Thank you for your interesting article. I agree that things have become more difficult for traditional families, in terms of having children and buying a home on one income.

However it's not just economic policy that helps or harms families. It's also the ideological underpinnings of policy. Things like drug policy, pokies, education, healthcare, law enforcement, advertising, media policy, etc. are also very important to families.

When we talk about "families" we are specifying some kind of group. It seems to me that you believe that any group of people living together should be called a "family". Why, then, should we have this notion of "family" at all? Why not just "people"? How do you decide which adults are responsible for which children, and which men are committed for a lifetime to which women? Why allocate rights, responsibilities and benefits to groups as opposed to individuals?

My point is that we need to draw a line somewhere, using some rationale apart from simply reflecting the diversity that already exists. Just because something exists doesn't mean it's good or right or best.

Ms Plibersek, is it your view that if any group of people decide to call themselves a "family", the government should recognise them as such?

Also it's clear that policymakers didn't ignore non-traditional families "at their peril". The last election made that clear.

I thought Ms Plibersek pointed out that she means those caring for children? Surely children is what family is about?

I did feel ignored by the Government at the last election, because I'm a heterosexual woman who wishes to work, but am heavily penalised by the family tax system if I do.

If Tanya's comments about "Families" are representative of the Labor Parties policies then the term “Family” obviously does not take into account “Fathers”.

In the Labor Party's list of policies during the last election, the word "Father" was not mentioned once although the word "Mother" was mentioned innumerable times, and from memory the word "Mother" was mentioned 33 times in one policy alone being the Baby Payment policy.

As well, there was a Committee of Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangements in the event of Family Separation held in 2003, but it appears that the final recommendations of this committee were highly compromised because there was a belief that any other recommendations would not be approved by the Labor Party in the Senate.

This then caused considerable disappointment amongst many fathers who have been relegated into the role of second class parent and second class citizen because their spouse has decided that they should no longer be married and the father should become the payer of child support to a child he sees every second weekend because the mother believes that this is the most suitable option and she should be entitled to a life free from the constraints of having to have the father around although she is very concerned about the "best interests of the child" as long as this does not inconvenience her and she is entitled to a life where there is lots of choice because that is her right as a woman and after all there are policies for Women but not for Men because this is justified as fathers are not that important anyway unless you are a father although “fathers” in families is optional as "fathers" do not really matter as shown by the lack of the word “father” in any of the Labor party’s policies.