This is an important article on an important issue. Petra has well documented the realities of people under the poverty line being placed in greater poverty. There are two points that stood out as significant for me. One, that single mothers aren't on an equal playing field for employment. They are constrained by time, money and often psychological damage from years of abuse, non-appreciation for their efforts, stigma and the like. The rates of pay they might get can barely cover the childcare, especially if they have more than one.

Two, what about the quality of life for children who are forced to live in even greater poverty or, if their parent works, have little time for emotional nourishment and relaxation outside a harried hour or two between when their mum (or single dad) collects them from care and bedtime?

We need to get over this notion that having children is a choice and that they are and individual's responsibility. Life histories, social pressure and biological pulls make having children a very grey kind of choice. And, whether you like it or not, they are everyone's children simply because the psychological quality and employable skills of those 25% of kids being raised by single parents are our future: our future workers, neighbours, and in-laws. To the farmer who couldn't afford to send his kids on all school camps but asked for no assistance, good on you but in all truth, research shows that in non-participation of extra-curricular activities would have disconnected your kids, just a little more, from their peers and disadvantaged them in many ways.

Wasn't the boy who killed heaps of kids at Columbine High a latchkey kid whose mother was forced, by a work for the dole scheme, to spend 14 hours a day away from home?

The state should spend money now to care for mothers who care for the children of the nation or face the consequences of greater costs, in health care and otherwise...

I strongly support the point Reason makes that a whole of society approach rather than mothers only would have helped.

Aa a single dad who has provided for his son and also been in the clutches of CSA for a period last year I can assure you that you really are only telling part of the story.Especially the link to the vile comments in the Deadbeat dad definition. Guaranteed to get up the nose of decent dad who have had dalings with that abusive organisation.

Its messy from both sides if the other parent has a history of not working and or playing the system. A wealthy parent can avoid financial responsibility for their children if their wealth is not via earned income, a non resident parent can be driven to that same poverty and despair you describe by a formula which takes no account of actual circumstances.

There are dead beat dads around but there are also dead beat mums, gender is not an indicator of character. Time to stop the 'just my gender' stuff and start to work towards systems that treat parents fairly and with similar responsibilities regardless of their gender or work preferences.

Also time to accept that everything comes at a cost, that a choice not to work (while being supported by the taxpayer) is at a cost to those who do work. Its at a cost to parents who may need to work exta hours to meet their committments as well as the tax bill they cop.
Less time with their own kids so you can have more time with yours, can't imagine why that might bother some people.

R0bert

Why complain when I see you are supporting a pet as well, dogs or cats cost a lot there is one big saving you can make.

If you can't afford to have children don't have them and expect taxpayers to support you all in a comfortable (not affluent) lifestyle.

Welcome to the real Labor values.

Unfortunately, promises must be kept.

If at the time a child was conceived the government promised to support it financially, and the parents too, should they become single, then a deal is a deal - a bad deal, yet a deal.

While it was right to stop those parenting payments, it was not right to do it at such short notice. There should be a minimum of 9 months between pronouncing of worsening of children/parent "rights", while existing parents or already-pregnant women/couples should not be affected.

In the future, with proper notice, government should not pay for people to have new children. If one wants children, that's their private business and they must pay for EVERYTHING, including birth, health, education, care and loss of employment opportunities. If the children/parents then starve and Foyle doesn't offer his hand to help them, then so be it, let them. Also, if children are unwanted by their parents and nobody else steps in to adopt them, then parents should be able to kill their baby: the world is already far too overpopulated with humans.

Regarding the so-called "social contract", obviously there isn't any written, but it is more complex than that: the moment one chooses to use the money which governments print, they in fact sign an implicit contract with the government. In other words, using the government's money has strings attached and in theory, the government could impose any conditions, including taxes, on the money it issued. But then it really gets even more complicated still because the Australian government blocks by legislation any possibility of living money-free, so the bottom line is that government is a violent thug based on no morality except "might is right". The problem then is not in the tax, but in the legal requirement to earn and use money in the first place.

It is interesting that the government runs a double standard on this issue.

The income of partners is not taken into account when calculating child support, it is in welfare. Someone can marry a millionaire and either not pay child support or receive it at the maximum rate if they have a history of not working.

There is no pressure on parents with a history of not working to provide for their children under the child support formula (regardless if they have the care of the children or not).

There is no pressure for parents without kids in their care or kids over 8 to provide for their children regardless of how much it impacts on the other parent if they have not previously worked much.

R0bert