Family policy in Australia began way back in the early 1980s yet up to end of the decade, the family policy was not yet considered as a great social aspect as compared to other OECD countries. At the time there were social programs that were funded by the federal grants as well as a single universal child program. The programs were provided through community organizations as well as by state organizations. The family policy was considered as a great social aspect due to the fact that the male breadwinners were highly regarded as the providers for the family, which included both the wife and the children ( (Pocock, Charlesworth, & Chapman, 2013); Glass, Simon, & Andersson, 2016)
However, since most of the women and the children who were under the care of the male breadwinners were not employed, there was the need to have their welfare catered for by the government so that in the event of the death of the head of the family, or a natural inability, then these vulnerable groups could still survive. Moreover, as the pressure in the labor market, as well as women’s social expectations, increased, family policy experienced dynamic changes for over four decades now.
Family policy experienced the changes due to several factors. First, the policy which was developed with the core burden of family care being placed on the male breadwinner was quite cumbersome, especially as far as the care of children and the old age parents was majorly done by the women. The women did a lot of work to care for these vulnerable groups when the male breadwinners were tasked with the provision of the family needs. However, due to the labor market needs, the women started to be engaged in the employment sector and this led to the need to review the policy. For instance, there was the need to understand who really was to pay for the care of the aged, especially, who had served the nation, and this compelled the government to offer services, subsidies as well as direct cash provisions for the care of these groups (Cass, Oglensky, Saute, Epstein, & Seron, 2014). Such provisions by the government were simultaneously funded by private care providers ( (Burkhauser & Holden, 2013); (Marston & McDonald, 2013).
Family policy also changed as a result of the increasingly low levels of income earned by the male breadwinners. In the 1980s, the wage levels for the men who were employed in various government organizations began to fall. Moreover, there was an increasing rate of employment due to mechanization of production in most firms. This led to the perception that it was not anymore possible for the families to depend entirely on the income from the male breadwinners (McDonald, 2013). Moreover, at the time, there was an overall increase in the national standard of living, and thus the minimum wage of the breadwinner was supposed to be a two figure. Since few could earn such wages, the government experienced the pressure from the need to provide support and more social services to improve the entry of women into the labor-market to enhance family income (Abramovitz, 2017). However, in cases where the women could not be employed in whatever case, it called for the intervention of other unions to assist in the supplementing of the earnings received by the male breadwinners.
The third structural change that led to the improvement of family policy being put into action was as a result of the Whitlam government introducing the no-fault divorce laws. This led to the fact there would be divorces as a result of agreements between the couple, leading to burdens of child care and aged parent care on either of the couple. This called for the need to assist family members who became single parents either through programs that could support them or policies that could ensure that they are catered for in line with the national standards (Schofield, Shrestha, Callander, & Kelly, 2012).
Although the initial family policy was entirely concerned with the provision of finances directly to the dependent spouses and children, the current family policy is more robust and includes the needs of the women in a broader extent and with more emphasis on the working mothers. Moreover, the policy is now extended to include the community as well as all the levels of government.
Several areas of family social welfare have been addressed as a result of the government family policies. Moreover, these policies have been successful due to the fact that the government has been putting more effort towards seeing that all the members of the family unit are taken care of, and at the same time, they can depend on themselves. The need for equal opportunities for both aboriginals and other settlers have been addressed as a result of the formulation of such policies. However, the success of the family policy is attributed to the constant reforms both the politics and work-related regulations. This has led to shifts in both social and demographic patterns in the families. For instance, there have been increased ex-nuptial births, increase in divorce cases, cohabitation and improvement in the community acceptability. These patterns have greatly influenced the family laws and regulations including the adoption of children. But the greatest changes have occurred in the work policies in relation to family life such as child support, child care and contingent welfare benefits which assist the children, as well as the income of the member working parties. Moreover, family policies also address the family violence and child abuse, all of which came as a result of recent reforms in the policy (Higgins, 2014). The major areas of the policy include the following sections. These sections are quite broad and extend to other areas which connect with other policies such as education, employment, health among others.
Although the Australian government is trying as much as possible to ensure that the wellbeing of the children is core, yet, still over 40000 children are suffering from neglect or are abused each year. According to the report presented on Government Services, “the number of children in out-of-home care increased by 32% from 35,895 to 47,915 and child abuse substantiations rose by 58% from 31,295 to 49,315.” (Australian Government, 2018). This has led the government to spend about $5.2 billion per year to help in the family support, protection of children and out-of-home care. However, although the cost of care increases as a result of the increase in the number of this policy requirement, the conditions are still not becoming any better as compared with those groups that live in comfort zones (Australian Government, 2018).
The government provides a national framework in which the children are protected. The framework which has been developed for 2009-2020 is founded on the need for “a strong leadership role by the Federal Government as well as an innovative tripartite approach to implementation through a partnership between the Federal Government, all State and Territory Governments and the NGO sector.” (Families Australia, 2018). As such, there are several organizations which are involved in the wellbeing of the children, and it is not easy to find that a child can miss an opportunity to be taken by any of the organizations.
The government of Australia gives support in terms of services and payments to families that have the burden of raising children. For instance, the government provides health care, education and at the same time, it assists the parents to balance between their work-related responsibilities and parenting responsibilities. The policy is driven by the help of the Department of Social Services. However, the support services and the payments are delivered through Human Services delivery agency.
