Thank you for flooding my comments page! YAY! (Vicki, I so meant Nastia the gym girl! Pfft, who else?)

So, there's been a very interesting debate circulating within the newspapers lately, that of illegitimate children. With the slackened laws on public expression of opinion, I feel more at ease to post my two cents worth. Not too long ago, MM Lee was criticised for suggesting that Singaporean women should have kids on their own, ignoring the numerous social problems that will arise from such parenting. Now, I may not be the best example of a child that turned out well because of the presence of both parents but I do know that no child can grow up with just a mother's love or a father's love. There's just some things only a certain parent can do. For example, in To Kill A Mockingbird, Atticus barges in on his children and tries to educate them on familial pride. That's not something a man can do by sheer definition of it being a woman's job. In that sense, single parents are unable to perform a somewhat holistic form of parenting because of the gender limitations that they face.

However, to deny single parents the same perks that are given to parents with 'legitimate' babies is unjust. Singapore, as we all know, has an elderly population. At this point in time, for the sake of defense and to maintain our attractiveness to MNCs, we do need to ensure that our population climbs steadily. These single parents have the courage to bring up children on their own in a society as conservative as Singapore's. If these parents are denied the perks that parents of legitimate children enjoy, we are sending out an anti-life signal, which is not an attitude that Singapore wants to take on.

Granted, these children will face certain social problems and may feel they lack something in comparison to their peers who are legitimate. However, to deny them the Baby Bonus is to deprive them of a right that all Singaporean children ought to enjoy. This will further hamper their growth and development. As said earlier, Singapore, being a country with an ageing population, cannot afford to neglect any of its youth as every individual matters, seeing as how Singapore has no resources other than her people.

Parents of illegitimate children and parents of legitimate children still have to raise their children. The former actually has a tougher time especially since most single parents do not have the support of their families when it comes to raising their children. When their children fall ill these single parents are the ones who have to stay home to look after them. Parents of legitimate children have a slightly easier time in comparison. Conclusively, parents of illegitimate children should be given a helping hand that extends beyond the perks that 'normal' parents enjoy. Yet, they are not even placed on a level playing field as their counterparts; rather tragic indeed.

In conclusion, Singapore has an extremely difficult decision to make with regards to the issue of illegitimate children. While Singapore, being conservative, has to acknowledge that it will not condone the prevalence of social problems within its boundaries, she cannot ignore her illegitimate children for if she does, they can easily pledge their allegiance elsewhere. Singapore can no longer sit on the fence or postpone her opinions regarding this matter. A decision has to be reached in the near future.

So, wacha think?

They have run a piece from the Herald Sun (who had better hope this little bit of photo editing only appeared online) today about a "legal loophole" that means women could theoretically still receive the baby bonus if they had a late-term abortion. More on that in a tic, but let's just marvel at the gobsmacking insensitivity and idiocy of the news.com.au photo team, shall we?

No explanation is given for the choice of the photo, which pictures a preserved foetus in, I assume, an anatomical museum, being gazed at by a young-ish child.

Just a warning, you may find the image disturbing.

Again, there is absolutely no explanation given for the use of the image, which also appears as a front-page "pull" item:

The article itself discusses an apparent loophole that means a woman could, in theory, still receive the baby bonus if she were to have a late-term abortion due to foetal abnormalities.

The loophole arises because abortions after 20 weeks' gestation are recorded by doctors as stillbirths. Parents of stillborn babies receive the maternity benefit on compassionate grounds.

The Federal Parliamentary Library, which examined the issue for Liberal senator Cory Bernardi, confirmed the anomaly. Senator Bernardi said: "This is not a debate about abortion. This is about the baby bonus being misused and misapplied to women who do have terminations.

"Clearly that is not the intention, it's not in keeping with the support of mainstream Australians for the baby bonus."

National Association of Specialist Obstetricians and Gynaecologists chairman Andrew Pesce said there was no legal difference between stillbirths and abortions after 20 weeks. Dr Pesce said most late-term abortions were prompted by fetal abnormalities.

When it came to women who had a late-term abortion, he said: "I think it is a very humane gesture from society to say, 'You are going through enough already, we're not going to withhold the bonus'."

The Government - specifically, Jenny Macklin - denied that the bonus would still be available to women and couples who had undergone a late-term abortion.

I realise that the Herald Sun and its News Ltd ilk are not above fearmongering and creating outrage where it isn't due, but these pictures take the cake (and apart from anything else, it's extremely insensitive to those women who have had to undergo late-term abortions). They're not only completely irrelevant, they are one step away from the placards and posters carried by extreme pro-lifers. The Hun may be a right-leaning paper, but surely this is taking its not-so-hidden agenda too far.

If you are as offended by the photos as I am, get in touch with the Herald Sun/news.com.au online team here.

So feel like changing job.. this is getting very darn boring and stagnant. I can literally just close one eye to do my work as its the same old routine day in and out, Monday to Friday.

