“We are extraordinary in our affluent, middle-class views. Gambling the money away is irresponsible. But, parents in the suburbs who spend their baby bonus on a holiday, or a new plasma screen TV, or an expensive bottle of Moet to toast the birth of their baby they are using that money in their children’s interest? Right?”

Parents who have the money can spend their baby bonuses on some of the above, but can still provide for their children, can do as they damn well please; whereas, people on the dole cannot. Having a go at “wealthy” people has no bearing on the fact that people without money cannot expect live the same way as people with money – and gambling or spending money you cannot afford to be without is irresponsible. Perhaps people who do buy luxury goods with their baby bonuses should not receive those bonuses, but that will not make a jot of difference to the people who are not looking after their children by misspending the little money they have.

Funny hats seem to go with funny thinking. We have excellent social welfare for the less fortunate among us, including child allowances - which lower socio-economic groups manage without until they have children – but this author wants an even bigger nanny state.

These problems do not “belong to all of us”. The very idea that they do is anthema to our way of life. We have enough people who think that the world owes them a living, and that the government has to see them right on every front, without encouraging more of them to cast off the responsibilities of parenthood from their shoulders while they drink and gamble their money away

Leigh –

Rather than argue for a larger nanny state, I am far more interested in a more equitable distribution of wealth to begin with. Not more social welfare, but greater equity in the re-distribution of wealth through better tax policy and annual budgets.

I think you are confusing the issue that I am presenting.

I am arguing that the problem of supporting children in their early years to become competent and productive members of our community belongs to all of us. I argue this because it is their capacity to continue to build and foster our civil society that will provide our communities with the quality of life we currently have.

Perhaps you should read Dr Fiona Stanley’s book Children of the Lucky Country where she “identifies the issues for children at risk lie in systematic issues around the wealth gap and an inability to address poverty, rather than individual parenting styles.”

Your conviction is admirable, but does not stack up against the weight of early childhood evidence. Yes, people need to take responsibility for children, but not at an individual level – at a societal level. It isn’t enough to just blame parents. The issues are far more complex than that. And, $4000 for each baby or simply demanding that people who struggle raising their children should just ‘pull up their socks’ isn’t going to provide the solutions that those children need.

Daniel

Whoa. People with children can earn up to $53,000 a year and pay no tax at all. So, it's only people above that level, or people earning less than that but unfortunate enough to not have kids, who you are targeting as the contributors to " ... greater equity in the re-distribution of wealth through ... tax ..". Where's the equity?

I grew up in a lower working class slum, in a house that flooded at least once and often more every year, with a totally dysfunctional family including an insane mother, had 3 years of high school and I'm deaf. Despite all that, I achieved high executive positions in industry and government - without tax or any other handouts from anyone. Now, I pay lots of tax every year. Why the heck would I want to contribute more of my hard work to your glib, inane and childish belief that somehow I owe it to these people to fund your social experiments.

If you want to talk about taking kids away from parents who are totally incapable of caring for them, putting them through school and giving them some chance of a meaningful life, you can come back and ask me to contribute. But if we're talking about being gentle and understanding of these child rapists and paying them more money, it's time you grew up.

So Daniel wants a larger "Nanny State".So Daniel we tax the living daylights out of hard working people to pay for the non achieving lay abouts.The achievers will then become lay abouts themselves.Who is going to do the work Daniel?

We need a greater survival component in our society for drug addicts,criminals,public servants,do gooders and social security fraudsters so they will appreciate the hard work the rest of society does to keep them in their present suspended animation.

The problems of poor parenting have been caused by the Nanny State.Why do we want to perpetuate a failed ideolgy?

Daniel,would you like to write an article on personal responsibility next time?

Daniel,

Through forced expulsions and the consequential alienations from their children’s lives, many estranged fathers cannot help but feel that excessively “punitive approach” has already been taken against them.

Guess your puny experience precludes such observation.

Leigh, Keith, arjay are you seriously suggesting that putting in the hard yards of study (at courses which lead to employment opportunities), getting out of bed early to go to work, working hard at work often in a job that is less than fullfilling and all the other minor inconveniences of employment should in some way allow you to have some advantage over those who don't choose to do those things.

Next you'll be suggesting that sticking to a budget, restricting spending on grog, cigies, pokies etc should entitle you to have access to more money to spend on things like family activities, a more modern (and safer) car etc.

Clearly our efforts should never result in any kind of material advantage to ourselves or those we care most about. Where is the motivation in that?

(Just in case it gets missed I'm being tongue in cheek with that post, personal effort should have rewards.)

R0bert