Some interesting points Babette. And breastfeeding for at lest six months does improve the immune response!
And, if men had to do it, the person writing the letter could easily be the PM, pleading for your understanding.
And complex rationalists just complicate the hell out of everything, complexity which currently costs the average bottom line an additional 7%.
Hell there are some business with profit margins lower than that.
I mean, why would anybody become a farmer, when the returns in just too many cases, are lower than bank interest, and then still taxed?
I can remember a time, when women could chose whether to work or not!
Now, with house prices so far above the overseas average, they have little other choice but to work!
And oh for the day when power prices just kept pace with inflation, not way out there creating it!
In light of all that, I guess you must be one of the more fortunate ones, who can choose to stay at home and raise kids, the most important job on the planet!
Rhrosty.

The author says....FTB part B was meant to rectify the unfairness created when a dual income household receives two tax-free thresholds.

Yes, but the single income family member who works, claims for the dependent spouse, do they not!

As for breast feeding V working, I think too many people forget that having chidden is a 'personal choice' and ome that is all too often made with the assumption that someone else will always be there to pay the bills.

Well, as the saying goes, nothing lasts forever and this may well be one such case.

Finally, with regards to your letters, I hope in the interest of fairness, you also sent a letter to Mr Rudd, Ms Gillard and Mr Swan, seeking an explanation as to how they managed to spend so much, yet achieve so little, which lead to the waste that has brough about the suspected spending cuts that are the basis of your article.

Perhaps we have reached the point where people have to stop expecting the world to provide support for them and their personal choices. Myself and my wife brought our two kids up without support, so it can be done.

BTW, I am not a supporter of paid parental leave.

Quite true, Babette, for those who were already encouraged under former governments to have babies.

But enough is enough: further procreation in this overcrowded planet is wrong and must not be supported in any way until human population reduces by two digits at least.

While making children should not be criminalised, all expenses must be shouldered by the parents, including education, health and being off-work. Sure, a fair 9-month notice should be given and those already pregnant should enjoy the existing benefits, then all this should end.

'But enough is enough: further procreation in this overcrowded planet is wrong '
Yuyutsu

I would of thought you would fall for such idiotic dogma. Plenty of space, plenty of resources however not very evenly spread. Look at the obesity problems we have where many eat for 3.

Babette

unfortunately if a baby is born they are very fortunate in this self centred secular society which slaughters many. The feminist are happy for babies to come last as long as they remain in first. It is a shame that a 'conservative ' Government is discouraging mothers from being mothers. Most of the high paid feminist Government workers should be able to avoid nannies. Thankfully their are still woman take mothering seriously.

I am definitely NOT a supporter of paid parental leave.
Good on you Yuyutsu.
With 7 billion and rapidly increasing there certainly are enough, too many even, people on this planet.
When are we going to realise that, as a species of animals, we must learn to share this, our only home, with ALL other animal species and cease destroying it for our own personal gratification.
If you can`t feed them don`t breed them and do not expect others to pay for them. The fun was yours, the pain is too.
For Rhrosty the most important task we, as a species of animals, have is to try and save this place for future generations of ALL species.
Producing more little consumers of the Earth`s valuable and finite resources is not the way to do it.

ateday. Australia is hardly overcrowded!
We could even grow food in the Sahara, using just sea water.
And feed everyone on the planet, for less than a third of our military budgets!
Yes sure, we as a species have overpopulated the planet, but Aussies are not the ones doing it!
Why, our birth rate at 1.75, is not even replacing current population levels!
So save your spurious sermons for the ones actually doing all the breeding, rather than preaching to the converted.
Which by the way, has too date, only ever been moderated by educating women, and indeed, giving them, as half the world's population, the right to say no!
Rhrosty.

I had some sympathy with supporting new mothers for at least two years; apart from anything else on the basis that child rearing is a social good. And women in low to middle income households who provide that social good deserve a degree of financial independence. One of the points of increasing women's labour market participation was financial independence... (though it also served the capitalist end of expanding the overall market - ie: 'capitalism trumped patriarchy'...) But theoretically this (independence) should apply to women who provide the social good of child-rearing as well.

But when the author talks about trashing the ABC and the Human Rights Commission she lost me there... One should not be at the expense of the other. Better to build an exchange with the progressive side of politics on the principle of women's independence; and recognition of the social good provided by women raising children... Several years ago this was discussed by Australian Academic David McKnight in his book 'Beyond Right and Left'. (worth a look for open-minded conservatives wanting to break free of old ideological constraints and blind-spots; though as a Leftist I felt he look too much of a defeatist line on the traditional Left)

If Abbott's willing to listen - fine; But remember with the Conservatives what is given with one hand is taken away with the other - and even more so.... (to a lesser degree with Labor) Better to attempt to build solidarity with others opposing Abbott austerity - than to pursue your ends at the cost to other valid and just interests and causes....