But, these factors are holding me back:

1) I like the my office environment, and I resent changes

2) I like the people here (ok, except a handful of @#*#*^% )

3) My immediate boss is good to me and gives me recognition

4) I get chauffeured to and from work by a colleague

5) If we decide to have a bb next year, it will be wiser to stay at my present job (not many companies will want to hire ahhem young, married women cos of the new baby bonus scheme)

My dream job is all of the above that allows me to bring my dogs to work. Lesser pay also nehmind ... :mrgreen:

I am already imagining a little corner beside my workstation, fenced up with play pen, a bowl of water and a little blankie for my 2 to snuggle when the aircon gets too cold.

Anyone hiring??

The PAP government’s recent efforts to boost Singapore’s fertility rate, or at least, reward Singaporeans who have answered the nation’s call to have kids, have been generally lauded by the public. The extension of maternity leave from the current 3 months to 4 months; subsidies for IVF treatment, baby bonuses for 5^th and subsequent babies, and so on, are nimble policy responses to real ground concerns.

However, one area that is lacking ground sensitivity is the move to extend childcare leave from a paltry 2 days to a not-much-better 6 days. The reason for the miserly increase of this childcare leave - popularly understood to be for working fathers (since working mothers already have 4 months leave) – is 3-fold.

One: in theory mothers can also use this ‘childcare leave’ but its not called ‘maternity leave’ because these extra few days may cause a working mother to be resented by her colleagues who may have to cover her duties when she goes on a 4 month ‘break’. Two: there is a prevailing belief (and this is borne out from the experiences in Western [hence supposedly more "enlightened"] societies) that fathers are not likely to use them. Three: and if they do, they are more likely to go play a round of golf instead of reporting for baby duty. According to The Straits Times (22 August 2008):

The deputy prime minister [Wong Kan Seng], who is also the minister in charge of population issues, cited 2004 figures provided by the National Population Secretariat:

In France, only 1 per cent of men too it.

In Britain, 10 per cent did so.

Even in Sweden, where gender roles are more neutral, it was less than half, at 48 per cent.

But the question is: who suffers the most from this? Not working mothers who got themselves an extra month; not employers who are paid by the government for 2 of the 4 months of leave taken by women; and certainly not armchair-hands-off fathers who rather be slaving away at the office (or the golf course) than playing with their children.

No, its younger, more enlightened fathers who believe in spending more time with their children. Such fathers tend to be better-educated, more knowledgeable about the importance of parenting, and are willing to sacrifice the time for their children. They are the ones that are being punished by a deeply sexist policy that reinforces patriarchal assumptions.

All this brings up another question: Are patriarchal assumptions turning round to bite men in the bums?

We have come to an awkward stage in the gender evolution where feminists have, rightly, made their arguments heard and are seeing the policy rewards of their struggle without necessarily witnessing such rewards for enlightened men. After all, men have not remained ideologically static during the feminist movement – they have evolved as well. But the system has not been able to keep up with the twin evolution of men and women; its barely keeping up with the women.

As such, the patriarchal state makes concessions for women (and thus demonstrates flashes of enlightenment) but continues to reward the patriarchal attitudes and habits of men, leaving enlightened men to shoulder the double burden of being a “nurturing” father but also a “competitive economic unit”; a “hunter” but also a “care-giver”.

And the irony of this is that such men would be much better rewarded by being Neanderthals.  

For our case, the incentives that are going to benefit me are the tax rebates and the six days annual Childcare Leave Days starting next year, so I can't say it's all bad.

However, for Cat, what benefits do she get? Almost nothing. Reason: She's a Stay-At-Home-Mum (SAHM). Well, there is the S$150 rebate for childcare, but it's not likely to be useful in the near future for us as we have no plans to put Darius there at the moment.

Looking at the new incentives, it's quite obvious what our government's message is: 'To emphasise A LOT on working mums, encouraging them to keep on working while having children, while also getting more mums to re-join the workforce, thus preventing them from ending up as SAHMs.'

Economically, the reason is simple: Singapore is already facing an ageing population and is in need of a bigger workforce to keep our economy competitive (this is a meritocracy society remember?).

So why would the government want to encourage more mothers to leave their workplaces and take care of their children full-time, which will cause problems to our economy and even result in a recession?

If I am the spokesperson for these new incentives, this is probably the message (albeit direct and sacrastic) I will use to address my fellow citizens:

"To maintain our competitive edge, we need the women of Singapore to work harder, while continuing to give birth to more children. Don't worry, we will provide you with longer, ample rest after your delivery and salary during your rest."

"After you return to your workplace, there's no need to worry about the well-being of your children. You can simply hire a domestic helper from our increasing number of maid agencies, or place them in one of our many quality childcare centres, and your children will be well taken care of. Alternatively, you can also use the increased Baby Bonus to convince your parents to be the caregivers."

"There will only be minimal commitment and disruptions to your career, since all you need to do is fetch your children on your way back from work, or even just on weekends (if taken care by their grandparents). They will miss you a bit, but have no worries, as you will still be spending good 'quality time' with your children, despite your already drained-out body and mind from work and OTs. Quantity time with your children is not necessary as rest assured, our childcare centres educators will be even more well-trained to ensure that your children will grow up according to our strict stipulated standards (e.g. very obedient when following higher authorities' instructions)."

