Speaker 1: Already and this is the Daily This is the Daily OS. Oh,
Speaker 1: now it makes sense. Good morning, and welcome to the
Speaker 1: Daily OS. It's Wednesday, the nineteenth of March. I'm Billy,
Speaker 1: I'm zara. Last week TDA exclusively reported that Coalition Senator
Speaker 1: Matt Canavan is proposing a policy to offer couples a
Speaker 1: low interest loan of one hundred thousand dollars once they
Speaker 1: have a child. Now, this loan would only apply to
Speaker 1: families buying their first home, and it would be wiped
Speaker 1: completely if they have three children. While Canavan has put
Speaker 1: forward the idea, the Coalition hasn't formally adopted this policy,
Speaker 1: but it has kickstarted a fascinating conversation about Australia's declining
Speaker 1: birth rate. So today we are here to explain why
Speaker 1: a declining birth rate is an issue, and we will
Speaker 1: break down Canavan's idea to So.
Speaker 2: All right, so Billy, there's a lot there. It's a
Speaker 2: big idea and it certainly generated a lot of interest
Speaker 2: among our audience. But I do just want to start
Speaker 2: with the person, I guess at the center of this story,
Speaker 2: Senator Matt Canavan. If listeners aren't familiar, what do we
Speaker 2: need to know about him.
Speaker 1: So, Matt Canavan has been a Queensland Senator since twenty thirteen,
Speaker 1: so he's from the state of Queensland, but he is
Speaker 1: a federal Senator in the Federal Parliament. Now in the Senate,
Speaker 1: Canavan is part of the National Party, which is led
Speaker 1: by David Little Proud and federally, the National Party has
Speaker 1: a formal alliance with the Liberal Party which is led
Speaker 1: by Peter Dunton, and they have this formal alliance to
Speaker 1: form a government together if they win enough seats together
Speaker 1: at an election, and that is what we call the coalition.
Speaker 1: So whenever we're referring to the coalition, we're referring to
Speaker 1: the National Party and the Liberal Party.
Speaker 2: Good Civics education, great civicxegutiy. One minute in, I've learned
Speaker 2: everything I need to know.
Speaker 1: In terms of where Canavan stands within the coalition. He
Speaker 1: was a minister under Turnbull's government under Malcolm Turnbull when
Speaker 1: he was Prime Minister. He was Resources Minister then. But
Speaker 1: now as the Liberal Party is led by Peter Dudden,
Speaker 1: Mat Canavan doesn't currently hold any shadow ministry position, so
Speaker 1: that would probably suggest to us that if the coalition
Speaker 1: does get into government, at the next election, which as
Speaker 1: we've said many times, is due by the seventeenth of May.
Speaker 1: If the Coalition does win, he probably won't be a
Speaker 1: minister again, just based on the fact that he's not
Speaker 1: a shadow minister at the moment. Now. That could partly
Speaker 1: have something to do with the fact that he often
Speaker 1: speaks out against the coalition's official position on multiple policy areas. So,
Speaker 1: for example, one area that he feels quite passionate about
Speaker 1: is climate change.
Speaker 2: Which is why it's so interesting that he was the
Speaker 2: Resources Minister under Mountain Turmpule, who is famously quite a
Speaker 2: strong character when it comes to climate Matt Canavan sitting
Speaker 2: on the opper end of the spectrum, ye too, Termbull.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So, for example, he suggested that Australia should withdraw
Speaker 1: from the Paris Agreement, which is not an official stance
Speaker 1: of the Coalition or of the National Party or of
Speaker 1: the Liberal Party. So he's kind of considered often like
Speaker 1: a rogue backbencher. I feel like that's the term that
Speaker 1: is often used to describe him in the media, but
Speaker 1: he does hold weight. He is a Queensland Senator.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And just to give everyone a visual if you
Speaker 2: still don't know who we're talking about. Anytime you turn
Speaker 2: on the news and there is a member of Parliament
Speaker 2: who has a TV on behind him with a message,
Speaker 2: that's Mat Canavan. That has become his kind of signature
Speaker 2: thing when it comes to media interviews. Okay, so, Billy,
Speaker 2: let's turn out to this policy idea that mac Canavan
Speaker 2: has put forward. I'm keen to understand the context in
Speaker 2: which his policy of trying to incentivize people to have children,
Speaker 2: the context of where that policy really comes from.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So Australia's birth rate has been falling for a
Speaker 1: number of decades, and when I was looking into this
Speaker 1: with tda's political journalist Harry Seculitch last week, I was
Speaker 1: fascinated to learn just how much it has dropped. So
Speaker 1: if we go back to the nineteen fifties, a long,
Speaker 1: long time ago, the birth rate was three point five
Speaker 1: babies per woman, So for every woman in Australia, on average,
Speaker 1: she was producing three point five children. Now, in two
Speaker 1: thousand and eight, the birth rate had dropped to two
Speaker 1: point zero two, about two children per woman. In twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three, which is the most recent data we have,
Speaker 1: it was down to one point five children per woman.
