*their

sorry hate spelling errors!

Yes I agree with you Kate4.

The Government may well think it is 'saving' all this money they normally spend on single parents and their children, but the long term consequences of plunging some of these families into even more poverty may well come bak to bite us all.
Poverty can breed criminals.

I don't want to get into an argument about single mothers versus the fathers of their kids, because this article is not about that subject.
It is all about how some single mothers won't be able to be forced into the workforce by a Government hell bent on getting them all off welfare payments.

Many of these women have never worked, and for various reasons, including physical or mental health disorders, or poor family backgrounds themselves, will find it near impossible to get into the workforce.

While I agree in principle that it is certainly better to be working in a paid job rather than relying on welfare payments, I realise that many people just aren't going to be able to work.

We should certainly come down hard on 'dole bludgers' as such, but we shouldn't severely limit the incomes of those directly responsible for children.

It's not the kids fault if their parents are unwilling or unable to work.
Our country is well off enough to at least make sure our children are looked after for at least their basic needs.

Suseonline,
Poverty doesn't breed criminals, criminals create poverty, materialistic arguments on this issue are no longer viable because we've seen the profound dysgenic effects of the state trying to raise "those less fortunate" up to the level of the mentally competent mainstream.
People are poor because they're dumb and they're dumb because their parents were dumb too, they commit crimes because they lack the intelligence and emotional mobility to navigate the world.
You've obviously never lived among "houso's", some do all right, some don't but the morons will always try to drag down the achievers, you've no idea how big a role jealousy and spite play in the shaping lives of the morons on the bottom of the heap. If a good kid has something nice the jealous moron wants it too, if he can't get nice things of his own he'll try to steal from the good kid, if the good kid objects the moron will smash the valued items out of spite and declare the victim "stuck up".

Is this whining woman serious? She seriously thinks it's everybody else's responsibility to support her choices.

I wonder if we will ask ourselves the hard questions about our society before it's too late.

Women make up about 60% of our graduates now. This represents a huge investment in education on the part of society. Yet women work less hours than men, take more breaks from work, take more sick leave and then retire earlier. What a waste of education.

Now she feels entitled to be supported by taxpayers (read: the men who work longer, takes less sick leave, do more dangerous and remote jobs and then die earlier)!!

What a joke.

And Fukuyama was absolutely right about women being married to the state. Surely there could be no greater contribution to the breakdown of the family than the introduction of single mother payments. Now when women feel their husbands don't 'value' them enough, they 'move on' to someone else. Of course, women can 'move on' whenever they like because their ex husband or the state (read: male taxpayers) are just expected to pick up the bill.

If she was so worried about her child she could have done what men do - take a job, any job, that pays the f*&king bills. Work remote, work dangerous, move, do something you hate. But make ends meet.

That is called taking responsibility. What the author does, like so many 'educated' women, is called self-entitled whining.

beautiful society the feminist and secularist are in the process of creating.

Ya know, I believe the author was trying to be practical and realistic, and the reality is you can't just change the playing field overnight. What Gillard and Swan may have in mind is beside the point, this is just a very bad move, and the direct consequences for many single parents, male or female, will be dire - a fact which cannot be disputed.

Regarding those who some consider to be 'milking' the system - those Suze refers to who may never be able to hold down a job, don't want to, have no intention to - they are a reality, and their kids deserve reasonable opportunity (God knows they're going to need it more than most), and again, you can't just change the playing field overnight.
If there needs to be some sort of 'assessment' system - whereby those who really do have a choice of taking a decent job, but choose not to, may be 'penalized', but those who don't have a choice are not penalized (and may even warrant extra assistance) - ok, but this also would have to be 'phased-in'.
As for those who shouldn't really have more than one child (or maybe none at all), let's be real, what does anyone propose? Eugenics? Or, do we need to try education, useful employment, and family planning? Either way, threats or withdrawal of support will be inflicting cruel and unconscionable punishment on innocent children.

As for dads - intentional or otherwise - you do the job, you bear the consequences. Blaming the female for not taking 'precautions' is just such a typical male cop-out. Time to grow up. (A very big ask for some, I know.) Should men (or women) who don't work be sterilized? You know the answer to that - this is not 'barbarian central', thankfully. Parenting payments - a judicial assessment issue.

We may want a better society, but punishing the weak is not the way to accomplish it. Reform has to be meaningful for all, has to be just, and will take time. (And, Gillard/Swan - pitiful. Where are these jobs?)