WEBVTT - What’s wrong with a declining birth rate?

0:00:00.520 --> 0:00:05.640
<v Speaker 1>Already and this is the Daily This is the Daily OS. Oh,

0:00:05.800 --> 0:00:16.040
<v Speaker 1>now it makes sense. Good morning, and welcome to the

0:00:16.120 --> 0:00:19.080
<v Speaker 1>Daily OS. It's Wednesday, the nineteenth of March. I'm Billy,

0:00:19.400 --> 0:00:24.439
<v Speaker 1>I'm zara. Last week TDA exclusively reported that Coalition Senator

0:00:24.520 --> 0:00:27.880
<v Speaker 1>Matt Canavan is proposing a policy to offer couples a

0:00:27.960 --> 0:00:31.320
<v Speaker 1>low interest loan of one hundred thousand dollars once they

0:00:31.400 --> 0:00:34.519
<v Speaker 1>have a child. Now, this loan would only apply to

0:00:34.600 --> 0:00:37.839
<v Speaker 1>families buying their first home, and it would be wiped

0:00:37.960 --> 0:00:42.320
<v Speaker 1>completely if they have three children. While Canavan has put

0:00:42.360 --> 0:00:46.440
<v Speaker 1>forward the idea, the Coalition hasn't formally adopted this policy,

0:00:46.840 --> 0:00:51.400
<v Speaker 1>but it has kickstarted a fascinating conversation about Australia's declining

0:00:51.560 --> 0:00:54.880
<v Speaker 1>birth rate. So today we are here to explain why

0:00:54.920 --> 0:00:57.840
<v Speaker 1>a declining birth rate is an issue, and we will

0:00:57.880 --> 0:01:00.000
<v Speaker 1>break down Canavan's idea to So.

0:01:03.720 --> 0:01:05.560
<v Speaker 2>All right, so Billy, there's a lot there. It's a

0:01:05.600 --> 0:01:08.399
<v Speaker 2>big idea and it certainly generated a lot of interest

0:01:08.560 --> 0:01:11.160
<v Speaker 2>among our audience. But I do just want to start

0:01:11.200 --> 0:01:13.760
<v Speaker 2>with the person, I guess at the center of this story,

0:01:13.880 --> 0:01:18.039
<v Speaker 2>Senator Matt Canavan. If listeners aren't familiar, what do we

0:01:18.040 --> 0:01:18.920
<v Speaker 2>need to know about him.

0:01:19.240 --> 0:01:23.600
<v Speaker 1>So, Matt Canavan has been a Queensland Senator since twenty thirteen,

0:01:23.760 --> 0:01:25.560
<v Speaker 1>so he's from the state of Queensland, but he is

0:01:25.600 --> 0:01:29.480
<v Speaker 1>a federal Senator in the Federal Parliament. Now in the Senate,

0:01:29.560 --> 0:01:32.679
<v Speaker 1>Canavan is part of the National Party, which is led

0:01:32.720 --> 0:01:36.600
<v Speaker 1>by David Little Proud and federally, the National Party has

0:01:36.640 --> 0:01:40.080
<v Speaker 1>a formal alliance with the Liberal Party which is led

0:01:40.120 --> 0:01:43.039
<v Speaker 1>by Peter Dunton, and they have this formal alliance to

0:01:43.240 --> 0:01:46.480
<v Speaker 1>form a government together if they win enough seats together

0:01:46.720 --> 0:01:49.920
<v Speaker 1>at an election, and that is what we call the coalition.

0:01:50.000 --> 0:01:52.640
<v Speaker 1>So whenever we're referring to the coalition, we're referring to

0:01:52.680 --> 0:01:54.600
<v Speaker 1>the National Party and the Liberal Party.

0:01:54.800 --> 0:01:58.080
<v Speaker 2>Good Civics education, great civicxegutiy. One minute in, I've learned

0:01:58.080 --> 0:01:59.120
<v Speaker 2>everything I need to know.

0:02:00.000 --> 0:02:03.640
<v Speaker 1>In terms of where Canavan stands within the coalition. He

0:02:03.880 --> 0:02:07.600
<v Speaker 1>was a minister under Turnbull's government under Malcolm Turnbull when

0:02:07.600 --> 0:02:11.720
<v Speaker 1>he was Prime Minister. He was Resources Minister then. But

0:02:12.000 --> 0:02:15.079
<v Speaker 1>now as the Liberal Party is led by Peter Dudden,

0:02:15.240 --> 0:02:19.520
<v Speaker 1>Mat Canavan doesn't currently hold any shadow ministry position, so

0:02:19.560 --> 0:02:22.480
<v Speaker 1>that would probably suggest to us that if the coalition

0:02:22.639 --> 0:02:25.280
<v Speaker 1>does get into government, at the next election, which as

0:02:25.320 --> 0:02:27.960
<v Speaker 1>we've said many times, is due by the seventeenth of May.

