The Inverse Problem...

...The "inverse problem" consists in using the results of actual observations to infer the values of the parameters characterizing the system under investigation...

...The character of the problem here is the prepondency of the poor to breed...!

As the breadwinner in a single-income family with four children I often felt discriminated against. Particularly when our income was just above the cutoff for many things that supported larger families.

We never got the Colour TV Bonus from the Ruddster. We got savaged with thousands to repay in Family Allowance because periods out of work made my income hard to predict.

We lived through it fine and now our kids are grown and some are struggling to finish studies and find work.

The PPL scheme is a Mercedes plan for a country in need of cutting back to a second-hand Toyota. It is however very fair; the people who get the most have paid the most tax, their partners likely pay the most tax, and will all their lives. YAY fairness!

It is a corrupted and vicious feature of Government that the people like me pay lots of tax and get very, very few handouts; and often I find the penalties and costs to get the measly share near the cutoff level, make it far worse to be in the system than out of it.

I rejoice that this viciously redistributive system is now not taking tax from me; I have been forced overseas to find work, and my tax now supports a foreign bloated plutocracy instead of the Australian 'taker' class.

The better off, who have been granted undeserved entitlements in recent years, courtesy of a wasted mining boom mark one, and the structural deficit that that simpleminded vote buying largess created; is a dog coming back to bite our economic backside.
The money proposed for helping just around 150,000 rich women to have babies, would be better spent in providing child care for all working women, regardless of their economic status, albeit, I would make it means tested, just to be sure, it actually assisted those millions who really needed it!
I'm am also open to the idea, of making nannies a tax deductible item, for very productive people, who run businesses that employ others, or earn more than 200, 000 per? The larger the gross, the bigger the deduction!
Other than that, we do need to crack on and for once and for all time end costly duplication, which could be costing the budget bottom line as much as 30%!?
Moreover, we could save as much again by more regional autonomy, and direct funding of most essential service!
We with just one single exception, are the most over governed people on the planet, and just need to get much of this unproductive parasitic element off our collective backs!
I mean, State parliaments, cost us 70 billion per, just for their existence, and before so much as a single piece of legislation has passed!
One only need see the sorry procession currently making its way to ICAC, to understand, that there are real savings to be made, just by closing down state run opportunities for endemic corruption, and indeed, its extreme cost to all those mugs out there in mugsville.
I am amazed by the memory loss of some of the participants and wonder, how on earth could these people, with their completely disabled memories, actually run or manage or oversee a business or serve as politicians/public servants?
Don't they keep diaries anymore?
Surely blind Freddy would and could do better, or even a drovers dog?
Rhrosty.

the parental scheme has no chance of success. Leave the wastage to Labour/Greens who destroyed a good economy in next to no time. Abbott obviously had a brain freeze. Thankfully those with unfrozen brains won't let this through. Abbott himself must be releived.

Congratulations to Babette on her excellent article. It’s well thought out and written. Unfortunately Mr Abbott is surrounded by careerist women at home where his 3 daughters have apparently some strong emotional connection, and of course C-O-S Peta Credlin at work. So feminism is alive and well at the very pinnacle of Australian political power. Don’t know what the answer is. It’s a pity the Prime Minister doesn’t have at least one son, and also a pity that his COS wasn’t a good bloke as Mr Abbott ran relate to feminist demands but is unable to relate to men's needs or single income families, who in the main, rely on men to support them.

Well, as the mother of four, grandmother of 19, and great grandmother of 5, I totally disagree with the comments about the PPL. Firstly, why is it acceptable for female politicians and public servants to receive an extremely generous parental leave program, and not women in private industry. Public Service women get 14 weeks at FULL pay, then are able to claim either the baby bonus or the Centrelink parental leave scheme. The leave can be stretched out and taken at half pay, so that a woman earning $200,000 a year (some public servants) can take 28 weeks off and be paid $50,000 plus. Yet this fact rarely get mentioned.
The other comment I take issue with is the one about disparency in the amount paid to each woman. Is it so difficult to understand that the money is not being paid for the baby, but for the woman's time? Are we to seriously entertain the idea that a brain surgeon should be paid the same for her time as a cleaner? Do we have so little value and respect for women who struggle for years to gain professional qualifications that we can then tell them their qualifications have no monetary value.
I fail to understand how any women wouldn't support this scheme. God knows I wish it had been around when I was trying to juggle work and babies. We are constantly being told that women are underrepresented in government, business, the professions. Well doh! I wonder why?

