Survey on the $3000 baby bonus - Herald Sun newspaper

[Kate Jones]

Dear all Bub Hub users,


My name is Kate Jones and I am a medical reporter at the Herald Sun newspaper in Melbourne. I am conducting an Australia-wide survey of parents who received the $3000 Federal Government baby bonus.

The main aim of this survey is to collect information on parents' perceptions of the bonus and what parents are spending the grant on.

The survey can be completed anonymously, unless otherwise indicated.

Please fill out this survey if you have given birth on or after July 1, 2004.



1. Did you receive the $3000 Federal Government maternity grant?
Please answer YES or NO

2. If you did not receive the grant, why not? Please specify.

3. Did you claim the grant for more than one child?
Please answer YES or NO


4. If yes, how many children did you claim the grant for?

5. Was the government paperwork to access the grant:
(Please chose one)

Difficult
Time consuming
Average
Easy


6. Did your doctor/obstetrician/maternity services/midwife give you any
information about the grant?
Please answer YES or NO


7. What did you spend the $3000 on:
(Please chose one)

Baby equipment (eg prams, cots, change table etc)
Baby's education
Child care costs
Investment
Home improvements (eg extension to your home, new TV, renovations etc)
A new car
Other (please specify)

8 . Do you think the grant is adequate to fund baby's expenses for first
six month?
Please answer YES or NO

9. Do you think the grant encourages women to have babies?
Please answer YES or NO

10 . How old are you?

11 . Which suburb and state do you live in?



Thank you for your participation. To preserve your privacy, please send me a response via the private message system (click on my name at the top of this list).


Yours faithfully,




Kate Jones,
Medical reporter,
Herald Sun,
PO BOX 14999,
Melbourne City MC
VIC 8001
AUSTRALIA
PH (+61 03) 9292 2032
FAX (+61 03) 9292 2112

[mazzanne]

1. Yes
2. N/A
3. No
4. N/A
5. Average
6. No
7. Deep freezer, security screen door and investment account for baby
8. Yes, if that's what it is being used for. In our case, we thought it was better to have a lump sum to put away to start an investment plan for our child. We have still struggled in the first 6 months to provide formula, nappies etc and still pay off our house and make other financial commitments. We are a one income family.
9. Only some women. To me it seems those less fortunate than others, ie from a low socio-economic background.
10. 41
11. Brisbane, Qld

[cbelward]

Can you provide an email address we can send responses to?
cb

[BrisMum]

1. Yes
2. N/A
3. No
4. N/A
5. Time consuming :confused:
6. No
7. Paid bills, bought baby items and opened a saver account for my child
8. Yes & No .. It gets expensive having a baby, as they are growing each day in the first six months, so your constantly upgrading their clothes to larger sizes and then they start teething and get colds.. I spend on average $30 a fn on medications for my daughter.. and about $80 on nappies/food/formula/juice
9. Yes.. I think it will encourage younger people, like teenagers to go out and get themselves pregnant just so they can get the money.. I was due the day before the $3000 grant came in, but I didn't care either way if I got the money or not, turned out I was overdue anyway, so I did get the $3000. which I wasted most of, I was planning to buy a car but didn't.. So if you're going to have a baby just for the $3000 I advise against it..
10. 28
11. Cairns, Qld - Australia

[Nicole Dixon-Mills]

1. Yes
2. N/A
3. No
4. N/A
5. Very Time Consuming
6. No
7. We used some of the money for Baby Expenses and put the rest in an investment account to help with our Child's Education when he starts school / uni.
8. In our circumstances - Yes.
9. In our circumstances - No. We had already been trying for a baby for over 4 years and had 3 miscarriages before finally getting our son!
10. 35
11. Mareeba, near Cairns - QLD

[jamb]

1. yes
2. n/a
3. n/a
4. n/a
5. average
6. daily living expenses so I could have more time a stay at home mum (combined with employee's maternity leave
7. yes/no. i do not think the grant reflects the importance of a mum or dad being able to choose to stay at home to raise children, rather than being financially bound to return to work. Parenting is the most important job in the world and the government should offer a more generous/practical financial support for women/men who choose to be at home to raise their children. In our situation, both were employed fulltime, and after rent/mortgage, food, bills etc is paid $3000 does not go very far when the combined wage is reduced to one.
8. no (maybe young girls)
9. 28
10. Forster NSW

[jarrahsmumma]

1. YES
2. n/a
3. NO
4. n/a
5. Average
6. NO
7. Baby equipment and insurance for car and ambulance.
8 . NO, we were very lucky to have alot of things given to us so i dont think we could have managed to buy every thing with that money.
9. NO, being a younger mum it annoys me that people think you would seriously have a baby for $3000, maybe people watch too much current affairs programs ;)
10 . 21
11 . NEDLANDS WA

[kaths]