0:02:28.600 --> 0:02:31.640
<v Speaker 1>If the Coalition does win, he probably won't be a

0:02:31.800 --> 0:02:34.400
<v Speaker 1>minister again, just based on the fact that he's not

0:02:34.480 --> 0:02:38.240
<v Speaker 1>a shadow minister at the moment. Now. That could partly

0:02:38.240 --> 0:02:40.240
<v Speaker 1>have something to do with the fact that he often

0:02:40.320 --> 0:02:46.120
<v Speaker 1>speaks out against the coalition's official position on multiple policy areas. So,

0:02:46.200 --> 0:02:49.680
<v Speaker 1>for example, one area that he feels quite passionate about

0:02:49.760 --> 0:02:50.960
<v Speaker 1>is climate change.

0:02:50.760 --> 0:02:52.800
<v Speaker 2>Which is why it's so interesting that he was the

0:02:52.840 --> 0:02:56.760
<v Speaker 2>Resources Minister under Mountain Turmpule, who is famously quite a

0:02:56.800 --> 0:02:59.440
<v Speaker 2>strong character when it comes to climate Matt Canavan sitting

0:02:59.480 --> 0:03:01.880
<v Speaker 2>on the opper end of the spectrum, ye too, Termbull.

0:03:02.040 --> 0:03:05.160
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, So, for example, he suggested that Australia should withdraw

0:03:05.280 --> 0:03:08.120
<v Speaker 1>from the Paris Agreement, which is not an official stance

0:03:08.200 --> 0:03:10.520
<v Speaker 1>of the Coalition or of the National Party or of

0:03:10.560 --> 0:03:14.160
<v Speaker 1>the Liberal Party. So he's kind of considered often like

0:03:14.320 --> 0:03:17.680
<v Speaker 1>a rogue backbencher. I feel like that's the term that

0:03:17.760 --> 0:03:20.160
<v Speaker 1>is often used to describe him in the media, but

0:03:20.520 --> 0:03:24.040
<v Speaker 1>he does hold weight. He is a Queensland Senator.

0:03:24.440 --> 0:03:26.280
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, And just to give everyone a visual if you

0:03:26.320 --> 0:03:28.639
<v Speaker 2>still don't know who we're talking about. Anytime you turn

0:03:28.680 --> 0:03:31.200
<v Speaker 2>on the news and there is a member of Parliament

0:03:31.560 --> 0:03:35.640
<v Speaker 2>who has a TV on behind him with a message,

0:03:35.720 --> 0:03:38.720
<v Speaker 2>that's Mat Canavan. That has become his kind of signature

0:03:38.920 --> 0:03:42.160
<v Speaker 2>thing when it comes to media interviews. Okay, so, Billy,

0:03:42.240 --> 0:03:45.119
<v Speaker 2>let's turn out to this policy idea that mac Canavan

0:03:45.480 --> 0:03:49.440
<v Speaker 2>has put forward. I'm keen to understand the context in

0:03:49.480 --> 0:03:53.840
<v Speaker 2>which his policy of trying to incentivize people to have children,

0:03:54.240 --> 0:03:56.720
<v Speaker 2>the context of where that policy really comes from.

0:03:57.040 --> 0:03:59.520
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. So Australia's birth rate has been falling for a

0:03:59.640 --> 0:04:02.600
<v Speaker 1>number of decades, and when I was looking into this

0:04:02.680 --> 0:04:06.000
<v Speaker 1>with tda's political journalist Harry Seculitch last week, I was

0:04:06.040 --> 0:04:09.240
<v Speaker 1>fascinated to learn just how much it has dropped. So

0:04:09.280 --> 0:04:11.520
<v Speaker 1>if we go back to the nineteen fifties, a long,

0:04:11.560 --> 0:04:15.200
<v Speaker 1>long time ago, the birth rate was three point five

0:04:15.280 --> 0:04:20.280
<v Speaker 1>babies per woman, So for every woman in Australia, on average,

0:04:20.320 --> 0:04:23.840
<v Speaker 1>she was producing three point five children. Now, in two

0:04:23.880 --> 0:04:27.200
<v Speaker 1>thousand and eight, the birth rate had dropped to two

0:04:27.320 --> 0:04:31.400
<v Speaker 1>point zero two, about two children per woman. In twenty

0:04:31.440 --> 0:04:34.080
<v Speaker 1>twenty three, which is the most recent data we have,

0:04:34.640 --> 0:04:37.960
<v Speaker 1>it was down to one point five children per woman.

