Former Prime Minister John Howard has urged Federal Labor Party treasurer Jim Chalmers to re-introduce the baby bonus in Australia.

The baby bonus gave new parents an initial lump sum payment of $3000 per child born, rising to $5000 over time.

The policy was originally delivered in 2004 by then Liberal Party treasurer Peter Costello and brought in at the time supposedly due to Australia having a low birth rate.

The Federal Coalition now has also joined Mr Howard in his call for the baby bonus to be put back in place - and there is more detail in the article via the link.

http://shorturl.at/3lpl9

Personally, I am concerned this policy is even being reconsidered.

Australia is already overpopulated, alongside the planet internationally and to think we need more children is something I am not comfortable with.

I understand the want and desire to increase economic growth, but I believe there are more sustainable options in place we could consider.

I am wondering what other people think of this call, all comments appreciated.

It's an excellent idea. A return to the days of ‘child endowment’, where mothers received regular cheques to help with raising children would be good too.

Hungary has very good taxation arrangements to encourage women to have children. Changes to the taxation system here would be a good idea as well.

We might even get back to mothers actually looking after their own children instead of farming them out to strangers.

Yes, Nathan, the population is now too high. But there has to be a controlled number of people if we want to survive as a nation. It makes much more sense to breed our own than use the mass immigration of Third World peasants who cannot speak the language, and don't share our beliefs.

I am with you, Nathan: people should be fined for having babies, not rewarded!

The bonus should be in the form of housing, education, employment, health care etc, not a few bucks in the pocket! Ah yes, it always comes down to someone on the forum, usually from the radical right, calling for population control. Some of the 15% living in the developed world, whilst consuming 85% of the worlds resources, call for limiting the numbers of those over indulgent "black fellas" from the third world.

"But there has to be a controlled number of people if we want to survive as a nation." The problem for Australia is not over population, but an ageing population. With ever increasing numbers of non productive old folk, sitting on resources like housing, consuming tax dollars, eating up resources, not sustainable. Anyone in favour of a 'Soylent Green' style policy to solve the problem of too many old folk! ttbn do you like strawberries?

ttbn says" It makes much more sense to breed our own than use the mass immigration of Third World peasants."

In a different thread ttbn quotes Adam Smith's line about "The invisible hand of the free market."

For fun, let's apply that to population growth. For each child of "our own" what economic input would be required? The mother would have to take some time off work as would their partner. There would be the time of doctors and nurses and use of hospital resources. The child would need to be educated, clothed and fed for at least 18 years.

The finances of the parents would take a substantial hit and that money otherwise could have been invested into generating wealth.

Smith might argue "let the free market rule." It would make far greater economic sense to import people who are already adults than to go to the expense of raising our own.

From memory, Smith only uses the phrase "Invisible hand of the market" once in "The Wealth of Nations". I suggest ttbn takes note of this before he pens yet another of his seeming endless rants about people who are not like him.

Paul makes a good point about what real support should look like - housing, education, childcare, health care - not just throwing a few bucks in the pocket. That’s exactly the problem with the old baby bonus.

When Howard and Costello introduced it, it looked like families were being looked after. It felt safe to have another child because there was cash on the table. But once that cheque was spent, parents were left with the same crushing costs: expensive childcare, housing pressures, and long-term career and retirement sacrifices.

By the time those realities hit, it was too late… devil take the hindmost.

This wasn’t just a policy quirk, it was classic short-term Coalition politics - creating the illusion of support without fixing the real barriers stopping families from having the number of kids they actually want.

Labor’s approach now - longer paid leave (with super), cheaper childcare, and investment in housing - might not be as flashy as a lump-sum payment, but it actually makes raising kids financially sustainable. If the goal is to truly support families and manage an ageing population, structural security beats quick cash handouts every time.