Chris

Thanks for your article.

I have a friend who is a stay at home Dad - yet he sends the kids to pre-school - just like Mark Latham does.

How is that equivalent to mothering or proper parenting?

Cheers
Kay

Kay, glad that you enjoyed reading my article.

As for your question, I wouldn't know how to answer it because my research has mainly focused on the economic aspects of families and relevant policies.

Christopher
Australia’s overall population will not start to decline until about 30 – 40 years time. In the mean time, the population will gradually get older.

It is of course debateable as to whether or not Australia’s population is sustainable environmentally. Probably isn’t, like most other countries.

However parental leave seems to have minimal effect on birth rates in developed countries. The EU has a birth rate of about 1.53, and many EU countries have more maternity and paternity leave than Australia, although I think that maternity and paternity leave should be given as a natural right.

The birth rates of developed countries seem to be more related to the avg age at which a woman has her first child, marriage rates, divorce rates, and de facto relationship rates.

There is also the question of what type of family the child will be born into, as the wrong family type and upbringing, will cost the taxpayer much more money in the future.

Put simply, much of what Christian referred to are 'symptoms' of a sick and culturally unbalanced society which has yet to observe the full impact of the 60s.
But another symptom (from UK) where a married couple with 3 children can receive around 450 pounds per yr from gov in support, the same couple on the same incomes, if they divorce, can then receive 4500 Pounds annually.!

It took over 50 yrs for the Yir Yuront of Cape York to die out as a result of the introduction of something as simple as a steel axe, we have introduced MANY steel axes to our culture and Timkins among others have studiously pointed out some of the negative impacts.

We seem to be starting with the idea that 'child rearing' can just be fitted into an assumed legitimate lifestyle of both male and females equally in the work force. Can anyone justify this in terms of cultural cohesian, family solidarity, child security and long term population sustainability ?

By the figures were are all dying but just don't know it yet. -1.75 for each 2 living ? If ever there was a statistical 'prophet' that number is it.
Paid maternity leave would have to translate into higher tax, because why should it come off the bottom line of a struggling company ? Or a viable company which would BECOME struggling if it had to pay people for work not done.

So, I absolutely question the whole underlying assumption. I prefer to see 'fitting work into the more serious business of raising young humans' to be a wiser perspective.

Females leaving the work force would free them to explore untold challenges and possibilities which include a 'work from home' approach and would bring the price of land and houses down purely due to market forces. It would also increase the wages for males working for the same reasons of lack of labor supply.

Christian, my point was that you are looking at the problem - and I acknowledge it is a problem - from the very limited viewpoint of parental support. In doing so you make some very broad assumptions, such as:

>>[Australia's changing demographic] would require increased taxation of taxpayers to maintain current levels of government expenditure and such increased taxation would have a negative impact upon efficiency and incentives<<

Would not a more sensible approach be to reduce government expenditure, if there is insufficient taxation revenue to maintain current levels? Every family in the land has to tighten their belt each time bank charges, bus fares, rail fares, water rates, petrol prices etc. increase. Why does the government encourage us to believe that their revenue stream is sacrosanct?

Perhaps we should encourage our political representatives to start prioritizing the spending of our taxes, and putting these up for scrutiny as part of their election manifesto. At the same time, we could pass legislation that made it an offence for the government to bypass the manifesto they were elected upon. That should see the end, apart from anything else, of the massive waste of our money on government advertisements that tell us stuff we already know. I could think of a few other "services" we could well do without that would be far more beneficial to society than some kind of procreation incentive.

I know of a father of 6 children on a single income under $60K, who, with the government support of his wife seems to be humming along.

The secret of this?

A) Stable family life of both parents families
B) Stable marriage
C) Stable job (father)
D) Buying a run down house & upgrading accommodation over time
E) Careful saving (wife) and forfeit of employed income
F) Acceptance of division of labour / need for childcare by parents
G) Kids that don't dress in designer clothes
H) Active participation in multiple community groups (no idle spending / entertainment)
I) Infrequent & basic holidays

When the ALP (& others) returns it's attention to traditional family models and not crap like GLBT fringe groups, IVF and embryonic research, then the lack of 'adventuristic' government intervention may reward the community.

With current government policy and consumerism, why would any young lady not be out there looking for an IVF extro-womb pregnancy without having to look after a man or ruin her figure?

You cannot force selflessness out of people, but, you can certainly make traditional life look so 'repressive' of women that extra-ordinary means of sexuality/relationships seems a viable option.

Parental responsibility accounts for the success of a society, and with so many parents not having grown up, then... you can see what we get!