searching
It would be impossible for any government to achieve consensus on all aspects of government spending but that does not mean when there is an inequity (perceived or otherwise) there should not be debate. That is what democracies are all about.

If we take the 'get over it' approach we give governments a blank cheque without any accountability.

The fact is while we continue to throw cash at 'wants' rather than 'needs' as Antiseptic described, other areas of disadvantage are left wanting through lack of funding.

Mental health, homelessness, care of the aged and adequate city infrastructures are just a few areas where the effects of lack of funding have greater impacts.

While I can see the arguments for a paternity leave type arrangement I believe the current policy, and certainly Abbott's proposal, are too generous and it is not about transitioning from work to home but about blatant pork barrelling. People are not economic assets or human capital, but human beings of which one natural aspiration for many (not all) is to raise a family. We should be putting forward policies that make it possible to transition from home to work for either partner with ease, or make it possible to stay at home to raise children for a time but without an exhorbitant cost to taxpayers and/or business.

Many women in my generation who stayed at home without the luxury of maternity leave went back to work with little fuss and ado, even in the teaching field. I found no problem finding work when returning to the workforce even if it meant being realistic about starting near the bottom again. Hard work and competency brings it own rewards.

Antiseptic
"I'm afraid you have a poor grasp of genetics."
Quite the opposite. In general, tall parents have tall kids and smart parents have smart kids. That's why public schools in wealthy (i.e. smart) suburbs get great school results, despite having the same resource as other public scholls.

Intelligence is highly inherited - it IS genetic. The power of political correctness in dening the truth is amazing!

Antiseptic
"Moreover, I'm in favour of a reduced birth rate - the planet demands it and this nation doesn't need a population any bigger than it already has."
I am im favour of reduced birth-rate too, for your reasons and because it is the wrong people having kids. Sure the poor in Africa have a small carbon footprint, but they still are deforesting and overgrazing and depleating the soils and eroding the soil of the land. Because there are more people than the land can support.

Now the only argument that says they can have 6 children per two adults and yet that 1.8 children for us is too much is racist against us. Either because you believe they are better than us (i.e. you are racist) or becaue you demand that they remain living in low-carbon footprint squalor, and believe that only we are allowed the comforts of a safe and clean lifestyle (i.e. you are racist again).

Part time parent, there is no evidence that intelligence is correlated with income, or with educational attainment. Some of the smartest people are poor pupils, but excellent problem-solvers, for example.

In my own case, without bragging I can say that I have a high intelligence. However, I have a relatively low income. I achieved only average results at school because I was bored rigid a large part of the time, but I am able to support myself without recourse to the support of the state in any way, while people on much higher incomes and educational attainment are apparently unable to do so without thousands of dollars of other people's money being spent on them.

As for the idea that public school students in wealthy areas achieve more highly due to innate intelligence - I'm sorry, but that's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Families in well-to-do areas may have a stronger work ethic, they may have a higher level of regard for education as a means to improving income, they may be simply more able to afford tutoring for their kids. It may be that they're simply more likely to be an intact family, a situation which is highly correlated with high-income suburbs.

Yes, things like physical stature and intelligence may be somewhat heritable, but they're also highly dependent on environment. Tall parents won't produce an extra tall child if there isn't much food for the child to eat while growing, while the average height in Western countries has shot up since the Green Revolution of the sixties. There's a lot more to it than you might think.

Antiseptic
"there is no evidence that intelligence is correlated with income, or with educational attainment. Some of the smartest people are..."

Actuall intelligence is one of the most 'heiratible' charactoristics. On average, your IQ is closet to your parents than you height or build, for example.

But you must believe in the science of this stuff, the large population statistics. Sure in any population there are exceptions to the rule, that doesn't mean that the rule is wrong, just that it is an average, a typical result, a trend, by-and-large, what you would expect. THe fact that you believe that you are one of these outliers, doesn't invalidate the trend.

You should have studied some maths at some time. Do you know what average is? Let alone other measures of trends such median, collrelation, r-squared values etc.
.
.
.
Put simply IQ as measured by IQ tests are the 'best' way of predicting a persons' financial success. The best, not perfect, obviously with exceptions etc..
.
.
.
As with most inherited things, you can damage an individual by, for example starvation, resulting in them not reaching their GENETIC potential. But you can't push them above their potential. If you stave a child, they will not be as tall as they could have been. But the reverse is not true. Force-feeding children will not make them taller than their potential.

"school students in wealthy areas achieve more highly due to innate intelligence - I'm sorry, but that's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Families in well-to-do areas may have a stronger work ethic..."

Yes, as I said earlier, smart parents produce smart kids and they bring them up well too. On average, typically, by-and-large, etc etc.

partTimeParent,

I disagree that intelligence is correlated by income....only that "potential" may be realised from a certain way of upbringing. Children from more affluent homes may be the recipients of a wider scope of views and information. My own view is that many of these children are exposed to and seek learning outside of their "schooling" experience - whereas the lower socio-economic idea seems to be that you can only "learn" in school.
If I was to point out that the languages spoken by tribal people throughout the world are every bit as sophisticated as your own, you probably wouldn't believe me...as humans, we all have the same potential.
My own children have been raised in modest financial circumstances, yet they both display a questioning nature and an enhanced intellect.

Antiseptic “What do you think your uterus is worth. I think we need to start setting benchmarks if we’re going to start applying the service delivery model of maternity that you are advocating in order to do that we need to establish values for the services to be provided. What is the value of the use of a uterus for nine months ? Ditto what is the value of donating sperm so the uterus can be used.

To deal frankly with the above question it is interesting to look at the dynamics of a harem.

If you have 1.000men(sperm) in the harem but only one woman(uterus)you can only produce one baby a year. That makes 999men basically ineffective. It is not very hard to donate sperm it only takes about five minutes.

Whereas it is usually the mother who does the lion’s share of the childcare in life, that is not to say that in today’s modern world the men don’t help more than they did in the past. And of course there will always be the case where the father is the primary carer but that is a minimum percentage. Women talk about the second shift, that is they work and they come home and put in another five hours work with the children at home, more if they have to get up to a young child in the night.

If you have a camp of thousands of men, you do not have a society, that is why men will go and kidnap women as they need women to create society. On the other hand I doubt whether women would go out of their way to bother about kidnapping men because they are nurtured and given more compaionship by other women. All they would need are jars of sperm in a sperm bank. What a peaceful world it would be for women with no men around to spoil their walks by the the river by jumping out of the bushes to flash at them or attack them when they are jogging or strolling through the park. Blissful.