with their kids, which I think would be to the benefit of many children. Obviously child care centers are not bad for development, because we need to learn social skills, but neither is living in one and being away from parental warmth through the early years of life. There seems to me to be something a little problematic about a child spending more time with a nanny than their parents.

This system would make the choice of being a parent an easier one. The current dichotomy, especially for women, between career and parenthood would not be as sharp, as parenting would be recognized as a career in itself. This would help alleviate some of the guilt many parents feel both at work and with regards their children. What do I mean by this? Well a friend of mine who works in child care recently described to me what she calls the myth of the perfect mother (this could reasonably be extended to the perfect parent). Essentially, society has this conception of a mother whose children never fall ill, never hurt themselves, are well fed, clean, neat and tidy, and grow up both gifted and functional. In addition, the mother is supposed to hold this to be the highest good, and in a sense, sacrifice herself to this ideal. In so doing, she will in fact realize her own transcendence in service to her children, and attain fulfillment.

My friend remarked at how anxious mothers often look when they arrive late to pick up their children from child care. They are worried that they will be judged as bad parents due to their tardiness, which obviously indicates that they do not care enough for their child. I assume that guilt, though of a different nature, follows these parents to the workplace as well, where they feel bad because they need to leave early to pick up their kids, or arrive tired because they couldn't sleep due to their children the night before. This 'parenting benefit' would make it easier to juggle employment and parenting commitments, particularly in the case of single parents or low income families.

Now while the model might have trouble really legitimizing the career of parenting, it would make it easier for parents to choose to be with their kids full time. In that sense, it seems to me to accord a measure of respect to the activity of parenting. I wonder though, whether or not some purist groups would suggest that this in fact cheapens motherhood by attaching a price to it. The 'perfect mother' would not need an incentive to be with her children. My impression is that we already put a price on surrogate parenting in the form of nannys and child care, so why not socially affirm the fact that we value dedicated parenting?

There are a few more points worth noting. First, this model seems a more efficient mechanism than maternity leave, which has understandably met with some opposition from private industry, particularly smaller businesses. It is however, a great deal more expensive, since parents can claim the benefits even when their children are older. I wonder though how it would balance out compared to the child care rebate. Presumably we could also build in some kind of mechanism to reduce the benefit as children get older and are less of a burden, such as when they reach school age and are away from 9-3pm at least. 

Another thing to think about is whether or not such a burden would be like the baby bonus on steroids for young, uneducated people looking for some cash. It seems fairly self-evident that many young people are having babies simply to receive the bonus, without due regard for the consequences. Would a similar situation arise if the above model were implemented? It is after all, designed to encourage 'good parenting', and if it achieves the opposite in a large number of cases perhaps this idea would be better confined to the dustbin.

Your thoughts?