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.