0:04:38.400 --> 0:04:43.120
<v Speaker 1>So it's been dropping significantly for decades, and the fact

0:04:43.160 --> 0:04:45.720
<v Speaker 1>that the current birth rate is one point five children

0:04:45.760 --> 0:04:49.840
<v Speaker 1>per woman means that we're not meeting the replacement rate,

0:04:49.880 --> 0:04:53.040
<v Speaker 1>which would be two children. So if we just take

0:04:53.160 --> 0:04:56.960
<v Speaker 1>a very average family and say that's two parents, the

0:04:57.040 --> 0:05:00.520
<v Speaker 1>replacement rate would then be two children. But at moment

0:05:00.600 --> 0:05:04.159
<v Speaker 1>on average, we are not meeting that, and just purely

0:05:04.160 --> 0:05:09.040
<v Speaker 1>in terms of economic forecasts, that is considered an issue.

0:05:09.440 --> 0:05:11.440
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I am keen to unpack this idea of it

0:05:11.440 --> 0:05:14.599
<v Speaker 2>being an issue because we know that there is so

0:05:14.960 --> 0:05:18.400
<v Speaker 2>much that goes into the decision of having children not

0:05:18.480 --> 0:05:22.840
<v Speaker 2>having children. Of course, then infertility is a conversation alongside

0:05:23.000 --> 0:05:28.000
<v Speaker 2>everything else. But you said, just on purely economic terms

0:05:28.120 --> 0:05:32.320
<v Speaker 2>that a falling birth rate has implications. What are those implications, like,

0:05:32.360 --> 0:05:34.560
<v Speaker 2>why is it such an issue for the economy.

0:05:34.760 --> 0:05:36.920
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and again I want to really emphasize that we're

0:05:36.960 --> 0:05:40.440
<v Speaker 1>just talking about economic pros and cons We're not talking about,

0:05:40.720 --> 0:05:43.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, why women are often having less children than

0:05:43.880 --> 0:05:46.440
<v Speaker 1>they were fifty years ago. So in terms of this

0:05:46.520 --> 0:05:49.320
<v Speaker 1>declining birth rate and the reason why economically it is

0:05:49.400 --> 0:05:52.560
<v Speaker 1>considered an issue, it's basically because it means that we

0:05:52.640 --> 0:05:56.080
<v Speaker 1>have an aging population at the same time as we

0:05:56.160 --> 0:06:00.320
<v Speaker 1>have a shrinking working population. So that puts lot of

0:06:00.360 --> 0:06:03.320
<v Speaker 1>economic pressure on governments because it means that we have

0:06:03.720 --> 0:06:06.400
<v Speaker 1>less people being able to work and pay taxes, which

0:06:06.440 --> 0:06:09.360
<v Speaker 1>is the main way that governments get money. And at

0:06:09.360 --> 0:06:12.159
<v Speaker 1>the same time as that, we have more people requiring

0:06:12.200 --> 0:06:15.800
<v Speaker 1>assistance from the government when it comes to health services

0:06:15.839 --> 0:06:18.600
<v Speaker 1>and the pension, which obviously costs money.

0:06:18.960 --> 0:06:21.560
<v Speaker 2>And that's because, of course, people are now living longer

0:06:21.640 --> 0:06:24.280
<v Speaker 2>because we have medical interventions. There's so much that goes

0:06:24.320 --> 0:06:27.080
<v Speaker 2>into the fact that for a number of different things,

0:06:27.120 --> 0:06:29.840
<v Speaker 2>and of course it's great news for those we love,

0:06:30.120 --> 0:06:33.760
<v Speaker 2>but people are living longer and do require government services

0:06:33.800 --> 0:06:34.479
<v Speaker 2>as an older.

