Having a baby in Australia is one of the most expensive undertakings that a couple would pursue. When the federal government introduced the “Baby Bonus” in 2004, the aim of this policy was to encourage a rise in the birth rate by paying families a lump-sum payment of $3000 to reduce the burden.
Since then the cost to the government in implementing this policy has been around $800 million and the effect of this expenditure has not been reflected in a higher birth rate. The question I ask is: “was the baby-bonus worth it?” The answer: “Not really”. Instead of encouraging new growth it only rewarded existing parents expecting a child already. Most analysts commenting on this policy would note this to be a waste of government resources that could have otherwise been used in a constructive way towards education and child care expenditure.
I think the government was kidding itself when it thought it could solve the crisis with a bribe worthy of a kid being offered to an adult. The Australian people and/or Australian parents are not stupid and know the full intentions of the government’s sweetener. One may argue that this sweetener is not aimed at the Australian parent, but rather the potential young Australian parent that may consider having a baby. Young Australians can be quite short sighted when it comes to thinking about the long term benefits the money may provide rather than short-term gains. To this extent the policy begins to show adverse effects that don’t encourage responsible parenting but rather induce selfishness. For example, reports of young parents spending their lump sum payments on luxury goods like TVs is alarming, especially when you expect the money to be spent on providing for living expenses and/or baby expenses. This is what happens when you give children money, they spend it on toys!
Money the government provides in the short-term will not support a long-term future for a growing population. Money is not always the key as the government chooses to believe.

Whether the couple spent it on a TV or not if it still induced (no pun intended) them to have a baby or an extra child the money still achieved its purpose. Incidently children and babies love play school and sesamie street. Do you actually have children. You would know that the cost of rearing children over a life time is astronomical. Dont begrudge them a TV. This is the usual jealousy that is a nasty trend in our society. Oh dear someone may be gettin more than what I am.

Look at all these extra roads that my taxpayers money paid for and I never get to drive on them.

Ricky, I share your concerns. But I would put it much more strongly;

The baby bonus is the absolute worst piece of government policy to ever be imposed upon us. It is a complete wank for a number of reasons:

The very notion of wanting to increase the birthrate is just profoundly flawed. We should be celebrating our low fertility, which at about 1.8 is still well above replacement level for the whole country, due to the large proportion of young people. With this birthrate and net zero immigration, our population would continue to grow for about 40 years before it stabilised.

We most definitely should be striving to stabilise the size of the population as soon as possible, in light of the water crisis, peak oil and the imperative to live sustainably.

Fertility rates are very hard to significantly alter, whereas population growth can be easily adjusted via immigration. There was no reason why any attempt should been made to raise our birthrate.

The composition of the population, ie a larger portion of young people to offset the aging population, can be vastly more easily adjust via changes to immigration than it can be via rises in birthrate.

The baby bonus is means tested, which means the lowest income earners get the most. So it effectively bribes those who can least afford to have a baby, or another baby, into having one.

The money doesn’t have to be used in any way for the good of the child.

continued

A big lump-sum gift is a pretty powerful vote-buying tool. It must have appealed greatly to many who would be considering having a child within the next term of government. I consider the baby bonus to be little more than a blatant vote-buying exercise

Great things could have been done with that $800 million. A vastly better use for it would have been to build a rocket to send “have one for Mum, one for Dad and one for the country” Costello on a one-way trip to Pluto!

Alternatively, it could have been used to reward every person who reaches the age of 50 without having had kids! A gift of about $100 000, which is a tiny fraction of the cost of raising a child, would be nice.

The baby bonus is a truly disgusting piece of work.

So many envious people.We are a sour lot. When money is given we complain. When money withheld we whinge. Who would ever want to be in Government with such a lot of whingers.

A simple solution to contentious government funded programs.

Make the funding for them optional. Those who believe that they are a good use of money can donate towards the program. Those who think they can make better use of the money keep it and spend it on what they consider worthwhile (or save it for later). Everybody wins.

R0bert