I have no issue with maternity leave and subsided child care for working mothers. Coming from a nursing background I understand the consequences of pushing nurses and female doctors out of the workplace for years whilst their children are young. We would have a staffing crisis in our hospitals that no amount of overseas workers could nullify.
What I am totally against is subsidised care for unemployed women. How many of the public are aware that single mothers on parenting pension get two subsidised days of care a week? Why? When so many working women cannot find child care for their children, we have places going to single mothers so they can pursue their personal interests. I know quite a few that spend those days playing the pokies. Others use the time for day long shopping sprees at local shopping centres, including lunch with friends.
I find find the whole practise abhorrent and it is one budget cut the government needs to seriously look at.

Well given more than half the voters are also women, good luck with that sir!
Instead of the wedge, us against them politics, or the old as the roman empire, divide and rule politics; we'd be far better served, with some real reform, that not only fixes the budget structural deficit; makes the tax system completely fair and equitable; but, reduces actual tax compliance costs!
Consequently, producing on average, around a 7% net benefit, and also ends endemic avoidance; meaning, there enough money in the pot to afford reasonable maternity leave, and child care, which is far and away, vastly more important to working mums!
We are not a them or us sir, but a WE.
What effect one section of society, affects us all.
We confront a future, where everyone will need a very good education.
Creating evermore, new post code poverty traps, with this divide and rule, or wedge nonsense, will not only not achieve that outcome, but possibly sideline our best and brightest!
If we are to take an axe to something, it has to be the Author's dumber than dumb wedge politics!
I mean, com'on, isn't the coalition already in enough electoral difficulty?
So why in the name of plain old common sense, would anyone try to turn half their voting demographic against themselves, with these divide and rule, rank, risible stupid and patently cruel ideas!
Really sir, the only thing we need to take an axe to, is a self evident lack of real choice and really risible mantras, that chain pugnacious pompous paltry parsimonious puerile popinjays and look at me, look at me, preening preaching peacocks, to their patent paucity of constructive ideas!
Rhrosty.

So big (little) nana. You'd punish a few hundred thousand single mums, for the sins of a few dozen, playing the pokies?
Where do you think these women get their endless pokie money, work start? LOL!
I dare say, rather, from the oldest profession?
And people just like a demonstrable, incredibly judgmental you, would punish the rest, for the lack of moral scruples, [or lack of other choices?] on the part of a few.
Wait until tax part B is finally phased out, when your youngest turns six and then lets see how vocal you are, as a patent, (dyed in the wool) and blatant coalition supporter!
And really, all of this rubbish is just so unnecessary, as is, policies whose only possible outcome, is a whole new host of postcode poverty traps!
As someone raised by a single mum, condemned to struggle by judgmental people, not unlike you?
I say, shame on you big (little, mean minded mind, and tiny, stone cold heart) nana.
Shame on your paucity of charity, and or, simple charitable thoughts!
People everywhere, invariably judge others on their own personal standards!
Which makes all of your, generally, ultra-critical posts thus far, far more revealing, than you would have the world know?
Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the hardest, meanest, bitchiest, ugliest on the inside, mother of them all?
Rhrosty.

Is the sub-text in this article "Kinder, Küche, Kirche for women"?

If you can`t feed them don`t breed them.
Contraception does exist.
Use it please.

Big Nana is nothing if not generous. Prepared to see women get a leave pass from the kitchen if to do otherwise would hit "the economy". Otherwise it's shackles for you, ladies.

Whatever one feels about working mothers, the days of the single-income family are long gone. Unless Australia's real estate prices can be dramatically brought down, families are permanently stuck with massive mortgage payments or rents just to keep a roof over their heads - and this demands a second income. Furthermore, as Australia sinks deeper into a low-paid service economy, based on casual or zero-contract labour, the average family is going to need, not just two incomes, but two parents working two or more jobs each.