0:06:34.320 --> 0:06:37.640
<v Speaker 1>Population exactly, and it means that there is now a

0:06:37.680 --> 0:06:42.320
<v Speaker 1>lot of pressure on younger generations to care for older

0:06:42.360 --> 0:06:45.880
<v Speaker 1>generations now. At the same time, I don't want to

0:06:45.920 --> 0:06:48.320
<v Speaker 1>just keep having caveats, but I do also just want

0:06:48.360 --> 0:06:50.760
<v Speaker 1>to mention that at the same time that this conversation

0:06:50.920 --> 0:06:55.200
<v Speaker 1>is happening, there's also a conversation about overpopulation and the

0:06:55.240 --> 0:06:58.760
<v Speaker 1>issues with that. But I think just for this podcast,

0:06:58.800 --> 0:07:01.120
<v Speaker 1>I don't want to get into the debate between those

0:07:01.240 --> 0:07:03.880
<v Speaker 1>two things, and I think we just stick to the

0:07:03.960 --> 0:07:06.520
<v Speaker 1>declining birth rate. But I do just want to mention

0:07:06.640 --> 0:07:10.320
<v Speaker 1>that there are all of these different conversations around this topic,

0:07:10.440 --> 0:07:14.200
<v Speaker 1>that it's really dense and complex, but an important thing

0:07:14.200 --> 0:07:14.800
<v Speaker 1>to talk about.

0:07:15.240 --> 0:07:18.000
<v Speaker 2>Okay, So you've said the scene there we have an

0:07:18.000 --> 0:07:22.040
<v Speaker 2>aging population at the same time as fewer babies are

0:07:22.120 --> 0:07:25.280
<v Speaker 2>being born and therefore fewer people going on to help

0:07:25.360 --> 0:07:29.320
<v Speaker 2>with that aging population. So that is the one economic

0:07:29.360 --> 0:07:31.720
<v Speaker 2>issue that we're focusing on today, and certainly the context

0:07:31.800 --> 0:07:36.160
<v Speaker 2>in which Senator Matt Canavan has proposed this new idea.

0:07:36.320 --> 0:07:41.119
<v Speaker 2>Canavan spoke directly to tda's journalist Harry. As you mentioned earlier,

0:07:41.160 --> 0:07:43.040
<v Speaker 2>I walked past him on the phone saying Hi, Matt,

0:07:43.080 --> 0:07:44.720
<v Speaker 2>and I was wondering whether that was who he was

0:07:44.760 --> 0:07:48.280
<v Speaker 2>speaking to. It turns out was Harry is sick today.

0:07:48.440 --> 0:07:50.760
<v Speaker 2>So we've jumped on to explain the story. But really

0:07:50.800 --> 0:07:53.440
<v Speaker 2>he has done so much of the heavy lifting here.

0:07:53.600 --> 0:07:55.560
<v Speaker 2>What did Matt Canavan tell Harry?

0:07:55.960 --> 0:07:59.360
<v Speaker 1>Okay, So, in his chat with Harry, Canavan explained this

0:07:59.520 --> 0:08:02.800
<v Speaker 1>propose policy, or this big idea that he has, which

0:08:02.840 --> 0:08:06.080
<v Speaker 1>is to give first time parents a one hundred thousand

0:08:06.080 --> 0:08:09.720
<v Speaker 1>dollar government loan, and this would only apply to families

0:08:09.800 --> 0:08:12.240
<v Speaker 1>buying their first home. So it's kind of attempting to

0:08:12.280 --> 0:08:16.280
<v Speaker 1>solve two issues. One is the affordability of homes in

0:08:16.320 --> 0:08:19.480
<v Speaker 1>Australia and the second is the declining birth rate and

0:08:19.520 --> 0:08:23.400
<v Speaker 1>trying to incentivize families to have more children. Now, this

0:08:23.480 --> 0:08:26.160
<v Speaker 1>one hundred thousand dollar government loan, the idea that Matt

0:08:26.200 --> 0:08:29.840
<v Speaker 1>Canavan put forward is that the loan would decrease by

0:08:29.920 --> 0:08:33.400
<v Speaker 1>thirty percent after a second child and then would be

0:08:33.520 --> 0:08:37.480
<v Speaker 1>wiped all together after a third child. So essentially what

0:08:37.520 --> 0:08:40.760
<v Speaker 1>that means is that families would basically receive one hundred

0:08:40.760 --> 0:08:43.680
<v Speaker 1>thousand dollars to spend on a home if you have

0:08:43.840 --> 0:08:45.960
<v Speaker 1>three kids, because you wouldn't need to pay back the

0:08:46.000 --> 0:08:47.800
<v Speaker 1>loan if you have three kids.

