Motion on Child Care Investiment Programme - 1st February 2006

Motion on Child Care Investiment Programme – 1st February 2006

Mr. Norris: I wish to share my time with
Senator Henry.
Mr. Norris: Members have just witnessed a
fairly unedifying spectacle. However, it is to be
expected because we are in the run up to an election.
All the parties, along with some of the Independents,
are trying to offer more to the electorate
and accuse others of racism and
xenophobia. It is all totally and pathetically
irrelevant.
It is perfectly obvious that this House is being
used. I was astonished to receive the preliminary
Order of Business and to find that Private
Members’ time was occupied by this motion,
which was signed by the Department of Health
and Children rather than by the Government.
This is not the intended purpose of this House.
Motions should be generated by Members and if
the Government Members do not have the wit or
imagination to so do, the time should be handed
over to those who do. It is about time that everyone,
including Ministers and all parties, treated
this House with a little more respect.
I take an unpopular view of the child care issue.
Obviously, I believe that children should be cared
for. They are vulnerable people whose educational
and welfare needs must be met and the
State has responsibilities in this regard. However,
I am sometimes astonished by the claims made in
newspapers. I read interviews with people who
have two cars, foreign holidays, a big new house
and two children, who want the taxpayer to
produce money for them to have more. They
should not get it.
I make a serious point when I state that this
tiny planet faces a cataclysm of overpopulation.
While I have been making this point for years,
eminent scientists now state the same thing.
Instead of providing people with tax incentives to
have more children, I rejoice in population
decline. I include Europe, where people caterwaul
about the decline in population, and am
delighted the population is dwindling somewhere
on the planet, particularly in those countries
where the ecological footprint is proportionately
much more disastrous.
We should think of this issue in a global context
and not simply in terms of electoral advantage,
without considering it fully. Since I left
school, the population of this planet has doubled
and it will increase by another 50% within 25
years. We simply cannot cope. The global icecaps
are melting and the appalling problem of overpopulation
lies behind resource wars, hatred and
struggles. As a human and, I hope, a humane person,
I have no dislike for families or children.
However, they should be born into situations
where they are genuinely cherished.
The Minister’s speech rang with money. Are
we getting good value? I know the Minister and
he is a decent and caring family man. However, I
have heard the most astonishing amounts, such as
\20,000 or \40,000, as examples of what people
are obliged to pay to keep a couple of children in
a cre` che. Why do they pay so much? If one has a
number of children in a cre` che, where does this
enormous sum go? Has anyone conducted a cost
benefit analysis to establish what is the most
efficient way of spending money?
As a matter of principle, people should be
encouraged to have two children only. It is in the
planet’s interest. While I am 61 years old and will
be gone before we are drowned by the melting
icecaps, if the other Members have any real vision
of what they are getting their children into, they
should take this issue seriously.
The question of child benefits has been turned
into a issue of racism or xenophobia. Xenophobia
is almost as bad as racism. It means “fear of foreigners”,
from the Greek. I hope we do not have
an unjustified fear of foreigners. Certain groups
appear in every race and we should not accept
anyone, simply because they are Polish, Yugoslav,
black or whatever. We should consider
people’s quality. If this money is being granted, it
should also go to such children, who are still children,
whatever their origin. However, I want the
payments to be monitored to ensure that the
money goes towards the children’s welfare. The
taxpayer is entitled to know that this is the case.
I have a point about the wonderful notion of
“family” about which I have been preached at for
so long. I agree that the family, rightly regulated
and filled with love and mutual respect is a wonderful
institution. However, in this regard, where
is it now? Will people not take any responsibility
for their children? I have heard programmes on
the wireless in which people stated that the children
would be cared for by their extended family
and grandparents and then asked who would pay
the grandparents. While I am becoming a grumpy
old man, I have a certain amount to be grumpy
about. Why should the taxpayer pay people to
look after their children’s children? Everyone
appears to want money. I do not have children. I
do not want children, because for reasons with
which I will not burden this House, it is unlikely
that the kind of activities in which I occasionally
and sporadically engage will generate children.
Acting Chairman: Is the Senator sharing his
time?
Mr. Norris: Yes. How long remains?
Mr. Minihan: The Senator is sharing more than
his time.
Acting Chairman: Senator Norris has two
minutes remaining.
Mr. Norris: Very well. If I had children with
someone I loved——
Mr. Minihan: He shares his time in many ways.
Mr. Norris: —— I would want to spend as
much time with them as possible. I would prefer
that to commuting in the car. What of the plight
of the children of refugees and asylum seekers? I
heard a radio discussion on this point today and
they are expected to survive on \9 per week, even
to buy nappies. We should consider the entire
picture and not indulge in an election fest.