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.

yes I cover all that in my book, but I give credit to Helen Garner for exposing this form of feminism in The First Stone

we are talking here to the Costello "baby factories", an exact model of Hitler's, cept now it is for the Motherland and not FatherLand

the great concern is that these people indoctrinate school kids in the way you detail and then your sisters at the Cash for Comment site detail how 17 year 9 girls at one school all made a pact to get pregnant together

the article ended as how could this happen tut tut boo hoo, another reason why my book was pirated

but to return to the OP issue, I have recently done an article at

http://csacalc.com/book/priv2.pdf

and will be expanding on it soon

Seems Ludwig is courting political suicide if he keeps going with this one

I get the impression he is simply way out of his depth in this portfolio so is simply asking the CSA and Cash for Comment freaks, and indeed they were the only ones invited to his little Canberra pow wow

as someone mentioned Tillmanns has already been thrown overboard as the CSA sarificial lamb, and the voter threw Brough [pronounced Bruff as in Gruff] overboard.

This could be worse for kevin than Belinda Neal [dissenting]

This is one toppic that just won't go away.

Perhaps all CM payments should go into a collective fund and all receipts should be produced when money is spent on the children. Much like how our medicare system runs.

No receipt, no refund!

To go further, maybe a set amount per week per child depending on thier age with this money allocated for 'food only'. Then all other monies spent on a child can be refunded through this system.

That would take care of the 'public school V private; debate.

To All:
I think that this whole problem of Child Maintenance payments by whoever, should be simplified by deterring the avoidable pregnancy, unwanted child, and overactive procreative glands!

In today`s society there is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy ( short of the result of rape!) but we seem to have a major problem with so many young women who become mothers for whatever reason and expect somebody else to pick up the tab for the maintenance and upkeep!

I am NOT one-sided on this issue! I do believe that any young stud who wants to exercise his sexual prowess, should be prepared ( and compelled ) to accept the cost of the consequences of his actions should he fail or refuse to wear the appropriate "armour" when commencing the "adventure"!

The same thing applies to a woman who wishes to play the mating game,...she should we equip herself accordingly and if not partaking in contraception, maybe for religious reasons, then the onus is on her to refuse to participate in the "adventure'!

The authorities have to take a different attitude toward this "get paid to breed culture!" We need to be looking at the world population as a whole and maybe apply China`s policy of one child and then apply some form of penalty for over and above!

Sounds barbaric you might say!....but if we do NOT slow our breeding rate we are going to fornicate ourselves off this planet, which itself has limited resources, as we are only too obviously seeing the evidence of right now!

what is strange here is, just as Howard chose to use the word "custody" [deleted by Keating in 1995] in a type of "legal copout" to make his draconian "equal parenting responsibility" amendments for the benefit of lawyer mates, this thread [and now Ludwig] are resorting to the same copout by using the term maintenance.

child maintenance [normally called Stage 1] has existed in Fam Law Act side by side Child Support Assess Act since 1989, but by mathematical impossibility it became a dead parrot in 2007 when s 66E said ALL poeple now must use CSAAct

this is NOT semantics folks, as the so called $25 per week per kid [CPI inflated to $50] attributed to "maintenance" WAS the very reason for CREATING the CSScheme.

but 20 years down the line it has failed dismally.

I started, for example, http://csacalc.com/divorce/revenge4.htm in 2000 using the CSA OWN FIGURES to reveal their KPI of just $24, which was the main reason Howard went ballistic and called in the Nutty Professor Parkinson

for more reading see the home at http://www.amandaforpm.com and I will continue later

US, that's why its a joke. One's worse, but a damn sight less frequent.

You keep missing the point. The truth is NOT always best, particularly not at a point that is excessively charged with emotion anyway. Who's to say that a euphoric first-time dad wouldnt be devestated enough to commit suicide after such a revelation within days of baby turning up. Still think its in his best interest all the time?

With regards to my husbands fidelity and STD's, I submit to you if I was dependant on his income to keep myself and kids above the poverty line and as long as the STD was not HIV, I might very well be much better off NOT to know. Again, engendering resentment, powerlessness and poor self-esteem is not in the best interest of anyone in particular. If my husband was to engage in such activity constantly, different kettle of fish. HOwever, I am not dependant on my husband for financial security or stability, so for me it comes down to a matter of emotional impact. If it were a once-off affair, it might be better for me (and for the kids sake), not to know, because I would leave him.

If a husband passed on an STD to his wife, whilst she was going through her baby-producing years, she would find out. Standard medical procedure is to run a full gamut of STD tests on confirmation of pregnancy, so that action can be taken to stop anything that might harm the baby. If the wife has been faithful, then there is only one explanation.