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?