Not everybody has a chance to go to uni, or have parents who support them while they qualify.
It should already be sufficient advantage, that the privileged elite could become brain surgeons or some such, earning a million plus per, that they should then turn around, and demand the less well off to also support them through the early months of maternity.
The fact is, a women, any woman can claim a universal maternity leave scheme! (Reasonable additional expenses!) And on the taxpayer.
Not all that long ago, nobody could claim even this modest entitlement!
But back then we had something far better, affordable housing, and enough money in the breadwinners pay packet, to afford private health cover and the usual costs of living, raising a family etc.
No problem with women choosing to work.
Just that it should be personal choice, (then) rather than a necessity! (Now)
People in very privileged positions, hardly ever get there on their own, but rely on all sorts of assistance along the way.
Even so, those with the better paid jobs, would be far better served, by more affordable child care!
The facts pertaining to public servants and politicians, is not grounds for extending the unaffordable to the many, but clawing it back from the undeserving?
Ditto pollies super duper super and so on!
It's not their personal money or piggy bank!
People are given charge of the public purse, so they can do as much for the community with it, as is reasonably possible, and not so they can grant themselves rewards, not accorded, to perhaps even more deserving community members?
Who provides the most benefit to the community, a competent brain surgeon, or a polly that needs extensive help, just to make the most rudimentary or extremely bad decisions?
Well?
Rhrosty.

Congratulations, Babette - if only government advisers had your common sense (yes, I know common sense is uncommon - how sad!).

The latest longitudinal childcare study, reported by Patricia Karvelas in today's Australian (15/4/14, p 7) shows the very real risks of Tony Abbott's paid parental leave policy. By encouraging mums to leave their babies and toddlers in long daycare while they clock up enough paid work to qualify for generous handouts after the birth of their next baby, they risk their first child under-performing in literacy and numeracy later on.

This policy is economic, social and educational madness.

It is quite true that Australia's fertility rate is slightly below replacement level, but our population is currently growing at 1.8% a year, enough to double our population in 38 and a half years, suggesting that we really don't need large families, contrary to what Babette Francis says. 60% of the populationn growth is due to immigration and the rest to natural increase, although about a third of the births are to migrant mothers. The remaining 27% of the growth is due to demographic momentum. Natural increase of the existing population won't stop until some time in the 2030s. The government has probably calculated that young adult migrants are a better proposition than Australian babies because they have already been raised, educated, and trained at someone else's expense.

There isn't a massive overhang of Baby Boomers and other older people, as can be seen from this age distribution chart from the Australian Bureau of Statistics

http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/Population%20Pyramid%20-%20Australia

Australia is simply changing to a stable age structure, where the generations are of approximately equal size until you get to extreme old age. The bulge above age 20 is probably due to the disproportionate migration of young adults.

We don't need to worry about the unfair and discriminatory PPL scheme which was set to prop up the lifestyle of families just like the Prime Minister's. There is no way it is ever going to get through the Senate in its present form. It's a win-win for the government. They can say they did their best to implement it but they won't have to fund it.

Pledges in blood have to be honored one way or the other.

Babette Francis has highlighted how Tony Abbott ignores part of the natural conservative base of voters who would be voting for the Coalition if his government provided any kind of taxation justice to single-income families. These voters instead vote for the DLP, Australian Christians, Christian Democrat Party, Family First and Rise Up Australia. Their second preferences may not necessarily flow back to the Coalition.

The study quoted in today's Australian newspaper indicating that children in long day care do not do as well in maths and literacy as those not in long day care is another reason why the Tony Abbott's government should support the choice made by mothers to be full-time homemakers caring for their pre-school children rather than place them in long day care. Why should Mr. Abbott and Mr. Hockey be subsidizing an inferior option for the care of children?

It is good seeing Abbott try to keep a promise. However it was a silly promise, & we should all hope he fails.

To me a kid is a kid is a kid. If we are going to support the mother of one, we should offer exactly the same support to all mothers. This is one area where one size must fit all.

However why should we support any. It is a life choice to have or not to have a kid. Surely it should be made with the intention to support that kid, & a decision made by the would be parents capacity to do so.

As others have said, most of us had no such support, & our kids are fine.

I hope this is a lesson to Abbott. Don't be a Rudd. Talk to your party room, before you have another rush of blood to the head.

Stupid off the cuff decisions is one of the main reason we wanted Rudd gone. Don't you start copying him, or the back door awaits.

An interesting bit of public lobbying, from "a Christian, pro-life, pro-family Australian Non-Government Organisation", who are a fringe groupuscule of predominantly religious folks.

"I am writing this in the hope that you will take note of the anxieties of a particular constituency of conservative voters who form part of the natural base of support for the Coalition parties."