1. Yes
2. N/A
3. No
4. N/A
5. Easy
6. Yes
7. Bills, baby things
8. It is a great help.
9. There are a certain sort of woman who would find $3000 attractive to have babies but in general no
10. 32
11. Menora WA

[tobysmum]

1. Yes
2. NA
3. No
4. NA
5. Easy
6. Yes
7. other- it is kept in another account as a kind of savings to be used for emergencies or something of importance. Living on one wage for a long period of time means there is nothing left over for any unbudgeted expenses that may arise.
8. yes
9. for the majority of people- no
10. 32
11. Brisbane- QLD

[Leochicki]

1. YES

2. N/A.

3. NO

4. N/A

5. Time consuming.

6. NO

7. Other - Have put it into an account for the future or as an emergency fund.

8 . NO

9. NO

10 . 30

11 . Salt Ash, NSW

[Miaow]

Just noticed this on the herald sun web site this morning - thought you all may be interested..

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15501078%255E661,00.html

Baby bonus binge
Kate Jones and Sarah Wotherspoon
04jun05

PARENTS are using the $3000 taxpayer-funded baby bonus to splurge on overseas holidays, new cars and home renovations.

A nationwide survey of parents has found the federal grant is paying for extravagant luxuries before baby expenses.
The Herald Sun can reveal almost half the parents in the nation's first baby-bonus survey did not spend the grant on their newborns.

For some, paying off the mortgage, cutting credit card debt and boosting superannuation funds were higher priorities.

One parent used the grant to buy a new chainsaw; another spent it concreting the back yard.

Survey findings also showed parents believe the grant is failing to boost a flagging population: just 27 per cent agreed it encouraged women to have children.

The $3000 bonus was introduced last July as a birth incentive. So far, Victorians have claimed $146 million in baby bonuses -- almost a quarter of the total $618 million received by mums and dads.

The Herald Sun survey of more than 130 parents found 62 per cent believed the grant was not enough to cover the costs of a newborn in its first six months.

"It's only a drop in the ocean for all the expenses you have with kids," Juliette Williams, from Richmond, said.

"It's a nice little windfall at a time when you don't have as much money coming in, but it doesn't change your life, and the bonus alone would not encourage me to have another baby."

Annabelle Shaw, from Hampton, said: "(It) does not cover all the equipment, clothes and furniture you need when a baby is first born, as well as nappies. You would need. . . closer to $5000."

Eligible parents must have had children after June 30, 2004. There are no restrictions on what the money is spent on.

From July 2006, the grant will rise to $5000.

But parents said it would be better spent on:

PAID maternity leave.

SUBSIDISED child care.

FUNDING for more childcare places.

A REBATE system for baby gear and food.

"I would personally prefer paid maternity leave to reduce feelings of isolation from the workplace and also to encourage me to return to work," Sharon Beaumont, from Richmond, said.

Family and Community Services Minister Kay Patterson said a paid maternity-leave scheme had been an option, "but we wanted to provide assistance for all parents, not just those where mothers were working".

She defended parents who spent the bonus on other things, saying paying off mortgages, home improvements to accommodate a baby and paying off credit cards all helped families.

Kylie Little, of Essential Baby website, agreed.

"If it's a new car or something else, it's still funding a lifestyle that accommodates children," Ms Little said.

Parents also said the grant should be means-tested or include age restrictions to prevent teenage pregnancies.

Victorian Council of Social Services spokeswoman Carolyn Atkins said struggling parents were more deserving. "We welcome that the bonus is trying to support families, but by means-testing it will ensure the money is better directed to families most in need," she said.

The Opposition's spokeswoman for women, Tanya Plibersek, said that under Labor parents would receive up to $5000, to be paid over 14 weeks.

Payments would be capped according to parents' income, she said.

Parents are also confused by the paperwork required to claim the grant: 30 per cent found it time-consuming and 12 per cent found it hard.

"A lot of the information seemed irrelevant," Michelle Chung, from Elwood, said.

The 134 survey participants, mostly from Victoria, replied to mailouts to councils, childcare centres and mothers' groups, and website postings.

[ThomasMum]

Josh and I had been paying tax for years, we have never received any money from the government because our income are too high, even when Joshua was made to redundant because his London based company had gone kaput, and we had to live with no income for about 3 months (i was still at university then finishing my degree) we STILL weren't eligible for any help because we've got too much money, and after all these hard works paying taxes, being new parents all we received is $3000, how far does this government think $3000 go? Paying off mortages? I wish!

extravagant luxuries??? What a joke! :mad:

I reckon the government should give MORE money ie. one year full salary baby-bonus to all taxpayers who just have had baby! Now THAT'S luxurious!