0:08:48.360 --> 0:08:50.760
<v Speaker 2>When we saw this come across our desks on a

0:08:50.840 --> 0:08:53.800
<v Speaker 2>Friday afternoon, it was certainly one of the more unique

0:08:53.800 --> 0:08:57.880
<v Speaker 2>policy propositions that I've seen. But I do want to

0:08:57.960 --> 0:09:00.600
<v Speaker 2>just highlight again, as you say said at the top,

0:09:00.640 --> 0:09:04.720
<v Speaker 2>that this isn't the coalition's formal policy position, is it No?

0:09:04.960 --> 0:09:07.920
<v Speaker 1>Okay, it's just an idea that is being put forward

0:09:08.040 --> 0:09:11.800
<v Speaker 1>by Canavan. We do know that he has raised the

0:09:11.840 --> 0:09:15.559
<v Speaker 1>policy in the National's party room and he told Harry

0:09:15.600 --> 0:09:19.280
<v Speaker 1>that he does have the support of some MPs and senators.

0:09:19.520 --> 0:09:23.240
<v Speaker 1>Harry asked if he could know who those party members were,

0:09:23.320 --> 0:09:27.839
<v Speaker 1>and Matt Canavan said no. Canavan also did admit that

0:09:27.920 --> 0:09:30.840
<v Speaker 1>the issue wouldn't be high on the agenda at the

0:09:30.880 --> 0:09:34.560
<v Speaker 1>upcoming federal election, so he's clearly saying this isn't a top,

0:09:34.640 --> 0:09:38.040
<v Speaker 1>top priority of the coalition. But he said that if

0:09:38.080 --> 0:09:40.840
<v Speaker 1>the Coalition did win government, it would be an idea

0:09:40.960 --> 0:09:44.000
<v Speaker 1>that he would advocate for. And he kept saying it.

0:09:44.200 --> 0:09:48.120
<v Speaker 1>He wasn't necessarily wedded to this exact policy, but what

0:09:48.200 --> 0:09:51.240
<v Speaker 1>he feels really strongly about is that we should be

0:09:51.280 --> 0:09:55.840
<v Speaker 1>having a bigger conversation about the declining birth rate in Australia.

0:09:56.120 --> 0:09:59.160
<v Speaker 1>And so he said, perhaps not this exact one, but

0:09:59.280 --> 0:10:01.560
<v Speaker 1>we need to be having this conversation now.

0:10:02.040 --> 0:10:07.199
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, Australia isn't unique in the situation that finds itself. Certainly.

0:10:07.240 --> 0:10:10.040
<v Speaker 2>I know, I've read a lot about Japan's aging population,

0:10:10.280 --> 0:10:12.920
<v Speaker 2>for example. I was interested to know that there is

0:10:12.920 --> 0:10:16.360
<v Speaker 2>actually a precedent for this policy elsewhere in the world.

0:10:16.559 --> 0:10:19.360
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, So this whole policy proposal that Matt Canavan is

0:10:19.400 --> 0:10:22.280
<v Speaker 1>putting forward, he said he was inspired by a similar

0:10:22.320 --> 0:10:25.280
<v Speaker 1>scheme that has happened in Hungary. Now when I learned

0:10:25.320 --> 0:10:28.439
<v Speaker 1>about this, it genuinely blew my mind. Let me take

0:10:28.480 --> 0:10:31.360
<v Speaker 1>you through the steps of it. So in twenty nineteen,

0:10:31.400 --> 0:10:34.959
<v Speaker 1>the Hungarian government introduced a loan scheme to encourage more

0:10:35.000 --> 0:10:37.559
<v Speaker 1>women to have children. So I'm going to go through

0:10:37.600 --> 0:10:40.400
<v Speaker 1>each of the phases of this loan scheme. So phase one,

0:10:40.840 --> 0:10:43.400
<v Speaker 1>if you are a woman who got married in Hungary

0:10:43.440 --> 0:10:47.040
<v Speaker 1>and twenty nineteen, you would receive the equivalent of about

0:10:47.080 --> 0:10:51.120
<v Speaker 1>forty three thousand Aussie dollars in a loan, and that

0:10:51.160 --> 0:10:55.080
<v Speaker 1>could be spent on anything. So this wasn't specifically two homes.

0:10:55.400 --> 0:10:57.360
<v Speaker 1>And again that's just if you get married. That's got

0:10:57.400 --> 0:11:00.199
<v Speaker 1>nothing to do with children yet. But then phase two,

0:11:00.760 --> 0:11:03.560
<v Speaker 1>if you have a child, so your first child, you

0:11:03.679 --> 0:11:06.720
<v Speaker 1>then didn't need to pay off the loan for three years.