This would normally carry an implicit threat, "...or we won't vote for you next time".

In reality, they have nowhere else to go. Hence the entirely apt response from Ms Credlin:

"We will have to agree to disagree"

In my view, the PPL proposals that Mr Abbott carelessly put his name to were little more than an election gimmick, from which for some reason he felt unable to back down. Unlike similar gimmicks such as "no cuts to the Aged Pension" and "no funding cuts to the ABC".

But hey, give him time.

This bill is not only outrageously unjust and unfair, it's an insult to feminism (or at least what feminism means to me). Nothing in any feminist theory that I know of justifies making the poor pay for the lifestyles of wealthy women.

As if it's not enough that almost 40% of the annual superannuation government contribution ($30 billion) goes to the top 6% of earners, we are now being expected to fork out even more inequitable government contributions that favour the rich.

And not only does it discriminate against stay-at-home mothers, as Babette succinctly argues, the bill also discriminates against self-employed women (identical to the ongoing superannuation injustices applying to women in both categories).

How the government can justify such blatant pro-rich discrimination in these austerity-mad times is beyond belief.

Pericles,

"In my view, the PPL proposals that Mr Abbott carelessly put his name to were little more than an election gimmick, from which for some reason he felt unable to back down. Unlike similar gimmicks such as "no cuts to the Aged Pension" and "no funding cuts to the ABC".

But hey, give him time."

Yup...I think at this stage of proceedings he'll be quite relieved when PUP blocks it in the Senate.

Killarney - Well said.

'An interesting bit of public lobbying, from "a Christian, pro-life, pro-family Australian Non-Government Organisation", who are a fringe groupuscule of predominantly religious folks. '

we know Pericles you prefer lobbying by a unChristian, pro death, anti family funded Government body who are predominantly non religous except for their gw faith.

Babette has highlighted a number of the inconsistencies in the Abbott PPL and the most obvious being the claims by Abbott and Hockey that, "if it's alright for blokes to get paid when on annual leave or sick leave why shouldn't mothers be paid when on maternity leave".

Clearly the annual leave and sick leave are employment entitlements paid as part of the employment agreement whilst Abbott wants his scheme to be funded, essentially, by the taxpayer: levies, taxes whatever.

The payment should be made by the employer and not Centrelink: the employer can recover outlays, if that is the way we go, by way of taxation offsets but, to maintain the link between the employee and the employer the payment must come from the employer as an employment entitlement

Thank you, Babette, for telling Abbott, Hockey and the rest of the Coalition where they have gone so badly wrong.

The Abbott government seems to have turned its back on two-parent families struggling to survive on one breadwinner's income.

How can the Liberals and Nationals justify lavishing benefits such as paid parental leave on couples fortunate enough to have two full-time incomes and at the same time offer little or nothing to the unwaged at-home wife?

At the beginning of World War II, both the conservative United Australia Party under Menzies and the Australian Labor Party under Curtin supported the introduction of Child Endowment as a way of acknowledging the vital unpaid work done in the home, usually by mothers.

Now, 75 years later, we have both our major party blocks supporting the opposite policy. The conservative Coalition and Labor both support financially penalising two-parent families where the mother chooses to leave the paid workforce in order to raise children.

Labor under Rudd and Gillard slashed Peter Costello's baby bonus and increased funding for institionalised child-care.

The Liberals under Abbott and Hockey (and Peta Credlin, who seems to be the real power behind the throne) seem bent on perpetuating this anti-family jihad with their extravagant paid parental leave (PPL) scheme.

The only equitable policy would be the old Menzies/Curtin model of assisting families in a non-discriminatory fashion.

Financial assistance to families with children should take the form of an administratively simple $6,000 yearly cash payment (or tax deduction of equivalent value) for every child in the household under 17 years of age.

Such a policy would give parents maximum choice on how they raise their children.

The party that adopts this policy will have my vote at the next election.

John Ballantyne, Melbourne.

John from Melbourne, "Now, 75 years later, we have both our major party blocks supporting the opposite policy. The conservative Coalition and Labor both support financially penalising two-parent families where the mother chooses to leave the paid workforce in order to raise children"

As long as lobby groups can convince political parties that they can manipulate the media at will to embarrass, and they might deliver a small % of votes but enough to possibly swing a seat, the said political activists can influence policy.

The problem is that there is a silent majority. Just ask your local pollie who only gets to hear from the squeaky wheels. All the local pollies I have dealt with through voluntary work (school, sporting and community) have always heaved a sigh of relief when they came to our fund-raisers and AGMs because there were usually no secondary agendas and traps awaiting them.

