minuet - has it occurred to you that mothers may actually want to spend time with their newborns and usually have to forsake payment to do so. The whole idea of the baby bonus (apart from political motivations) is to compensate parents for costs incurred not just to make it cheaper for some to go back to work. Childcare costs are way too high but we can't just ask those who don't use it to pay for it.

Tubley and Pendant - thank you so much for your words of encouragement to single mothers. And thank you Tubley for providing the lovely Col with some background information to my post. Alas, he won't get it.

Mr H: I do think it's a shame that you have to automatically link the baby bonus to pregnant teenagers, and that somehow equates single mothers.

Col: 'Were those the "men" who enacted the payment to mothers or the socialist ratbags who set out the unequal custody rules of the early 1990's?'

No, a different set of 'men'. These were not the 'stupid' or 'socialist ratbag ... men'. Nor way they neoconservative or economic fundamentalists. These were enlightened men who apply economic, social, environmental criteria, as mentioned by the other lovely poster - Robert. Intelligent men who understand how to economically and socially sustain a society.

'Liz, if you dislike the actions of those "men" you could stand for parliament, get elected and replace one of those "men" with your "woman's" perspective.'

If only Col, but I'd have to adopt a patriarchal view of the world, such as the views and political agendas of Amanda Vanstone and Kay Patterson. No, they would not elect me, or Tubley for that matter.

'As for "I ended up a single mother through divorce" - Well so what!'

Yes, so what. I didn't mean it to be a statement, but an explanation.

'I ended up a single father through the same process. I initially had limited access to my children, who were placed at the beckon call of their mother who used lies and faux emotion to corruptly exert her position of power in separation.'

It must have been delightful being married to you. What a silly woman not to realise the gem she was married to.

To be continued ...

... continued

'I bet every government has paid you more than it ever paid me.'

Possibly. But what if they stopped paying women like me Col? How would you live your life with no bigotry to express?

'I bet no government has forced you to pay your ex for the privilege of maligning your role in your children's lives.'

No I haven't. But they're such right-winged wankas, it wouldn't surprise me if they had a payment for 'maligning your [questionable] role in your children's lives'.

'Then you whine on about how some State labor leader has failed to enshrine your rights and expectations as his first priority in his state.'

Slightly embellished paraphrase of what I said Col. Now what was that you said about your ex?

'Well ain't that sad - I suggest get another job - I have had to do that when unhappy with my employment circumstances or needing to make maintenance payments in the past.'

Col, Col, Col. Employment - what sacrilege. You, more than anyone else know it's a single mothers mantra NOT to work. How do you expect us to go to work and be the national scapegoat at the same time?

Now how much will 10 kids X 10 baby bonuses give me? Would that pay for a tit job? Maybe I can attract a man like you Col.

Thanks R0bert for explaining C$A. It was the $ sign that confused me. I can now see it is a pun.

Before I dive into this imbroglio of child support, baby bonuses etc, I wish to state that I have no personal interest in the matter. My children are all grown up now and I have never paid or received maintenance.

However, I remember that when the CSA was set up, the Government claimed that large numbers of non-custodial parents were not paying their Court ordered maintenance. The custodial parents were obliged to make repeated trips to Court to try and enforce payment. I can vaguely recall men being gaoled for non-payment (maybe that was under the old Marriage Act, I'm not really sure) - a futile punishment if ever there was one as few could pay while sitting in a cell! Under the current system payment is far harder to evade as it is organised through the tax system. Certainly, 'easing the burden on the taxpayer' was a major part of the Gov't's spin at the time.

I think that part of the problem (rife throughout the Gov't welfare system) is the way the Gov't ignores tax liability. All its calculations ignore tax so that non-custodial parents can be left with insufficient to live on after tax, as I understand that maintenance payments are not tax-deductible. Possibly, some of the difficulties could be solved if the tax issue were addressed.

Those people complaining about the 'baby bonus' payment might like to recall its predecessor. The officially titled 'maternity allowance' was introduced in the dim mists of the past at £15 for a single child. I remember my mother telling me that it was a considerable sum when her children were born in the 1940s, but the rate was never increased! The Hayden budget of 1974 abolished this magnificent payment of $30 altogether when the totally inadequate child endowment system was overhauled.

Incidently, other than payment for the first child, child endowment remained at 50c per week for the first eligible child, 75c for the second and $1 for each subsequent child (if my memory serves me correctly) from 1941 until 1974. So if the Gov't never increases the current baby bonus, in a generation or two it will be equally pathetic and you will have nothing to complain about.

Col,

I know you think I have a small minded veiw of the world, as you have said so many times before. Why then, do you waste so many words replying to me? Surely someone with such a small mind as I have isn't worth the effort. Or maybe you really do love me.

Please don't deny your true feelings for me, Col, it hurts too much.