0:11:07.440 --> 0:11:09.240
<v Speaker 1>The next step the next child. If you have a

0:11:09.280 --> 0:11:13.200
<v Speaker 1>second child, then one third of the loan would be white.

0:11:13.960 --> 0:11:16.920
<v Speaker 1>And then a third child would mean that the loan

0:11:17.160 --> 0:11:18.160
<v Speaker 1>was completely white.

0:11:18.880 --> 0:11:20.360
<v Speaker 2>But then there's more.

0:11:20.480 --> 0:11:23.480
<v Speaker 1>There's still more, Okay. The fourth one is the one

0:11:23.520 --> 0:11:27.000
<v Speaker 1>that blew my mind. If you had four children in Hungry,

0:11:27.440 --> 0:11:31.360
<v Speaker 1>it would mean that you would pay no income tax

0:11:31.600 --> 0:11:32.679
<v Speaker 1>for the rest of your life.

0:11:33.520 --> 0:11:38.240
<v Speaker 2>Well, my Hungarian mother with four children would be listening

0:11:38.280 --> 0:11:41.720
<v Speaker 2>to this with great interest. That's crazy, isn't that crazy?

0:11:41.800 --> 0:11:44.240
<v Speaker 1>So if you think like of your income and how

0:11:44.240 --> 0:11:46.760
<v Speaker 1>it gets taxed every month or whenever your pay cycle

0:11:46.920 --> 0:11:49.400
<v Speaker 1>is in Hungry, if you had four children, that means

0:11:49.440 --> 0:11:52.400
<v Speaker 1>that you would never have to pay that income tax.

0:11:52.640 --> 0:11:55.640
<v Speaker 2>I'm so interested to know if it worked, Like, if

0:11:55.679 --> 0:11:58.960
<v Speaker 2>the idea was to bring up the birthrate, did it work?

0:11:59.000 --> 0:11:59.560
<v Speaker 2>Did it do that?

0:11:59.760 --> 0:12:02.199
<v Speaker 1>This is where it kind of gets murky, and Harry

0:12:02.240 --> 0:12:04.320
<v Speaker 1>and I were looking at this and trying to figure

0:12:04.320 --> 0:12:08.200
<v Speaker 1>out what the analysis says. Essentially, the birth rate in

0:12:08.280 --> 0:12:11.080
<v Speaker 1>Hungary has been rising for over a decade.

0:12:10.760 --> 0:12:13.280
<v Speaker 2>So before this league came into effects.

0:12:12.960 --> 0:12:15.720
<v Speaker 1>Exactly, even before this policy came into effects, the birth

0:12:15.800 --> 0:12:19.520
<v Speaker 1>rate was rising, and since his policy came into effect,

0:12:19.600 --> 0:12:23.960
<v Speaker 1>it has continued to rise, but not by a considerable amount.

0:12:24.120 --> 0:12:27.400
<v Speaker 1>There hasn't been this huge jump that you can look

0:12:27.400 --> 0:12:30.959
<v Speaker 1>at twenty nineteen and say, at that moment there has

0:12:31.000 --> 0:12:34.800
<v Speaker 1>been a drastic change in the birth rate, but it

0:12:34.840 --> 0:12:38.880
<v Speaker 1>has increased since twenty nineteen. So again, there hasn't been

0:12:38.960 --> 0:12:41.800
<v Speaker 1>a lot of analysis that we could find, but there

0:12:41.800 --> 0:12:42.800
<v Speaker 1>has been an increase.

0:12:43.080 --> 0:12:46.280
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, so interesting, and maybe you know, in the years

0:12:46.280 --> 0:12:48.080
<v Speaker 2>to come, we'll be able to see a clearer picture

0:12:48.120 --> 0:12:50.559
<v Speaker 2>of what that looks like over there. I do want

0:12:50.600 --> 0:12:54.160
<v Speaker 2>to come back to Australia now because one of the

0:12:54.200 --> 0:12:57.239
<v Speaker 2>things that I'm reminded of when we have this conversation

0:12:57.559 --> 0:13:01.000
<v Speaker 2>about Matt Canavan's policy is that this isn't new conversation.

0:13:01.240 --> 0:13:05.400
<v Speaker 2>Australia has been having this same conversation across the political

0:13:05.440 --> 0:13:06.880
<v Speaker 2>aisle for decades.

