The plan of Labor to spend $1.7 billion per year to expand the scope of programs that seek to limit parental choice further has been described as fiscally irresponsible by the Conservative Party. Apart from the fact that these programs are unnecessary, using borrowed money to finance them shows that Labour is making a very terrible fiscal decision, especially in light of the economic conditions in the country.
In the opinion of the Conservative Party spokesman, Lyle Shelton, the Labor Party has shown that it is prepared to run at a loss and in debt so that it can encourage parents to put their children in the care of the state. It seems reckless to sacrifice state money just to diminish parental choices and reduce the influence that parents have on the behaviours and attitudes of their children.
In the words of Mr Shelton, most parents are cautious about this enthusiasm from the Labour Party especially as seen in programs like Respectful Relationships which is teaching children that they have a fluid gender and discouraging boys from playing with toy guns and trucks.
In what appears to be a planned move, the Victorian Labour government of Andrews which is a socially radical one announced that it would be spending $5 billion as pre-school funding for three-year-olds. Considering the fact that the annual interest payments on federal government debt are around $17 billion, the Labor Party seems unbothered with spending more money and increasing the debts on the nation’s credit card just because it wants to influence children at even earlier ages than before.
The party is not in the least concerned with the fact evident flow-on costs burden on the state as the administrator of pre-schools. Labor is willing to do all things possible so that it can indoctrinate children and impart a radical gender theory on them. According to Bill Shorten, this funding is simply a way to help families with the cost of living. But is this truly so? The obvious answer is no.
There is no ease in the cost of living for single-income families who want to have the freedom to make the choice of looking after their children at home. This kind of choice is one that will protect children from the government gender indoctrination. For this single-income families, there is an obvious disadvantage, and none of the major parties is making any effort to level the playing field. Some families do not want to be caught up in the rat race of both parents working even when then children are still too small so as to protect them from the gender theory.
In his close remarks, Mr Shelton pointed out that parents are right to be worried that their children are exposed to books such as Gender Fairy which teaches children that only them knows their gender and nobody can tell them whether they are girl or boy. For these parents who believe they can raise their children better than the state, such a choice makes them financially disadvantaged.