"DD: "the LOP [Little Ozzie Pension] has not been effected by child support since 1993"

And the scheme commenced in 1988."

PROPER pensions [ie Aged, who worked all their life] started in 1901 with Constitution

the LOP started in 1968 - we just "got" it as a package deal with Greer and by 1972 we had no hope of adopting all mums kept thier babies, funded by J Doe

all that is social security [whatever your slant] but the 1988 CSScheme is totally different and is NOT social security

so back to my book, everyone has been conned by Secret Wimmins Business in 1987 to think either dad OR taxpayer support Buttercup [via the kid]. So I have a learned article at "8.5. Their Honours are Confused" to explain how even the full court was similarly confused

best to read the whole Centrelink chapter as all is explained, and don't feel bad that you did not follow as the deceit is very clever and goes to the very bowels of secret wimmins business

that chapter [and child support one] was very reason Howard had his Cash for Comment goons pirate the book [soon to be contested "in a court near to you"]

Country Gal,

That reminds me of that Chris Rock joke about the difference in magnitude of male and female white lies.

A man's lie: I wasn't at the pub.
A woman's lie: The baby's yours.

On the balance of things, I think it's always better to know that the person that you love and trust has absolutely no respect for you. Who says if the guy would rather keep the two incomes he doesn't have the option to forgive.

Oh well, I hope you also think it's better not to know if your husband is having affairs and visiting prostitutes and has an STD.

DD: PROPER pensions [ie Aged, who worked all their life] started in 1901 with Constitution

Wrong again DD. The aged pension was introduced in 1908, workers compensation in 1912 and maternity allowances in the same year. At the time the payment, known as the 'Baby Bonus' was roughly equivalent to two weeks' wages to the MOTHER on the birth of her child.

My source? A well respected text I use for teaching school students in Year 9 history.

You are entirely wrong that payments to women is 'Secret Wimmins Business'. It is a but one of the long-standing Australian traditions of recognising the hard work of all Australians in developing the next generation.

Again I say to you, please tell the truth. You are doing no one any favours by perpetuating myths and lies about women and their place in society. We are not second-class citizens. The parliamentarians of 1912 recognised that - why can't you?

Melanie Phillips wrote an article "Saying the unsayable" basic jist of it was that as governments legislated to improve the standard of living for single mothers, the more single mothers there are.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=471

Basically what began as good intentions, has created greater demand for social services.

There are perhaps thousands of variations on the theme of child support, from dads or mothers who pay very little if any child support, to situations where the custodial parent denies contact to maximise the child support amount.

Another variations is where dads having lost a significant amount of joint assests then have to try and reestablish themselves whilst paying a significant portion ot thier income in child support.

Another is where the custodial parent repartners to a wealthy person, so in reality childsupport then becomes petty cash for the custodial parent.

There is an idea that the children should not experience a fall in the standard of living, so by default the custodial parent must not experience a fall in the standard of living. So someone has to pay in order for this to happen, and it is the payers standard of living that suffers.

Dickie: “Cuphandle, there's a small problem with that advice. If a DNA test reveals paternity fraud, the process still does not identify the biological father. As a result there needs to be some regulatory enforcement to ensure that the child’s biological father meets his financial commitments to the child. Why should the taxpayer or an innocent partner incur the cost of child-raising whilst the errant father remains off the hook?”

Exactly. I presume you are advocating for women to keep sex diaries and be able to accurately identify the men they sleep with. If there’s no DNA match with the “resident father”, how many further tests would you propose to adequately identify the biological (and therefore fiscally responsible) father?

DNA tests are relatively cheap. Then there’s abortion. If women must have their infidelity protected, let it stop at abortion. Otherwise, let’s face it, we are supporting something other than privacy. Medical science has made it safer for women to choose so why should fatherhood be prescribed by their residency status. Healthcare should be about more than safe births, PC baby tagging supplemented by false birth certificates. In the 21st century, one is inclined to expect a mother handed the wrong baby at the hospital, would be no worse off than her partner, if she was to bring a child home fathered by someone else. Why should his residency determine his responsibility if it was not a factor in her pregnancy?

There is already in Australia perhaps enough information contained in the centerlink data base as to the rate of non-paternity amongst single women in Australia.

It is a requirement to accesss centerlink payments that the father of the child be named. I understand that at times a large number of men have to pay for their own DNA tests to prove that they are not the father of the child.

However getting access to the data would be highly resisted as it is a can of worms that nobody wants to open.