Oh I shouldn't get carried away, one thing I'm gratefull, thank God our Thomas is a healthy, happy, gorgeous baby :)

[mumof2girls]

I don't know what all the fuss is about, when I had my children we got nothing from the government and we paid taxes for years before having children. You have at least 8 months to prepare a baby so you should be able to pick up everything you need for a baby in that time. I stayed at home to look after our children when they were born and my hubby worked and we recieved very little from the government but my kids were always in clean clothes, had a roof over their heads and plenty to eat, so it can be done. No they didn't have the biggest and best but they are babies and didn't really care.

Honestly I get sick of reading about this in the paper :mad:
I think if you get the money good luck and if the government is going to give it to you then it's up to you what you do with it!!

This is my opinion anyway, sorry if I offend anyone but it's how I feel!

[Chickadee]

I "lost" out on a years salary for maternity leave by having my daughter here instead of while we were still in Canada, up to $30,000 for the year. I'm not saying that so much money is right or wrong, but only that it's worth looking at what other countries policies are.

I didn't get the $3,000 by the way, not an Australian resident at the time. Only got to pay tax, no benefits :D

If the Howard Government is so keen to increase the population then they also need to recognise the parent who stays home with bub is working, that the job is valuable in its own right and provide some sort of real support. So I agree with the Herald Sun survey about the alternate ways the grant money could be directed by the government.

[SonsAngel]

I never got any grant but did recieve just under $1000, my bub was born Feb 04. This $3000 hasn't been of any incentive to make me have another baby and if I was to have another one, it would be spent on both my children. I agree it's not alot of money especially when we are talking about babies, but it does help. I would have been grateful for it esp with being my first baby.

To set up for my son it cost us $2500, I didn't splash out on painting the nursery either. But did purchse a special chair among alot of other things. I just bought things when they were on special. We also went to one place and bought a car seat, change table, rocker and port-a-cot and we got a 15% discount. So there is ways to get cheaper baby goods.

I think it is a generous offer from the government, alas would be better spent on funding for child care, paid meternity leave - which is sort of what this payment is plus more.

[Miaow]

This article made front page news in the paper on Saturday - I can't see how they can claim this to be a Nationwide survey when they only got 134 replies which were mainly from Vic.

Really with only 134 replies I think they are over sensationalising the results.

The Herald Sun can reveal almost half the parents in the nation's first baby-bonus survey did not spend the grant on their newborns.

Mind you amost 1/2 is like less than 67 people that replied this does not go to say if more people had responded to the survey that this percentage would necessarily stay the same amount.

I can say that when I have my baby it is going to come in extremely useful for getting things that are required for the baby.

[Chickadee]

How they got those 134 resonses can also make a difference. If you conduct a survey outside 2 supermarkets, one in a poorer area and one in a richer area you'd probably get completely different results. The majority of parents from both areas may target the money to bub, but one area might be able to put it in savings accounts or buy posher baby stuff, whereas the other may have the priority to cut debts and save all the interest payments so that they can afford more in the long term with bub. And I think both uses are equally valid.

It's easy for a newpaper to slant a survey and get the sensationalised result they may want.

[Kat]

[QUOTE=Kate Jones]Dear all Bub Hub users,


1. Did you receive the $3000 Federal Government maternity grant?
Please answer YES or NO
yes

2. If you did not receive the grant, why not? Please specify.

3. Did you claim the grant for more than one child?
Please answer YES or NO
no

4. If yes, how many children did you claim the grant for?

5. Was the government paperwork to access the grant:
(Please chose one)

Difficult
Time consuming
Average
Easy

Don't remember! I was too sick to notice. possibly making it 'average'

6. Did your doctor/obstetrician/maternity services/midwife give you any
information about the grant?
Please answer YES or NO

no

7. What did you spend the $3000 on:
(Please chose one)

Baby equipment (eg prams, cots, change table etc)
Baby's education
Child care costs
Investment
Home improvements (eg extension to your home, new TV, renovations etc)
A new car
Other (please specify)

medical bills for both me and bub

8 . Do you think the grant is adequate to fund baby's expenses for first
six month?
Please answer YES or NO

absolutely not!!!!!!

9. Do you think the grant encourages women to have babies?
Please answer YES or NO

unfortunately yes

10 . How old are you?

31

11 . Which suburb and state do you live in?

sunshine coast qld


Thank you for your participation. To preserve your privacy, please send me a response via the private message system (click on my name at the top of this list).


Yours faithfully,

[mumof2girls]

Hi
I assume when you put these forms in you put your address on them so why can't after 3 months they send out a letter and ask these questions? Surely they would get better figures and statistics then asking people off the street. By getting 134 replies after how many babies have been born?, this just seems like a waste of time if they want the information then get it from a majority not a few.

As for MarthaM, I agree with you depending on the area will depend on what they spend it on.

I think this is a touchy subject that can be debated time and time again with no end in sight.

[bubhub]

Thanks to everyone who took the time to respond - Kate has now asked that this thread be closed as the article has now appeared in the newspaper.

Hilary