0:13:07.200 --> 0:13:09.960
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. Do you remember that quote, one for mum, one

0:13:10.040 --> 0:13:12.040
<v Speaker 1>for dad, and one for the country. Yeah.

0:13:12.080 --> 0:13:13.920
<v Speaker 2>I remember that quote because we made it our caption

0:13:14.080 --> 0:13:17.120
<v Speaker 2>saying one for one for dad and one for Matt Canavan.

0:13:17.000 --> 0:13:19.640
<v Speaker 1>One of our best captions for all. That is a

0:13:19.640 --> 0:13:21.840
<v Speaker 1>famous quote though, One for mom, one for dad, and

0:13:21.840 --> 0:13:23.920
<v Speaker 1>one for the country. It was said in two thousand

0:13:23.960 --> 0:13:26.720
<v Speaker 1>and four by the former Liberal Treasurer of Peter Costello,

0:13:26.920 --> 0:13:29.080
<v Speaker 1>who at the time was trying to encourage families to

0:13:29.160 --> 0:13:32.120
<v Speaker 1>have more children, and he said that quote as he

0:13:32.200 --> 0:13:35.360
<v Speaker 1>was introducing a program to give parents three thousand dollars

0:13:35.480 --> 0:13:39.240
<v Speaker 1>for each new child born, the baby bonus, the baby bonus.

0:13:39.240 --> 0:13:42.200
<v Speaker 1>So that was a massive conversation then, and clearly it

0:13:42.200 --> 0:13:45.640
<v Speaker 1>hasn't gone away in the twenty years since that was announced.

0:13:46.240 --> 0:13:48.680
<v Speaker 1>The other big time, I mean recently. The other big

0:13:48.720 --> 0:13:51.520
<v Speaker 1>time that this has come up is last year ahead

0:13:51.559 --> 0:13:54.920
<v Speaker 1>of the budget, when Labor Treasurer Jim Chalmers told nine

0:13:54.960 --> 0:13:58.439
<v Speaker 1>newspapers that quote it would be better if birth rates

0:13:58.480 --> 0:14:01.439
<v Speaker 1>were higher. He did quite a lot of slack when

0:14:01.480 --> 0:14:03.120
<v Speaker 1>he said that you know a lot of people saying

0:14:03.160 --> 0:14:06.680
<v Speaker 1>that that comment ignores the reason why. I know, for

0:14:06.720 --> 0:14:08.200
<v Speaker 1>a lot of women it's not a choice to have

0:14:08.280 --> 0:14:10.880
<v Speaker 1>less babies, but for those families where they are choosing

0:14:10.920 --> 0:14:13.160
<v Speaker 1>to have less babies, it's because of the cost of

0:14:13.200 --> 0:14:16.520
<v Speaker 1>living crisis. He did say in that that there are

0:14:16.600 --> 0:14:19.440
<v Speaker 1>a whole range of reasons people's preferences are changing, and

0:14:19.480 --> 0:14:22.920
<v Speaker 1>he acknowledged that it is expensive to raise kids. But

0:14:23.040 --> 0:14:25.720
<v Speaker 1>again that comment saying that it's an issue that there

0:14:25.760 --> 0:14:29.119
<v Speaker 1>is a declining birth rate did reignite that conversation.

0:14:29.840 --> 0:14:33.000
<v Speaker 2>I mean speaking of Jim Chalmers is the current treasurer.

0:14:33.080 --> 0:14:35.960
<v Speaker 2>He's handing down the budget next week. Can we expect

0:14:36.240 --> 0:14:38.480
<v Speaker 2>anything from Labor on this. Have they responded to Matt

0:14:38.520 --> 0:14:39.880
<v Speaker 2>Canavan's proposal?

0:14:40.480 --> 0:14:44.800
<v Speaker 1>Great question. They haven't announced anything specifically about the declining

0:14:44.840 --> 0:14:46.880
<v Speaker 1>birth rates. But I guess you would say everything that

0:14:46.880 --> 0:14:49.920
<v Speaker 1>they've done in the childcare space is to make it

0:14:50.000 --> 0:14:53.760
<v Speaker 1>easier for families to have more children. So they haven't

0:14:53.800 --> 0:14:57.160
<v Speaker 1>specifically said that this is attached to the declining birth rate,

0:14:57.400 --> 0:15:00.760
<v Speaker 1>but they've definitely announced policies to make it it easier

0:15:00.960 --> 0:15:04.960
<v Speaker 1>for families. Now, Harry did speak to Labour's Minister for Women,