Speaker 1: So it's been dropping significantly for decades, and the fact
Speaker 1: that the current birth rate is one point five children
Speaker 1: per woman means that we're not meeting the replacement rate,
Speaker 1: which would be two children. So if we just take
Speaker 1: a very average family and say that's two parents, the
Speaker 1: replacement rate would then be two children. But at moment
Speaker 1: on average, we are not meeting that, and just purely
Speaker 1: in terms of economic forecasts, that is considered an issue.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I am keen to unpack this idea of it
Speaker 2: being an issue because we know that there is so
Speaker 2: much that goes into the decision of having children not
Speaker 2: having children. Of course, then infertility is a conversation alongside
Speaker 2: everything else. But you said, just on purely economic terms
Speaker 2: that a falling birth rate has implications. What are those implications, like,
Speaker 2: why is it such an issue for the economy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and again I want to really emphasize that we're
Speaker 1: just talking about economic pros and cons We're not talking about,
Speaker 1: you know, why women are often having less children than
Speaker 1: they were fifty years ago. So in terms of this
Speaker 1: declining birth rate and the reason why economically it is
Speaker 1: considered an issue, it's basically because it means that we
Speaker 1: have an aging population at the same time as we
Speaker 1: have a shrinking working population. So that puts lot of
Speaker 1: economic pressure on governments because it means that we have
Speaker 1: less people being able to work and pay taxes, which
Speaker 1: is the main way that governments get money. And at
Speaker 1: the same time as that, we have more people requiring
Speaker 1: assistance from the government when it comes to health services
Speaker 1: and the pension, which obviously costs money.
Speaker 2: And that's because, of course, people are now living longer
Speaker 2: because we have medical interventions. There's so much that goes
Speaker 2: into the fact that for a number of different things,
Speaker 2: and of course it's great news for those we love,
Speaker 2: but people are living longer and do require government services
Speaker 2: as an older.
Speaker 1: Population exactly, and it means that there is now a
Speaker 1: lot of pressure on younger generations to care for older
Speaker 1: generations now. At the same time, I don't want to
Speaker 1: just keep having caveats, but I do also just want
Speaker 1: to mention that at the same time that this conversation
Speaker 1: is happening, there's also a conversation about overpopulation and the
Speaker 1: issues with that. But I think just for this podcast,
Speaker 1: I don't want to get into the debate between those
Speaker 1: two things, and I think we just stick to the
Speaker 1: declining birth rate. But I do just want to mention
Speaker 1: that there are all of these different conversations around this topic,
Speaker 1: that it's really dense and complex, but an important thing
Speaker 1: to talk about.
Speaker 2: Okay, So you've said the scene there we have an
Speaker 2: aging population at the same time as fewer babies are
Speaker 2: being born and therefore fewer people going on to help
Speaker 2: with that aging population. So that is the one economic
Speaker 2: issue that we're focusing on today, and certainly the context
Speaker 2: in which Senator Matt Canavan has proposed this new idea.
Speaker 2: Canavan spoke directly to tda's journalist Harry. As you mentioned earlier,
Speaker 2: I walked past him on the phone saying Hi, Matt,
Speaker 2: and I was wondering whether that was who he was
Speaker 2: speaking to. It turns out was Harry is sick today.
Speaker 2: So we've jumped on to explain the story. But really
Speaker 2: he has done so much of the heavy lifting here.
Speaker 2: What did Matt Canavan tell Harry?
Speaker 1: Okay, So, in his chat with Harry, Canavan explained this
Speaker 1: propose policy, or this big idea that he has, which
Speaker 1: is to give first time parents a one hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollar government loan, and this would only apply to families
Speaker 1: buying their first home. So it's kind of attempting to
Speaker 1: solve two issues. One is the affordability of homes in
Speaker 1: Australia and the second is the declining birth rate and
Speaker 1: trying to incentivize families to have more children. Now, this
Speaker 1: one hundred thousand dollar government loan, the idea that Matt
Speaker 1: Canavan put forward is that the loan would decrease by
Speaker 1: thirty percent after a second child and then would be
Speaker 1: wiped all together after a third child. So essentially what
Speaker 1: that means is that families would basically receive one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars to spend on a home if you have
Speaker 1: three kids, because you wouldn't need to pay back the
Speaker 1: loan if you have three kids.
