It Takes A Village

Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm has thanked Australia’s childless workers for paying more than our fair share of tax so that others can be compensated for reproducing. At face value, it’s a generous and utterly surprising view on the position of a mute minority.

In Australia, women without children are still looked on with suspicion. We’re bizarrely unfinished, incomplete, incapable, barren, lacking in some way – and that’s just the ones who can’t have children. 

Those of us who can have kids, yet have made a conscious choice not to, are infinitely worse. We’re deliberately eschewing our sacred duty to bear children. We’re selfish, greedy bitches or cold, conniving career women. We're denying our femininity and our purpose. And that’s exactly the criticism we need when we’re sitting alone in our ugly pyjamas, staring blankly at god-awful reality television, or working til midnight in appropriately sterile city offices. Take your pick of the various stereotypes. We've heard them all.

A little appreciation goes a long way. 

"To the childless people of Australia, I want to say, on behalf of this Parliament, thank you for being childless. 

"You work for more years and become more productive than the rest of Australia. You pay thousands and thousands of dollars more tax than other Australians. You get next to no welfare ...  

"But you pay when other people get pregnant, you pay when they give birth, you pay when they stay at home to look after their offspring ..." 

The Liberal Democrat said that he was sorry than instead of receiving thanks, Australians without children were "often ignored, pitied, considered strange, or even thought of as irresponsible". 

Senator Leyonhjelm’s startling speech earlier this week was only the second time I can recall hearing any politician even acknowledge the existence of childless adults. The first time was when Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan claimed that Julia Gillard was unqualified to be Prime Minister because she didn’t have children. The terminology was “deliberately barren.” Charming.

So here we are, with the sole Liberal Democrat Senator who appears to have some kind of sympathy regarding the financial burden placed on the childless. Introducing the video of his speech on Facebook, the Senator explained.

"This is my speech on childlessness; it's gone 'viral', as they say. I delivered it in the period leading up to passage of the government's 'No Jab No Pay' legislation.

In it, I point out just how much taxpayers' money parents of children receive, money they ought not expect. I go on to thank the childless, who pay more tax, receive less welfare, and worse, get no thanks for their generosity."

I sincerely appreciate the good Senator’s thoughtfulness. Actually, I appreciate that he thought about us at all. It's been all about "working families" and "Australian families" for so long, it's easy to forget that we exist.

Factually, he’s right. People without children do pay more tax because obviously, we don’t qualify for baby bonuses and tax benefits and various other small acts of government munificence. We don’t get family leave when the kids are sick, or performing in school choirs. We are expected to arrange our annual leave for outside school holidays so that people with “families” can take those times off. We’re asked to work those hated shifts on public holidays for the same reason.

And according to Senator Leyonjhelm, Australia owes a debt of thanks for the sacrifices we make. We share the twin burdens of watching others play with their bouncing bundles of joy (and dodging waves of relief that we don't have to deal with poo and tantrums) and we pay the parents to feed, clothe, house, educate and generally raise their little blessings.

I know quite a few child-free people, and never once have I heard anyone grizzle about the lopsided tax burden we carry. Some of us definitely whinge about working on Christmas Day yet others are quite content to pick up their well deserved penalty rates. Each to his own.

And while the pity party for the childless is in full voice, let’s not forget the crushingly familiar strains of every childless person’s favourite chorus: “Who’s going to take care of you when you’re old? You’ll be all alone!” 

This morning I attended a business meeting where over 80% of the attendees were stay-at-home-mums. Many had brought their younger children with them to the meeting and I was reminded of my decision to remain childless

Hey Senator Leyonhjelm! Remember all that extra tax we paid? All the sacrifices we made in favour of parents who needed to be with their children during illness, during triumph, during the milestones of a young life? All the public holidays we worked so "families" could be together? 

That’s the price we pay - all of us - for living in a society where, in theory at least, no-one is left behind.

I have paid my child-free, benefit-free taxes, and I haven't complained more than anyone else because in twenty or thirty or forty years, the children my peers have housed and clothed and fed and educated and loved and moulded into mature, caring adults – all with the help of my taxes - will be building the retirement villages and nursing homes where I’ll live. They’ll be the medical staff who trained for years to understand the mysterious workings of an aging body, and if necessary, they'll be the carers who'll bathe me and feed me and wipe up the drool and god knows what else. They’ll be the overpaid politicians making the decisions that effect my standard of living, and they'll be the teachers and parents of the next generation because life goes on, even if my genes don't. 

Senator Leyonhjelm has no children.