The article does not have any regard for mothers who are single due to desertion or bereavement. It assumes that women choose to be single mothers and make decisions to have more children as a single mother because the social security benefits allow them to. I have not seen evidence that the majority of single mothers fall into this category.

Whenever conservative commentators discuss social security, the focus is always on that provided to the poorest sections. Rarely do we see any discussion of middle class welfare, which takes many forms. What about the baby bonus, paid to parents rich or poor, which is designed to encourage giving birth? If the single mothers benefit is considered to encourage baby making, what about this one, which so far seems to be contributing to an increase in the birth rate? And if we think an increase in the birth rate is a good thing worthy of spending government funds to support, does it matter whether it is the BB or the Single Parent Benefit that delivers the largesse? Do we subscribe to the belief that the poor should not be encouraged to have babies because the children will only turn out to be criminals or poor citizens? What is this view except raw snobbery?

Rosie, when I was a young bloke, a lady horse breeder made the following observation to me. You see that mare down there, chasing the stallion around the paddock, trying to get in foal? Well you watch, after she's in foal, she'll kick him if he tries to go near her. Then, after she has the foal, she'll try to kick his head in, if he goes mear them.
Now listen young fellow, most of us women are the same, you'll only be welcome if you have a hell of a lot to give, so be warned.
Since the average mans capacity to be the sole bread winner for a family has been severely diminished in our modern world, it is most often the women choosing the single parent life.
Perhaps we should be training women to be successful partners.
Then there are the lazy slobs, who would rather breed, than work for a living. They have a second, to improve access to public housing.
Just watch the explosion in fatherless children when they get enough to buy an old bomb car as well.
Then we have the women, looking for love, & choosing single motherhood as a way to find it. At least these are, mostly, very good mothers, so perhaps its money well spent in this case

An interesting string of comments - as would be expected on an article that attacks a sacred cow.
Single mothers get to move from a Housing COmmission flat to a house when they have their third child, drug addicted parents (financed by Legal Aid) fight their own parents in the Faimly Court for custody of the children the (grand)parents are actually bringing up because they don't want to lose the child benefits (couples fight each other for the same reason, although neither parent actually wants the child), State Treasuries know that poker machine turnover went through the roof when the first child bonuses were paid and Harvey Norman knows there was a rush on white goods and plasma screen TVs.
These payments are not intended to achieve any policy objective - they are simply the glue that is needed to keep our social fabric in place (although as Macquarie Fields showed, sometimes the fabric does come unstuck).
Can I have a Nobel Prize too?

Maria Lee

First we alter the criteria for encouragements for women to have children. We make 'marraige' and 'family values' lifestyle a high priority, I would be thrilled to see more mothers taking a decade off working outside the home to make some biological contribution to our aging population, and lower the median age. Its only your side of the gender equation who can have them.

Demographics is another factor I'd look at. To maintain political and social stability, we need more Anglo babies. (as do the French and other Europeans) Yes. I knowwwww its 'discrimination'. But the goal is social harmony so, I support it. (but it would never get up I'm sure.)

But then, if you were in Israel where the PLO has basically made it 'policy' for Muslims to have as many wives as legal under Islam, and the 'reasons' for this are outright war, it kind of drives the point home that demographics are an important factor in social policy.

One of the reasons given in the Sharia teaching for having up to 4 wives is.."To strengthen the Ummah" (make the Muslim population STRONGER relative to others.) This was touted on Islamic Sydney as a reason for Muslims to have a legal wife and a few more 'stored away' and the reasoning given was "As long as it's legal under Islamic law its ok". It was emphasised that the first wife does NOT NEED TO BE INFORMED or give 'permission' about the new one. (which is Sharia law)

So, lets not kid ourselves about what is happening in our 'multicultural' society. The Germans have just introduced a 'Citizenship' questionaire, (Muslims hate it, because it asks how u feel about 'domestic violence')

So, on topic, I suggest rather than reducing payments. RE-DIRECT and INCREASE them (Based on Families and Family Values) It seems we can legistlate to destroy family values, so at least we should feel ok about some reversal of this trend.

I would like to question the theory that single mothers on Government benefits have more children because of the incremental increase in their benefit level. This seems likely only if the increase is significantly greater than the cost of the additional child. I accept that the initial cost of a second baby cared for at home (presuming the mother already has the necessary equipment, baby clothes etc) is nowhere near as great as it becomes in later years, but I find it difficult to believe that the single mother is unaware of how expensive children are over the course of time. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the overwhelming majority of single mothers have small families of only one or two children, and most of the remainder with larger families bore their children prior to going on the pension.

The small group who have a number of children after going on the pension, usually as a result of transitory relationships, seem to well exemplify the triumph of hope over experience. Many of them hold the pathetic belief that bearing a man's child will bind him to them, rather than the more likely probability that he'll never be seen again!

Finally, if single mothers bear additional children only in order to receive increased pensions, there does not seem to be a limit applying. If one extra child is good, shouldn't six, twelve, twenty be so much better? Maybe I am blind, but I have not noticed that happening. I think additional payments for children may result in additional births in the case of women who genuinely want another child but could not previously afford it. These women are usually not in recept of Government pensions; they are normally in stable relationships but on low incomes or with crushing mortgages

Jason gets a little muddled when talking about the baby bonus and welfare payments for single mums. The baby bonus is paid to families who qualify.

Most "family payments" as opposed to "welfare payments" are strangely announced in the run up to elections. Do we as a civilised society really need to pay $500 to each family when they have a baby. All it really equates to is a week or two of childcare.

But of course a little bribe goes a long way for our mean and sneaky Government. I bet similar bribes will be offered next election.