Speaker 2: When we saw this come across our desks on a
Speaker 2: Friday afternoon, it was certainly one of the more unique
Speaker 2: policy propositions that I've seen. But I do want to
Speaker 2: just highlight again, as you say said at the top,
Speaker 2: that this isn't the coalition's formal policy position, is it No?
Speaker 1: Okay, it's just an idea that is being put forward
Speaker 1: by Canavan. We do know that he has raised the
Speaker 1: policy in the National's party room and he told Harry
Speaker 1: that he does have the support of some MPs and senators.
Speaker 1: Harry asked if he could know who those party members were,
Speaker 1: and Matt Canavan said no. Canavan also did admit that
Speaker 1: the issue wouldn't be high on the agenda at the
Speaker 1: upcoming federal election, so he's clearly saying this isn't a top,
Speaker 1: top priority of the coalition. But he said that if
Speaker 1: the Coalition did win government, it would be an idea
Speaker 1: that he would advocate for. And he kept saying it.
Speaker 1: He wasn't necessarily wedded to this exact policy, but what
Speaker 1: he feels really strongly about is that we should be
Speaker 1: having a bigger conversation about the declining birth rate in Australia.
Speaker 1: And so he said, perhaps not this exact one, but
Speaker 1: we need to be having this conversation now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Australia isn't unique in the situation that finds itself. Certainly.
Speaker 2: I know, I've read a lot about Japan's aging population,
Speaker 2: for example. I was interested to know that there is
Speaker 2: actually a precedent for this policy elsewhere in the world.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So this whole policy proposal that Matt Canavan is
Speaker 1: putting forward, he said he was inspired by a similar
Speaker 1: scheme that has happened in Hungary. Now when I learned
Speaker 1: about this, it genuinely blew my mind. Let me take
Speaker 1: you through the steps of it. So in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: the Hungarian government introduced a loan scheme to encourage more
Speaker 1: women to have children. So I'm going to go through
Speaker 1: each of the phases of this loan scheme. So phase one,
Speaker 1: if you are a woman who got married in Hungary
Speaker 1: and twenty nineteen, you would receive the equivalent of about
Speaker 1: forty three thousand Aussie dollars in a loan, and that
Speaker 1: could be spent on anything. So this wasn't specifically two homes.
Speaker 1: And again that's just if you get married. That's got
Speaker 1: nothing to do with children yet. But then phase two,
Speaker 1: if you have a child, so your first child, you
Speaker 1: then didn't need to pay off the loan for three years.
Speaker 1: The next step the next child. If you have a
Speaker 1: second child, then one third of the loan would be white.
Speaker 1: And then a third child would mean that the loan
Speaker 1: was completely white.
Speaker 2: But then there's more.
Speaker 1: There's still more, Okay. The fourth one is the one
Speaker 1: that blew my mind. If you had four children in Hungry,
Speaker 1: it would mean that you would pay no income tax
Speaker 1: for the rest of your life.
Speaker 2: Well, my Hungarian mother with four children would be listening
Speaker 2: to this with great interest. That's crazy, isn't that crazy?
Speaker 1: So if you think like of your income and how
Speaker 1: it gets taxed every month or whenever your pay cycle
Speaker 1: is in Hungry, if you had four children, that means
Speaker 1: that you would never have to pay that income tax.
Speaker 2: I'm so interested to know if it worked, Like, if
Speaker 2: the idea was to bring up the birthrate, did it work?
Speaker 2: Did it do that?
Speaker 1: This is where it kind of gets murky, and Harry
Speaker 1: and I were looking at this and trying to figure
Speaker 1: out what the analysis says. Essentially, the birth rate in
Speaker 1: Hungary has been rising for over a decade.
Speaker 2: So before this league came into effects.
Speaker 1: Exactly, even before this policy came into effects, the birth
Speaker 1: rate was rising, and since his policy came into effect,
Speaker 1: it has continued to rise, but not by a considerable amount.
Speaker 1: There hasn't been this huge jump that you can look
Speaker 1: at twenty nineteen and say, at that moment there has
Speaker 1: been a drastic change in the birth rate, but it
Speaker 1: has increased since twenty nineteen. So again, there hasn't been
Speaker 1: a lot of analysis that we could find, but there
Speaker 1: has been an increase.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so interesting, and maybe you know, in the years
Speaker 2: to come, we'll be able to see a clearer picture
Speaker 2: of what that looks like over there. I do want
Speaker 2: to come back to Australia now because one of the
Speaker 2: things that I'm reminded of when we have this conversation
Speaker 2: about Matt Canavan's policy is that this isn't new conversation.
Speaker 2: Australia has been having this same conversation across the political
Speaker 2: aisle for decades.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Do you remember that quote, one for mum, one
Speaker 1: for dad, and one for the country. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I remember that quote because we made it our caption
Speaker 2: saying one for one for dad and one for Matt Canavan.
