There is little to no defence from those in the modern Liberal Party of Malcolm Fraser. Even rarer is any defence of the actual Fraser government, where the accepted orthodoxy is that Fraser squibbed it on much-needed economic reform championed by his then young(ish) Treasurer, John Howard, including deregulating the financial sector and liberalising the economy.

The result was an economy that was variously described as insular, sclerotic, and on the verge of a prolonged period of not just zero but negative growth, in which living standards would continue to decline.

With Fraser’s defeat came the reforms of the Hawke government, supposedly long overdue, and doing everything that Fraser would not, including floating the dollar, introducing foreign competition in the domestic banking sector, setting down the path of (partially) privatizing publicly owned assets, making the tax system less punitive, and opening Australian industry to greater global competition by way of removing protection.

The Howard government then went further, this included giving the Reserve Bank (albeit via a letter from Peter Costello) the sole power to determine monetary policy by setting interest rates, fully privatising government-owned assets (Telstra, Medibank etc.), negotiating free trade agreements, agreeing to zero tariffs on many imported goods, and seeking to force more single parents into the workforce through changes to the welfare system.

Compared to the first 80-odd years of our federation, this was economic liberalism practised on a large and previously unseen scale. As it became part of the accepted political orthodoxy in both the major parties, we were all assured that it was necessary, we were all assured we would be materially better off, and we were all assured there was no turning back from it once we had commenced on such a course.

Forty-plus years later, the question has to be asked: Are we really that much better off than we would have been without these reforms, not just in economic terms, but also socially and culturally?

In purely economic terms, there has no doubt been considerably more wealth created in the economy than otherwise would have been had capital markets not been liberalised, and it has likely been more evenly distributed in terms of growth in real income across the board. However, the expected competition from foreign banks never materialised, with the big four remaining as dominant as ever, maintaining a vice like grip on the home mortgage market.

The widespread and abundant availability of all types of cheap goods, including clothes, shoes, cars, electrical devices, homewares, hardware, and processed food (to name but a few), has been thanks to the abolition of tariffs. The downside of this has of course been the disappearance of our local manufacturing industry and the well-paying blue-collar jobs that came with it. We have also seen increases in the type and rates of chronic disease, including type 2 diabetes and obesity, which reflect unhealthy diets and more sedentary lifestyles.

There is one area, rarely mentioned, where the evidence is perhaps clearer, at least in terms of social outcomes and (non-economic) living standards. This is the impact on the ability of a family to exist on one wage/salary. Essentially, where one parent chooses to be a primary caregiver, staying at home with a child, until they at least turned school age. This has become rarer than modern-day comments in support of Malcolm Fraser.

Even allowing for population growth, the number of two-income households has increased significantly over the last 40-plus years. As of June 2025, almost three-quarters (73 per cent) of the 2.2 million couple families with children aged 0-14 years had two employed parents. In the late 70s and early 80s, this number was around half at 1.2 million. It would have also included a healthy proportion of those on then average to above average wages, such as members of the working and middle classes, who enjoyed employment in well-paid, skilled blue-collar jobs.

Some of the increase in two income families has undoubtedly occurred through choice, the feminist movement (ironically in lock step with big business), and greater opportunities for women in the workforce. However, much of it has occurred out of basic economic necessity, where it simply became financially unviable for one parent to stay at home, at least until the child or children reached school age.

This is best illustrated by the fact that the current median house price in Australia is more than ten times the average income. In early 1980, at the height of Malcolm Fraser’s reign, it was 3-3.5 times, having actually been higher than this in the mid 1970s under the inflationary reign of the Whitlam government.

The reality is that those who can afford to have one parent stay at home are those who are earning a salary well in excess of average earnings, and who are likely in a white collar, professional occupation. The working class and many members of the disappearing middle class, no longer have such a choice, and neither of the major parties seem to care, nor be the least bit inclined to do anything about it.

This is false economy, as there are no doubt significant and negative social impacts and costs, which admittedly are hard to quantify but are clearly evident, this includes having to place a child from birth into corporatised childcare, depriving that child of their natural caregiver. Despite what the cheerleaders for organised childcare may say none can honestly think this is preferable to a parent being able to provide full-time care to their child in the home. We also see the consequences of this on a daily basis, through declining birth rates, increased diagnoses of previously rare child conditions such as ADHD, along with out-of-control teenage crime and delinquency rates.

There is a policy lever the federal government could use to address this, and it is both simple and straightforward: income splitting for tax purposes.

Where a couple wants to have one parent stay at home, the income of the earner is split between the two and taxed less punitively than it would be as a single income. For example, based on current tax rates, a single income earner on $100,000 per annum currently pays $20,788 in income tax, if they could split that income in half with their spouse, the total income tax both would pay is only $11,576. This provides a significant saving and could make the difference in allowing one parent to stay at home.

This not for everyone, and it is not about depriving anyone of choice. But the first party to move on this stands to benefit electorally. Arguments that it would be a hit to the budget ring hollow in the face of unfunded promises to provide universal childcare, or the still out-of-control spending on the NDIS. The social benefits would also be significant and be seen within a generation, delivering with it corresponding economic benefits through likely reduced expenditures on child and health care, law enforcement and welfare.

The chances of either party acting on this is remote, as both remain fully subscribed to the cult of neo liberalism and the supposed benefits this has brought and continues to bring to all Australians. Maybe One Nation’s climb in the polls makes the thought of such a policy no longer so remote…

The post Restoring choice for stay-at-home parents appeared first on The Spectator Australia.