The Australian Baby Bonus Maternity Payment and Birth Characteristics in Western Australia

Abstract

BackgroundThe Australian baby bonus maternity payment introduced in 2004 has been reported to have successfully increased fertility rates in Australia. We aimed to investigate the influence of the baby bonus on maternal demographics and birth characteristics in Western Australia (WA).Methods and FindingsThis study included 200,659 birth admissions from WA during 2001–2008, identified from administrative birth and hospital data-systems held by the WA Department of Health. We estimated average quarterly birth rates after the baby bonus introduction and compared them with expected rates had the policy not occurred. Rate and percentage differences (including 95% confidence intervals) were estimated separately by maternal demographics and birth characteristics. WA birth rates increased by 12.8% following the baby bonus implementation with the greatest increase being in mothers aged 20–24 years (26.3%, 95%CI = 22.0,30.6), mothers having their third (1.6%, 95%CI = 0.9,2.4) or fourth child (2.2%, 95%CI = 2.1,2.4), mothers living in outer regional and remote areas (32.4%, 95%CI = 30.2,34.6), mothers giving birth as public patients (1.5%, 95%CI = 1.3,1.8), and mothers giving birth in public hospitals (3.5%, 95%CI = 2.6,4.5). Interestingly, births to private patients (−4.3%, 95%CI = −4.8,−3.7) and births in private hospitals (−6.3%, 95%CI = −6.8,−5.8) decreased following the policy implementation.ConclusionsThe introduction of the baby bonus maternity payment may have served as an incentive for women in their early twenties and mothers having their third or fourth child and may have contributed to the ongoing pressure and staff shortages in Australian public hospitals, particularly those in outer regional and remote areas.

A new method of identifying target groups for pronatalist policy applied to Australia

“…Most pertinently, it appears that, for married women, fertility rates in the main childbearing ages of 25–34 and at the most common parities of 1 and 2 have shown the least historical variations. This indirectly confirms previously mentioned research suggesting that third and fourth births are more responsive to monetary incentives [ 10 , 11 , 24 , 33 , 34 ].…”

“…And over 1997–2007 the largest increases were for parity 2+, and especially for unmarried mothers. This increase may be related to a social climate more open to non-marital childbearing in Australia; or on the other hand, it may also imply some impacts of the pronatalist action during those years [ 9 , 11 ]. However, this levelled off between 2007 and 2012.…”

“…But after taking account of propensity to change the pattern changes ( Table 3 ). In Australia, the universal Baby Bonus has been found to incentivize third and higher parities in Western Australia and New South Wales [ 10 , 11 ]. Thus, to increase or maintain the TFR at a desirable level calls for a combination of different types of pronatalist policies, to remove obstacles faced by different subgroups.…”

“…In Quebec, Milligan [ 25 ] found that cash benefits had a strong impact on third or higher order births. Studies evaluating the universal Baby Bonus in Australia found that first births seemed less affected than second or third births [ 9 – 11 ]. Gauthier and Hatzius [ 26 ] evaluated cash benefits in 22 developed western countries and found that policies targeting first births had a larger effect on the TFR than targeting third births.…”