However what politicians need to understand is that the silent majority who are too busy working, taking care of loved ones, providing for the future and living, do become exasperated and tip governments out of office.

This is a good article. Thank you to the author.

This articulate letter is spot on in everything it
says.

A question to the so called feminists out there,

Why are you supporting the idea that traditional
women's work, looking after babies and small children
has no value. That only women who work out side
the home are entitled to payment for staying home
looking after their children?

This is the belief that kept women enslaved and financially impoverished for centuries.
That their work had no monetary value to men or society.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for women working
outside the home when they have little children. I have encouraged
my daughters to do exactly that. Which they do.

What I am against,
is women who call themselves champions of women's rights
agreeing with men that motherhood has no value when done by women
who want to stay home and look after her their own babies for a couple
of years.

Why do you hypocritically line your own pockets while disparaging
the traditional work of women? Women the planet over need
a financial value put on the work they do as women.

I have read reports that show, daycare that includes some very basic or toddler steps, literacy and numeracy, incorporated into best practice child care, improves average rest of life numeracy and literacy, and or, identifies problems like dyslexia, before it has a chance to impact negatively on the learning progress, and early enough for remedial learning to make a huge difference.
One study of Australian voters showed that a huge majority would change their voting patterns, if this early learning were to be abolished, as Edmund Burke seems to want?
People who place their kids in long daycare, have little or no other choice!
That being so, it ought to include some early start education options, that give kids a flying start, in their overall education, and the later opportunities and huge advantage, that that early start can provide.
As for family payments A+B, I'd scrap them in favor of a serious lift in the tax free threshold, that would assist many more, and just not involve busy people in so much unnecessary time consuming complexity, which then results in an even larger bureaucracy!
And the one stop option for school and daycare is just too pragmatic a solution to shelve, as is much more local autonomy!
Which by the way, coupled to a direct funding model, would shave as much as 30% off of public health and education, both of which now need to be means tested; but particularly, if the age of entitlement is over.
People everywhere would be vastly better served by a really good education initially, so that they too get a chance to opt for the best paid professional jobs, rather than extend middle class welfare to people who should not need it!
Just that much change, would likely put the budget back in surplus, and limit the need, to attack the needy, as would equal treatment of super and pensions.
Why, someone with a good super plan can retire at 55, use up all his or her super, in say, 15 years, and then claim a full pension!
Rhrosty.

The science of climate change
First thing raised against sceptics – “Not a climate scientist – not even a scientist.
Was Al Gore, Lord Stern, Ross Garnaut, Peter Shergold? On the Climate Commission out of 6 there are only 2 scientists who have some expertise in climate, Prof Tim Flannery (Australian mammalogist) palaeontologist, environmentalist and Will Stefan a climate scientist.

Previously climate scientists trained in a specific branch of science (Climatology, Meteorology, Atmospheric physics, Oceanography, Geophysics, etc) and to analyse data, is such training adequate to make predictions about future temperature trends over the next 100 years. A scientist would need training in a branch of mathematics including, Applied mathematics, Mathematical modelling, Numerical modelling, Bayesian inference, Mathematical statistics and Time series analysis.
Universities now offer courses in Bachelor of Computational Science (B.Comptl.Sci) which include modules on Differential equations ,Mathematical Methods,Numerical and Computational, techniques, Simulation and Modelling,Large Scale Matrix Computations, Programming and so on. One can also specialise in a major which include, physics , environmental modelling, genetics , mathematics (fundamental and applied) and computer science.
Science is a journey -it is never `settled'- (what crap!)
In 1977 Time magazine carried as its lead story – How to survive the coming ice age.
However in 2006 Time magazine carried as its lead story – Be worried, Be very worried. Global warming is upon us.
That’s a very quick turn around. So what generation of scientists got it wrong? The ones who claimed a cooling in 1977 or the ones claiming global warming in 2006?
Even the Met Office in London and the Royal Society, have distanced themselves from the claim that increased carbon emissions is driving increased extreme weather events. In fact extreme weather events have declined by 30 percent over the past two decades, this is well documented in Indur Goklany's book, `The Improving state of the World. (2007)
The idea that a 2c rise in temperature is to be feared or that the 1c rise over the past 150 odd years, is much ado about nothing. The underlying mechanisms of the change remain uncertain and largely unknown.

Red baron,
interesting if ill-informed contribution, to an article on paid maternity leave!
I'm still trying to figure out the relevance?
Rhrosty.

@ CHERFUL, Monday, 21 April 2014 9:09:11 PM

Well said.