Having said that, however, Abbott's paid parental leave scheme, like Keating's superannuation monster, is a rort that heavily rewards the highly paid permanently employed, while impoverishing anyone who is either on a low income, unemployed or sits outside the permanent salary system - and all at taxpayers expense. If the Greens dare to support this disgusting Bill in the Senate, they've lost my vote forever.

As for Big Nana's expose on mums dumping their kids at taxpayer expense to go off and play the pokies, well, I'm on the mums' side. Being trapped in the suburbs with a house full of toddlers and infants is the most mind-numbing, isolating, exhausting experience imaginable. I don't begrudge any mother grabbing some taxpayer-funded respite.

I'd rather my taxpayer dollars were spent on giving a tired, brain-fried mum a couple of hours at the pokies than fund the $20 billion in weapons systems that Australia is committed to spending just this year alone.

A very good article Brendan, although a bit mind numbing on the statistics.

The solution is obvious although, as hinted at earlier, it's a tough call to get people to vote to eliminate their "free stuff". Look at what happened to poor Mitt Romney after his truthful but impolitic "47%" quote became public.

Ateday you are correct, perhaps single mothers should chase up and grab the male who duffed them, not only by the balls but their bank account as well until they turn 21 years, in the 1950's this was the order of the day, which kept most men from dipping their wick until they married, they knew the consequences, taxpayers now foot the bill and not the duffer who will soon drop his pants again and continue his happy journey duffing any female who drops her pants, not my worry, leave it to the taxpayer.

Rhrosty, if you dont know to respond to an opinion you don't agree with without resorting to personal abuse then your opinion is not worth reading.
I have raised 3 generations of children, some as a stay at home mother, other times I was a working grandmother and great grandmother whilst having children in my care.
Being a stay at home mother is not the easiest job in the world, but it's a damn sight easier than being a mother who works outside the house.
I paid taxes for over thirty years, raised 4 children as a young widow and enjoyed a long career as a nurse. I accept that these days more women wish to pursue careers and many need to work to help purchase a house.
Daycare and maternity leave are essential components of today's life, but I see absolutely no reason why a woman who chooses to stay at home with her children should have taxpayer support to put them in daycare.

Child care should be a tax deductible expense against your income, with the tax deduction capped. That's it. No subsidies etc. If it's a financial struggle to wait until the EOY, the ATO makesprovison for you to submit a claim and have less PAYE deducted by your employer.

If you have no income to deduct against, chances are you're not working and don't really need paid childcare.

This doesn't solve the issue of "fairness" for childress tax payers nor tax payer couples with 1 person working while the other looks after the kids. So there may be some leeway for a tax rebate in those situations ?

Perhaps families of today should take a long hard look at taxpayer handouts in the 1950's and 1960', there were not any except a small endowment payment which amounted to nothing, we did not have four wheel drives in the drive not paid for, we had to earn and pay before we bought the car, we did not have fully furnished mansion houses when we married, we had to furnish each room when we could afford it.we had our families usually six months after marriage, we used washable cloth nappies, one person only was the provider for the family, we did not need crèches or after school care to dump our children in, we did not get up to $50,000 hand outs by governments, which is taxpayer money anyway. All families of today live within your means, then one of you can stay home and rear your children as a family and not expect handouts from taxpayer funded Governments, meaning every one else is paying for your extravagance, get in the world we had to survive in, not in the world of we both have to work to pay our debts which we cannot afford in the first place.

The whole problem with child care and the resultant attempts to cope
with it goes back to a single decision by government about 1975 approx.

The government introduced legislation that forced lending authorities to lend on two incomes.
This resulted in developers and builders pushing up their prices to
cater for the double amount of money in the market.
It is a simple rule;
Prices will rise to meet the amount of money in the market.
Borrow on two incomes, you must repay on two incomes.
There is no point in protesting this comment is misogynist.
Money is not misogynist.

There is no solution but to enable lending institutions to lend on
one income and refuse requests for two loans if they so decide.

Be warned, once energy costs rise to unaffordable levels you may not
have one income let alone two.