Over 6.7 million families raise children in Australia. All these households have to be paid the following forms of payments. For instance, there is the birth and adoption. In this category, the Newborn Supplement and Newborn Upfront Payment was developed in 2014 to assist in the payment of costs related with the adopted and newborn children. The payment caters to about 24,200 families (DHS, 2014). Families raising children were also paid through the Parental Leave Pay to enable them to care for the children they have adopted or given birth to. In particular, in 2013 and 2014, the Parental Leave Pay catered for 145,000 working parents. Moreover, in the same period, 75,700 working dads received a total of $92.5 million from the Dad and Partner Pay kitty (DSS, 2014a; Lamb & Sagi, 2014). The policy further enabled for the payment of funds through tax relief for about 7 million parents. The Family Tax Benefit (FTB) is majorly to give a relief to the parents for them to raise their children in the best standards stipulated by the government.
The family policy has also led to the strengthening of family ties and statues. For instance, it is more likely to find that a Year 12 qualification individual is employed and receives his or her payment (Department of Education and Employment and Workplace Relations, 2012 ). According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012), there has been an improvement of life expectancy among the indigenous as well as the non-indigenous dwellers of the country, with a gap of 11.5 years for men and 9.7 years for women (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012).
According to the report given by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the family policy has not yet addressed all the concerns of families. It is the desire of every child to grow in a peaceful and conducive environment and with both of his or her parents. Although the policy was meant to assist families in all the aspects, still, there is family violence registered in many households. In fact, some of the family acts of violence are as a result of the family policy. For instance, statistically, about 17% of the women living in Australia have an experience of family violence from their husbands. This can be attributed primarily to the work-related concerns, where the women have to also go for work, but in most cases, may not meet the needs of the family members in entirety. Moreover, the policy has also experienced setbacks as a result of the no-fault divorce laws introduced during the Whitlam government. This law makes it easy for most families to break knowing provisions of the family policies. Still, the policy has not addressed some issues dealing with the differences among the dwellers, like the Islanders, the aboriginals, and the new immigrants. The difference in the life expectancy according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that the policy may be favoring a particular group of people as compared to others (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012). However, these areas of failures cannot be matched with the numerous benefits that have resulted from the formulated and implementation of family policy.
Conclusion
Family policy is one of the policies that the Australian government should put more emphasis on because it is one of the areas that affect almost all aspects of the economy of the country. Workplace performance, education, healthcare, governance, and security, among other social factors, depend on the state of families. Families that are raised well tend to have better performance in various sectors of the economy as compared to families that have problems. The policy as formulated by the government is trying to align families with the nation’s core need. However, the policy is consuming a lot of resources from the government, making it quite difficult for it to sustain all the vulnerable groups defined by the same policy. Moreover, there are other provisions of the law which also affect the policy performance, which may be reviewed to make the policy work and benefit the most people.
This article makes the following recommendations to help improve the performance of the policy, especially in the areas where the policy experiences some failure.
References
Abramovitz, M. (2017). Regulating the lives of women: Social welfare policy from colonial times to the present. Routledge.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). HOUSEHOLDS AND FAMILIES. Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~Households%20and%20families~56
Australian Government. (2018). Report on Government Services 2018. Government of Australia. Retrieved from https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2018/housing-and-homelessness
Burkhauser, R. V., & Holden, K. C. (2013). A challenge to Social Security: The changing roles of women and men in American society. Elsevier.
Cass, B., Oglensky, B., Saute, R., Epstein, C. F., & Seron, C. (2014). The part-time paradox: Time norms, professional life, family and gender. Routledge.
Department of Education and Employment and Workplace Relations. (2012 ). Inquiry into Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. Submission 55, Department of Education and Employment and Workplace Relations.
DHS. (2014). 2013–14 annual report. Department of Human Services. Canberra: DHS.
DSS. (2014a). 2013–14 annual report. Department of Social Services. Canberra: DSS.
Families Australia. (2018). Valuing and Protecting Children. Retrieved from Families Australia: https://familiesaustralia.org.au/policies-submissions/current-policy-areas/valuing-and-protecting-children/
Glass, J., Simon, R., & Andersson, M. (2016). Parenthood and happiness: Effects of work-family reconciliation policies in 22 OECD countries. American Journal of Sociology, 122(3), 886-929.
Higgins, D. J. (2014). Reform, (R)evolution and Lingering Effects: Family Policies in Australia. In R. M., Handbook of Family Policies Across the Globe (pp. 335-353). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6771-7_22
Lamb, M., & Sagi, A. (2014). Fatherhood and family policy. Routledge.
Marston, G., & McDonald, C. (2013). The Australian welfare state: who benefits now? London: Palgrave Macmillan.
McDonald, P. (2013). Societal foundations for explaining low fertility: Gender equity. Demographic research, 28, 981-994.
Pocock, B., Charlesworth, S., & Chapman, J. (2013). Work-family and work-life pressures in Australia: advancing gender equality in “good times”? International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 33((9/10)), 594-612.
Schofield, D. J., Shrestha, R. N., Callander, E. J., & Kelly, S. J. (2012). Sufficient education attainment for a decent standard of living in modern Australia. Journal of Social Inclusion(1), 7-20.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download