Speaker 1: One of our best captions for all. That is a
Speaker 1: famous quote though, One for mom, one for dad, and
Speaker 1: one for the country. It was said in two thousand
Speaker 1: and four by the former Liberal Treasurer of Peter Costello,
Speaker 1: who at the time was trying to encourage families to
Speaker 1: have more children, and he said that quote as he
Speaker 1: was introducing a program to give parents three thousand dollars
Speaker 1: for each new child born, the baby bonus, the baby bonus.
Speaker 1: So that was a massive conversation then, and clearly it
Speaker 1: hasn't gone away in the twenty years since that was announced.
Speaker 1: The other big time, I mean recently. The other big
Speaker 1: time that this has come up is last year ahead
Speaker 1: of the budget, when Labor Treasurer Jim Chalmers told nine
Speaker 1: newspapers that quote it would be better if birth rates
Speaker 1: were higher. He did quite a lot of slack when
Speaker 1: he said that you know a lot of people saying
Speaker 1: that that comment ignores the reason why. I know, for
Speaker 1: a lot of women it's not a choice to have
Speaker 1: less babies, but for those families where they are choosing
Speaker 1: to have less babies, it's because of the cost of
Speaker 1: living crisis. He did say in that that there are
Speaker 1: a whole range of reasons people's preferences are changing, and
Speaker 1: he acknowledged that it is expensive to raise kids. But
Speaker 1: again that comment saying that it's an issue that there
Speaker 1: is a declining birth rate did reignite that conversation.
Speaker 2: I mean speaking of Jim Chalmers is the current treasurer.
Speaker 2: He's handing down the budget next week. Can we expect
Speaker 2: anything from Labor on this. Have they responded to Matt
Speaker 2: Canavan's proposal?
Speaker 1: Great question. They haven't announced anything specifically about the declining
Speaker 1: birth rates. But I guess you would say everything that
Speaker 1: they've done in the childcare space is to make it
Speaker 1: easier for families to have more children. So they haven't
Speaker 1: specifically said that this is attached to the declining birth rate,
Speaker 1: but they've definitely announced policies to make it it easier
Speaker 1: for families. Now, Harry did speak to Labour's Minister for Women,
Speaker 1: Katie Gallaher, about Matt Canavan's specific policy proposal, and she
Speaker 1: told TDA I'm not entirely surprised that Canavan is linking
Speaker 1: financial incentives to a woman's reproduction of children, and she
Speaker 1: said the key to reversing declining birth rates is to
Speaker 1: support people and their choices. And she said, this is
Speaker 1: a specific quote. I don't think imposing these kinds of
Speaker 1: nineteen fifties views about the role of women and their
Speaker 1: reproductive capacity is the right way to go. So she's
Speaker 1: saying she's not in favor of this policy at all.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So certainly no strong science there from the government
Speaker 2: that they would ever support anything like that. We did
Speaker 2: also ask our audience on Instagram what they thought about
Speaker 2: the proposal. Sixty six percent of respondents rejected the ideas
Speaker 2: so that they wouldn't support something like that, the rest
Speaker 2: obviously confirming that they would so by no means an
Speaker 2: overwhelming rejection. And we had all sorts of responses coming
Speaker 2: in as to why people either or reject the idea,
Speaker 2: but certainly one that got the conversation started.
Speaker 1: I would always say, that's a pretty good reception to
Speaker 1: a policy. You've got one in three people saying that
Speaker 1: they would feel encouraged to have more children if this
Speaker 1: policy came into effect. Yeah, that's pretty high. One in three.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and especially given that our audience is young and
Speaker 2: likely the target of that policy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's all I got for you. That's our exclusive,
Speaker 1: a TDA exclusive, Go Harry. We're so sorry that he's
Speaker 1: sick today and wasn't here to explain it himself, but
Speaker 1: it's just been the most fascinating chat in the TDA office.
Speaker 1: It generated such an interesting conversation with the audience as well,
Speaker 1: and we will keep those exclusives coming. Thank you so much, Zara,
Speaker 1: thanks for listening to me yap, and thank you Old
Speaker 1: also listening to me Yap. We'll be back again this
Speaker 1: afternoon with your evening headlines. But until then, have a
Speaker 1: great day.
Speaker 3: My name is Lily Madden and I'm a proud Aarunda
Speaker 3: bunge lung Kalkutin from Gadigol Country. The Daily oz acknowledges
Speaker 3: that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Speaker 3: Gadigol people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torrestrate
Speaker 3: island and nations. We pay our respects to the first
Speaker 3: peoples of these countries, both past and present.