A couple of points:

1. The baby bonus is NOT higher for low income-earners. It is a flat $4000, going to rise to $5000 in the 08/09 financial year - there are not further scheduled rises. Nor is it means tested - anyone who has a child qualifies. For my husband and I, it meant that we could afford to buy new baby equipment for our first child ($3000 bonus at that time). Didnt go extravagant, just bought basic cot, pram, wardrobe, car seat/capsule and a few clothes. Pretty much all came from discount places like BigW and Target - certainly didnt go for the trendy products. For our second child (still some time off), it will allow me to have 4-6 months off work, rather than 3 months (which was all I could afford after the cost of setting up with equipment). I just dont see how the baby bonus is encouraging me to breed a massive population.

2. I agree that financial management should be a compulsory school subject. It needs to be based around all aspects of post-school life, including the cost of having a baby, running a house, paying school fees, what might be expected to be earned from work etc. It should be a year-long project, where you are given parameters and are marked on how well you manage within them.

Lug
Love it. Yes Please.
JHH I apoligise I really did think you were somebody else.

Your comments are fair. As for all of us paying every irresponsible Mother and Father way in this world- I disagree.
However if the money were going towards controlling who has kids i would not mind so much.
Its not a social thing to encourage young girls and others to have more kids.
A matter of fact if you look around you will see a rather over polpulated world- All full of starving children
Thats what hand out does. Then they come to think of aid as a god given right.
Everybody in every country should take their own responsibilty.
When Do I get my $100.00 Grand Lud Good thinking.

That would go a long way to help the elderly who dont have little darlings to stick them in a nursing home .

At the risk of being accused of practicality...

Demos, exactly how do you propose that we reduce the population of Australia from 20 million to 10 million?

>>i believe oz should have a population under 10,00,000. so we all have enough water to drink, bathe- and preserve the native wildlife<<

Let's have a look at the ways that this could be achieved.

The government passes a law that allows each couple to produce only one child. Or perhaps (this is actually more likely, given their greed for our cash) they should sell "birth licenses", the number issued being equal to (say) half the number of citizens who dropped off the perch the previous year.

Or perhaps they could randomly sterilize half the kids born each year... no, that would be too much. How about instead sterilizing everyone who commits a criminal offence - that would also have the advantage of breeding out undesirables.

But wait - most criminals are male, and it is women who produce babies. Back to the drawing board.

There's another problem emerging here, too. If you cut off the source (i.e. baby production), and simultaneously improve the life expectancy of the population, that population will age even more rapidly than it is at the moment. Imagine. All the laws passed will be to the benefit of an ever-increasing age level, until the kids become slaves to the older (and even older) generations.

So it looks as though the only way to achieve your goal is not through reduction in births, but in culling the old folk.

Population reduction would cause massive, irreversible pain. It would not result in the kind of blissful Utopia that you envisage where "we all have enough water to drink, bathe- and preserve the native wildlife."

It will be the catalyst for war, pestilence and famine as the economy goes to hell in a handbasket, and children turn on their parents.

We have 20 million people. Face it. Live with it. Deal with it.

Country Gal

“Nor is it means tested”

From the Australian Taxation Office website http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/33906.htm;

‘You can use the Baby bonus calculator to help you determine whether you are eligible to claim the baby bonus and if so, the amount you are entitled to claim.’

‘How much baby bonus you get depends on your own taxable income each year.’

You wrote;

“…just bought basic cot, pram, wardrobe…”

Fine, but it is not required to be spent on anything to do with the baby.

“I just don’t see how the baby bonus is encouraging me to breed a massive population.”

It’s specific purpose is to significantly boost our birthrate. This in conjunction with very high immigration is deliberately giving us rapid population growth. There is no end in sight for this growth. So the baby bonus certainly is part of a push for a “massive” population.

Fact
We were warned many many many years ago Australia could never go over 20 million max because of the water supply.
Percicles For a moment there i thought you had seen the light.
Remind me of your idea when you get old ok
Why do people think having kids is more important than caring for the ones who had us and cared for us.
Animals are suffering and so are the elderly.
I suggest we sort them out before encouraging more problems
I think China showed great leadership for the long term advantage for their nation.

The Government have years been concerned we could never hold onto Australia.thats was when we had four million.
Well guess what. Twenty is our limit and thats still nothing if you look at others.
We cant supply fresh water to more people.
We have over two hundred thousand arriving each month on visting visa alone.
Knowing that bird flu comes from countries where its common to have intensive farms why do we still allow these people to come.
Its only a matter of time. Mind you that does not include students or people with working visas.
At the moment onthe gold coast we have the only punlic hospital with a TB problem
Great over five hundred people involved.
Kepy pretty quite of course.
We cant cope now let alone more and more kids.

PALE, it is significant that you didn't answer my question.

The reason that it is significant is simply because in order to effect any change of this type, there has to be legislation.

Last time I looked, we have an elected government that puts together legislation, and passes it.

And presently, we vote for these people in some form or other.

So instead of mouthing a bunch of self-righteous twaddle about how "We were warned many many many years ago Australia could never go over 20 million..." and "Animals are suffering and so are the elderly", why not apply yourself to the practical task of framing the laws that will allow your dreams to come true?

You'd think I was asking for something difficult - all I want to understand is what kind of society you envisage will actually put into action all these measures designed to make your life easier.

Will it be a dictatorship? Will we still vote for political parties, in which case which one do you see as being sufficiently trustworthy to put it all together?

>>I think China showed great leadership for the long term advantage for their nation<<

That's ominous. But I don't think you really mean it, do you? The Chinese model of government is, after all, not one that would go down a treat here, would it? And population control was far from being their only big idea - have you had a look at their energy policy recently?

Will we need a new political party, perhaps? In which case, what would be its population policy - how would you actually put it into real words, not just vague platitudes and fuzzy wishful-thinking "goals".

But seriously, save your energy.

In fact, why not concentrate that energy on learning to live with the world as it is, and not waste your time building pointless and totally unachievable castles in the air.