0:15:05.200 --> 0:15:10.200
<v Speaker 1>Katie Gallaher, about Matt Canavan's specific policy proposal, and she

0:15:10.320 --> 0:15:14.160
<v Speaker 1>told TDA I'm not entirely surprised that Canavan is linking

0:15:14.200 --> 0:15:18.120
<v Speaker 1>financial incentives to a woman's reproduction of children, and she

0:15:18.200 --> 0:15:21.080
<v Speaker 1>said the key to reversing declining birth rates is to

0:15:21.280 --> 0:15:24.520
<v Speaker 1>support people and their choices. And she said, this is

0:15:24.520 --> 0:15:27.480
<v Speaker 1>a specific quote. I don't think imposing these kinds of

0:15:27.600 --> 0:15:30.600
<v Speaker 1>nineteen fifties views about the role of women and their

0:15:30.640 --> 0:15:34.320
<v Speaker 1>reproductive capacity is the right way to go. So she's

0:15:34.320 --> 0:15:37.480
<v Speaker 1>saying she's not in favor of this policy at all.

0:15:37.760 --> 0:15:40.160
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, So certainly no strong science there from the government

0:15:40.160 --> 0:15:42.840
<v Speaker 2>that they would ever support anything like that. We did

0:15:42.880 --> 0:15:45.160
<v Speaker 2>also ask our audience on Instagram what they thought about

0:15:45.200 --> 0:15:49.400
<v Speaker 2>the proposal. Sixty six percent of respondents rejected the ideas

0:15:49.440 --> 0:15:52.120
<v Speaker 2>so that they wouldn't support something like that, the rest

0:15:52.240 --> 0:15:55.720
<v Speaker 2>obviously confirming that they would so by no means an

0:15:55.760 --> 0:15:58.880
<v Speaker 2>overwhelming rejection. And we had all sorts of responses coming

0:15:58.880 --> 0:16:01.520
<v Speaker 2>in as to why people either or reject the idea,

0:16:01.600 --> 0:16:04.080
<v Speaker 2>but certainly one that got the conversation started.

0:16:04.240 --> 0:16:06.760
<v Speaker 1>I would always say, that's a pretty good reception to

0:16:06.800 --> 0:16:09.280
<v Speaker 1>a policy. You've got one in three people saying that

0:16:09.640 --> 0:16:12.560
<v Speaker 1>they would feel encouraged to have more children if this

0:16:12.640 --> 0:16:15.880
<v Speaker 1>policy came into effect. Yeah, that's pretty high. One in three.

0:16:16.080 --> 0:16:18.960
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and especially given that our audience is young and

0:16:19.400 --> 0:16:21.240
<v Speaker 2>likely the target of that policy.

0:16:21.360 --> 0:16:23.920
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, that's all I got for you. That's our exclusive,

0:16:24.040 --> 0:16:27.480
<v Speaker 1>a TDA exclusive, Go Harry. We're so sorry that he's

0:16:27.520 --> 0:16:30.120
<v Speaker 1>sick today and wasn't here to explain it himself, but

0:16:30.680 --> 0:16:33.960
<v Speaker 1>it's just been the most fascinating chat in the TDA office.

0:16:34.040 --> 0:16:37.360
<v Speaker 1>It generated such an interesting conversation with the audience as well,

0:16:37.880 --> 0:16:41.800
<v Speaker 1>and we will keep those exclusives coming. Thank you so much, Zara,

0:16:41.880 --> 0:16:44.960
<v Speaker 1>thanks for listening to me yap, and thank you Old

0:16:45.160 --> 0:16:47.920
<v Speaker 1>also listening to me Yap. We'll be back again this

0:16:48.040 --> 0:16:51.560
<v Speaker 1>afternoon with your evening headlines. But until then, have a

0:16:51.600 --> 0:16:55.520
<v Speaker 1>great day.

0:16:56.360 --> 0:16:58.640
<v Speaker 3>My name is Lily Madden and I'm a proud Aarunda

0:16:58.880 --> 0:17:03.680
<v Speaker 3>bunge lung Kalkutin from Gadigol Country. The Daily oz acknowledges

0:17:03.760 --> 0:17:05.920
<v Speaker 3>that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the

0:17:05.960 --> 0:17:09.760
<v Speaker 3>Gadigol people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torrestrate

0:17:09.800 --> 0:17:12.720
<v Speaker 3>island and nations. We pay our respects to the first

0:17:12.720 --> 0:17:15.240
<v Speaker 3>peoples of these countries, both past and present.