Do we trust single mothers to make all the right decisions for our latest batch of Australians?

Are we preoccupied with harm minimisation here, or are we designing a robust new model to take us into the new century?

It is not about taking the view of paying mothers to have children, it is about providing adequate access to facilities eg - child care after the child is born. As society has this negative impression of single mothers it is important that people remember that looking after children and working is a very difficult balancing act. For a single mother the question of employment and raising childrent is always an issue. Most single mothers do not want to be on welfare however they do not have any viable options for child care. In a nutshell the cost of child care is huge and can consume half a wage. In the end is it worth working if most of your money is being taken for child care when a mother can stay at home and rear her children and be paid to do so. Make child care financially accessible then society may see more single mothers returning to work. And isn't that what the government wants?
Sam Q

sammyq

I have been asking myself the same question. Is the government really serious about providing the framework for parents to be free to work and be assured that their children are cared for? It is simply not economical to work and have one's earnings spent on providing child care.

The idea that women simply have children to receive more welfare is as absurd as it is insulting. Just one child is a lot of work let alone more. If it was so financially rewarding, where are the single mums beating a path to stockbrokers to invest all their illgotten gains?

We don't need one off baby bonuses, we need suitable infrastructure to ensure that people can work and provide for their children.

The government talks the talk and that's all folks.

Should we stop paying mothers to have children ? NO!

actually, the question is rather sloppy... and I would reframe it completely.

Should we structure our community and support structures such that parents who seek to have at least 3 children are rewarded, cared for, helped and encouraged ? yes.. resoundingly so. Without 3 childen per couple we are

-in negative population growth,
-heading for a population of geysers like me
-in danger of democraphic changes which could threaten our culture
-in danger of being cared for in our old age by an uncaring 'state'
-missing out on the many benefits that a happy extended family can offer.

So, I suggest that we do all we can at a government and local level to see a '3 children/couple' policy implemented. Such encouragement would not 'punish' or disadvantage childless couples, but it would simply lessen the financial disincentives for those who are happy to bring at least 3 children into the world.

I'm sure I'm missing some things here, so those who can see the glaring holes in my post, feel free to inlighten me :)

Boaz

Your post has me mystified. Why 3 children? Australia will have difficulties maintaining its current population unless we improve our management of unrenewable resources ie water, oil etc.

Plus who cares for all these children while parents are out earning the many $'s necessary to feed, clothe and house three dependents. Current child care is inadequate and expensive.

We need sustainable growth both in resources and population. We don't do enough to support what is here already, let alone start a baby boom.

We don't have -ve population on this planet, we are heading for over population.

So how much would an average woman pay another average woman to look after her not-so-average progeny?

Bear in mind that government will want their cut from each party to the transaction. The child care operator will want a return of at least 500k per employee (it is rumoured that Macquarie Bank is preparing a takeover bid for ABC). And then, there are the regulators, and their respective costs …