This is an important article because it touches on one of the most critical issues facing Australia namely the aging of our society. Unless we can encourage more families to have children our society is doomed to aged poverty. Already governments are talking about "end of life" statements from people going into hospitals and nursing homes because of the shortage of beds, nursing staff and money. Eventually there will be pressure to accept euthanasia and it won't be very voluntary.

There is a financial dimension to this. We have to provide greater financial incentives to families to have more children. The fact is that the aging problem has already caught up with us and both sides of politics are talking about raising retirement age. In a progressing economy retirement ages come down so there is something fundamentally wrong with our society. Clearly our sins have caught up with us and now we have to pay the price and that might mean signing a paper about "end of life" in order to enter a hospital or other institution.

Is the planet overcrowded. Go 100 km out of Melbourne in any direction and tell me if the place is overcrowded then. Or get in a plane and go around Victoria and tell us how much of the place is built on. Less than 10 percent of Victoria is occupied.

The whole population of the world would easily fit into Victoria and NSW with space to spare. That would leave the rest of the planet on which to produce food and other goods that we need. Ask farmers how hard it is to find markets for their products. There is a shortage of some fuels because of restrictions on exploration and development mainly for spurious environmental reasons. The Vic Government has banned Coal Seam Gas. There have been other restrictions on shale oil development. Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.....!

Gadfly42, the problem with our population, is a global issue, not a 100 km outside of Melbourne issue, because which ever way you look at it, 9 billion people still pollute and stil have to be fed and provided for, wherever they live.

While I accept the our coumtry is somewhat underpopulated (in terms of pax per area) we also suffer from a lack of potable water and fertile land, thanks mostly to greedy developers and malfunctioning councils and town planners.

I say this because there is plenty of marginal country out there that could be developed, leaving the fertile country for agriculture. Much better to develop poor country and ship in top soil than to build on prime land.

As for third world countries, they have little to no sense of self control and as the saying goes, you can't help someone who won't help themselves.

As for us here, I am quite happy with our country and, if we could just rid ourselves of the man hating religions that we have allowed in, we would be a much more desirable place.

More than anything else, the most aggravating aspect of this article to me is the unremitting sense of entitlement that exudes from every sentence.

Why should the taxpayer fund those who do not contribute directly to the economy of this country?

Sure, motherhood is a fine and worthwhile activity, and infinitely fulfilling for those who opt for it. But it is a status that is freely chosen and entered into by the majority of its members, who have chosen its joys and rewards over "going out to work". Show me a mother who has elected to be one for patriotic, "do it for Australia's future" reasons, and I'll show you a fibber.

There is not the slightest connection between the rationale in favour of support for a working parent's daycare and the "full-time homemaker mother.", as Ms Francis calls her. (And we all know she is talking about 'her', don't we.) One is contributing to the wealth of the country, the other is not. One deserves support from the taxpayer, to compensate in very small part for the sacrifice being made, while the other is making no sacrifice at all.

The fact that Ms Francis is forced to manufacture arguments around breastfeeding demonstrates the absence of a genuine economic or rational basis for her antediluvian views.

Dear Pericles,

<<Show me a mother who has elected to be one for patriotic, "do it for Australia's future" reasons, and I'll show you a fibber.>>

Show me anyone who has elected to "go out to work" for patriotic "do it for Australia's future" reasons, and I'll show you a fibber.

Those who work already receive salary/wages/income for their effort - why should the tax-payer give them more?

Dear Rhrosty,

<<We could even grow food in the Sahara, using just sea water.>>

Yes, from a technical perspective we could.

But it comes at a price:

First, this requires an ever-increasing dependence on technology, such high-technology that cannot be produced locally. This implies dependence on the rest of the world and capitulation to any demands made from across the oceans. Second, density itself requires increasing regulations and standardisations so that more people can live along on the same area without stepping on each others' toes. The combined effect is of turning people into numbers and denying their expression of individuality and personal religion. One may have enough to eat, one may not feel heat or cold and one could have all the sophisticated gadgets in the world (in fact be required to have all those gadgets whether they like it or not), but not being able to live one's own way is poverty - and being told how to do things is slavery.

And where would it stop anyway? Young people, seeing that "everything is possible" would surely want to have their own kids. The Sahara may be inhabited, but there are only that many Saharas on the planet.

All that for what?

For giving more souls the chance of a human body? Souls can wait, they don't feel the time passing anyway, they don't need to come all at once!

