Little Johnny: Mummy why did you have me?
Felicity: Well because “A declining birth rate signals the onset, in the long term, of two bad economic problems. First, our economy will face the incredible task of paying for a burgeoning health and welfare budget brought about by an ageing population, but with a smaller workforce. Secondly, if our economy continues to grow in the same way it has over the past 10 years for the foreseeable future, our economic capacity will be further constrained by a smaller workforce.”

Why can’t people admit that they have a child simply because being in a close relationship with a child is a very enjoyable experience? Why do they have to try an ennoble it with all manner of silly rationalisations. Could it be that they feel guilty about drawing from the public purse to support their experience?

Why is this experience any more deserving of government support than any other experience?

Sure raising kids is a great joy but let’s keep it in perspective and call it for what it really is. It is a choice and not an obligation and as Liberty says it should be an economic choice as much as any other type of choice. If you want this joy then you pay for it.

Can't we really come with some new thinking in this century than 'Economic GROWTH equals success which can only be achieved by population growth, which can only be achieved by exhorting women to have more babies'?

If a woman doesn't have many babies can't it mean that she is mindful of, say, the state of the world she is bringing her children in or her financial capacity to adequately rear her children - no, she is selfish and self centred. Not thinking of the economy or the aging population.

I won't even start on the issue that it is very often men who don't want children or limit the number of children his partner has. Mindful as ever of his hip pocket. On his part it is sensible, isn't it?

Get off it. This planet is bursting with humans. If only economic growth means success and this is only possible through population growth, in case some haven't noticed, this planet is bursting with humans, yes humans, wanting to increase our population. The last thing we need is encouraging more babies.

[[[[The appalling state of public schools has nothing to do with money. It has everything to do we failed philosophies.]]]]
Correct.

Encourage women to have more babies? Ridiculous!

The Australian fertility rate, closer to 1.8 than 1.7, has not been in sudden decline. Most women are still in their breeding age, and have been contributing about half (migration the other half) of our million-per-four-year population increase. That will continue to be the case for almost another generation.

Peter Costello’s mantra of having three children is a ratbag of an idea. Felicity McMahon is in fairyland with her support for it. Replacement (2.1) could have been an excusable argument – but not advocacy of accelerating numbers to look after the previous generation. On that basis, with fertility rates at more than 2.1, each generation would have to accelerate its own fertility rate. Up and up – the sky’s the limit. With total fertility above 5, do Zimbabwe and Uganda point the way?

“Our economy will face the incredible task of paying for a burgeoning health and welfare budget brought about by an ageing population”. A furphy if ever there is one – the task is far from incredible. Very old and very young both impact on health and welfare budgets. The young more so than the old, especially when all of the impacts of nurturing and education are accounted for. Our self-esteemed Federal Treasurer has been unable to cater for the present proportion of young, yet he would increase that burden – and Felicity McMahon supports his concept!

We are currently addressing skills shortages by immigration. Perhaps the cost of training our young people was an incredible task. It does seem that the Federal Government is having difficulty in finding adequate funds for education of present numbers of the young (and don’t pass the buck to the states). Yet there is irrational advocacy for more.

Mothers, children, fathers, need environments fostering healthy development. A stable population adjusted in numbers and lifestyles to the reality of climate and landscape would be ideal. We have increased numbers until we’re wrecking the place. Time to gradually downsize until there is reasonable balance. The economy will just have to fit in with reality.

People aren't having babies because of the lousy public schools? Is there any evidence for this? I doubt it. More likely, it is simply fantastic nonsense spewed by a Liberal hack.

To be blunt, the government and the country would gain much more in encouraging smaller families i.e. up to three (at the most) instead of the football sized families that become a massive drain on the economy even before the children begin work. To give an idea of the shear cost on the public purse, here's an estimate on a married couple with 6 children, the eldest is 11 and the youngest 3 months. The husband is working and earning $1100 gross per fortnight. The breakdown is as follows Parenting payment partnered $171.80, FTB A $872.76, FTB B $125.02, Large Family Supplement $40.32, Rent Assistance (for rent paid at $260 per week) $140.00. Total income for the fortnight is $1349.90 which equates to $35097.40 clear in the hand - not to mention the $5000 bonus that this example family received for the latest addition and $3000 for the previous addition. All else being equal this lifestyle choice would receive over 16 years (which is when ftb cuts out for the first child) $561,558.40 - just over half a million dollars. So, roughly each child over a 16 year period would cost the Australian government $94304.00 - not to mention the cost in health, education etc etc etc. So this young person has to be a fully participatory member of the work force for quite some time, before he or she even begins to pay back what was given to their parents to support them in this world. Incredible. And all this for a lifestyle choice!

So before we go roughshod into this archaic thinking of populate or perish, lets have some decent thinking into how we are going viably educate, support, keep healthy in all ways, these children. We also need to assess the subsequent impact on the natural resources of land for housing, water, fuel, etc etc etc. We can't even support what we've got already, how on earth are we going to support even larger tribes of veracious appetites for the next 16 (minimum) years.