<<And feed everyone on the planet, for less than a third of our military budgets!>>

Assuming you can make people trust each other - for which we know no precedent.

<<Yes sure, we as a species have overpopulated the planet, but Aussies are not the ones doing it!>>

Then bring others in. There are hundreds of millions people enthusiastically eager to come to Australia, you could even pick and choose, you could select for example those who are already educated and eager to work, or those who have natural talent and inclination for aged-care.

However, note the price. The GDP may increase along with the material standard of living, but the quality of life will suffer.

Nice attempt at a twist, Yuyutsu.

>>Show me anyone who has elected to "go out to work" for patriotic "do it for Australia's future" reasons, and I'll show you a fibber.<<

Nowhere did I suggest such a thing. Mostly, they go to work because a) they have to, to stay alive or b) in order to improve their standard of living. But there are benefits to the nation as a whole when they do.

>>Those who work already receive salary/wages/income for their effort - why should the tax-payer give them more?<<

If you think about it, instead of instinctively pounding your keyboard in disapproval, the main beneficiary of the taxpayer's contribution is the childcare industry that employs thousands of people, and allows productive work to enhance the economy elsewhere at the same time.

"Full-time homemaker mothers", on the other hand, do neither.

<<We could even grow food in the Sahara, using just sea water.>>
Rhosty,
I suppose we could survive in dungeons eating cockroaches as well. People survive under the most appalling living conditions too.
You see, merely being alive really isn't living is it ? And yes, we are overpopulating the planet, like it or not.

had some sympathy with supporting new mothers
Tristan ewins,
How about supporting parents ? Now that does sound better doesn't it ?

Good comments from rehctub and Yuyutsu.

Of course we could grow crops in the Sahara using sea water. We could farm the surface of the Moon, if we were prepared to put enough money and energy into it. It is the costs of doing so that make this a pie in the sky proposition. Desalination may be a financially viable proposition in a rich coastal city, but desalinated water costs 4 to 6 times as much as dam water, far too much to use it for agriculture, except for possibly growing some vegetables in greenhouses near the city. Once you get beyond the city, the costs escalate even more because water is heavy and pumping it up a gradient requires enormous amounts of energy and is very expensive. Even if we had a completely free, unlimited source of clean energy, if we kept increasing energy use at the current rate, we would end up cooking ourselves in a matter of a few centuries, just from the waste heat. The laws of thermodynamics rule OK. See this article by A/Prof Tom Murphy (Physics, University of California San Diego)

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

So far as Australia is concerned, big families are not a problem. Our fertility rate has been slightly below replacement level since 1976. Every couple that has a large family is balanced by several others that have no children or only one. Our government is doing our overpopulating for us. This is actually one of the main causes of the problems Babette Francis is discussing. If housing were cheaper in the places where the jobs are and there was a tighter labour market, as in the 1960s and 70s, then mothers could afford to stay at home while their children were very small, without help (in most cases) from the taxpayer.

Dear Pericles,

<<If you think about it, instead of instinctively pounding your keyboard in disapproval, the main beneficiary of the taxpayer's contribution is the childcare industry that employs thousands of people, and allows productive work to enhance the economy elsewhere at the same time.>>

So some women want to be mothers, other women want to work in childcare and you just want to enhance the economy.

Do what you like, but why do I have to foot the bill through my taxes?

Some people also like to have pets - are you suggesting that tax-payer should subsidise either (or both) the pet owners or the pet-grooming industry, on the grounds that it enhances the economy?

When I want things, I pay for them myself!

I think you're missing the point, Yuyutsu.

>>So some women want to be mothers, other women want to work in childcare and you just want to enhance the economy. Do what you like, but why do I have to foot the bill through my taxes?<<

It is not me, but the government that wants to enhance the economy - my own preferences are irrelevant, as are yours. We elect a government to (theoretically) employ our taxes in a manner that benefits the economy, which in turn benefits all of us. You "foot the bill", as you call it, because you are a taxpaying citizen. If you voted for a candidate who was standing on a platform that included a "no tax" clause, and that candidate was defeated by someone who was in favour of taxation, then you missed out, I'm afraid. That's democracy for you. Full of disappointment.

>>Some people also like to have pets - are you suggesting that tax-payer should subsidise either (or both) the pet owners or the pet-grooming industry, on the grounds that it enhances the economy?<<

If those pets were going to grow up into productive members of the community and future taxpayers, that wouldn't be such a bad idea.

But they aren't. So it isn't.

>>When I want things, I pay for them myself!<<

Of course you do. You are an autodidact, you build your own roads, take away your own garbage, surgically remove your own appendix and defend yourself with your very own F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Good for you.