"However, if your children are taken care by domestic helpers, we can only wish you best of luck, though I'm sure incidents of 'excessively rocking babies' and 'over-pressurized maids' are rare, and thus insignificant for our records."

"As for those mothers who are still defiant and against the idea of going back to work, wasting their precious supposedly-productive times all day staring at their children and doing nothing (<-- Note from author: of course this is not true!), please get back to your workplace asap and do your part in contributing to Singapore's economy."

So basically, I'm saddened by the message that the government is trying to send to its citizens, despite understanding the importance of maintaining our competitive economy.

Don't they know that mothers are still the best caregivers, teachers and role models for their children, and that their roles are irreplaceable? The first six years are the most important years for a child, and yet most of these time would be spent in nurseries or in the hands of domestic helpers?

Ultimately, what's the point of having children so that they can be brought up by others, and only conveniently picked up according to the parents' schedules? It's those priceless and memorable times with our young ones that make parenting such a rewarding job. It's also those committments and sacrifices that we take which make parenting a task that deserves recognition and admiration.

Unfortunately, this is far from the signal the government has sent out.

Nevertheless, we are still firm with our decision to let Cat take care of Darius full-time at home, and believe strongly that this will be the best for him. We won't want him to grow up as a self-centred, arrogant child in the hands of a submissive domestic helper, nor pick up bad habits from childcare centres.

The job of a mother is not just to bring her child into this world through nine months of pregnancy, but to guide, love and see him through the rest of his life.

Tax incentives

1. For each child, parents can claim $4,000 in child tax relief, instead of $2,000. This goes all the way to the fourth child.

2. Working mothers can claim 15 per cent for the first child instead of 5 per cent, for instance.

3. Apart from tax perks, a bigger cash Baby Bonus will be given for the first and second child: $4,000 instead of $3,000.

Leave

1. Paid maternity leave will go up to 16 weeks for mums of Singaporean children. The last eight weeks can be taken any time over a year from the child's birth, which may be less disruptive for bosses.

2. Unpaid infant care leave of six days for each parent of child who is  less than two years' old.

3. Paid childcare leave will be extended to six days a year for each parent when the child is below age six.

Others

1. Bosses have to give pregnant women maternity leave benefits if they are fired without good cause within the last six months of pregnancy. These benefits will also be given if a woman is retrenched in the last three months of her pregnancy.

2. The Government will co-pay fertility treatments for women under 40, but the treatment must be at public hospitals.

Once again, all thanks to my taxes, there is enough dough in the kitty. Enough for the carrot to be dished out. What was dangled in 2004 was not enough. There has to be enough given to the citizens to give the gahmen a guarantee. The guarantee that the present generation will sufficiently replace itself.

Once again, the singles are marginalised. No mention of paid parent-care leave. No talk of rewards when they have to cover colleagues who go on maternity leave, childcare leave, exam leave and other child related absence. No easing up on housing policies. No tax incentives for living with parents. No relaxation on financial obligations, to state, to family. 

Once again, the ruling party has spoken. The purpose of the PAP is unmistakable. Procreate And Populate. Policies and practices which blatantly discriminate the Single are highly encouraged. The Single is a bane in this republic. She is treated like a second class citizen. She must be penalised for her insubordination. Here are some of the measures to break the Single for her stubborness and non conformity:  

1. Hit her where it hurts most. Impose higher taxes. Relief items are not applicable to the Single. 

2. In companies where leave balloting and pre-scheduling is practised, remove her eligiblity. All priority for choice slots such as school holidays, long weekends and exam period will be given to those who are married and with kids. Compassionate and sick leave taken by the Single during these black out periods will not be paid.   

3. The Single must cover her colleagues when the latter is absent from work due to maternity, childcare, kid's exams (especially the crucial ones) or any of the "child/children" related reasons.

4. In companies where rotating shifts apply, work to be done before 7pm and after 5pm will be routed to the Single.

5. Pregnant women are given time off for regular visits to the clinic.

6. Married women are given priority leave to train their new maids.

7. The Single will be paid 20-30% less than her peer who is married and with kids because she does not have to raise a family.

The Single has only one thing to remember. Don't vote for the PAP.

Google Maps have now introduced 'Street View'.  Not everywhere and anywhere mind you.  But Australia has it (where I have looked so far) and I think most of the USA has it too.  I have been looking around New York and Las Vegas and it's kinda overwhelming,  but lots of fun.

I only managed to get about 6 hours sleep last night.  Summer was being a bit fussy again.  So no sleep through for us!  And for some reason,  this big gust of energy came over me at about 10am this morning and I did heaps of house cleaning!  Amazing I know!  But now my house looks nice and clean and I am a happy woman.

I really need to get down to Medicare this week as the Hospital apparently stuffed up our paper work for the baby bonus and they rejected it,  so now I have to drag bubby to the shops and show them her Birth Certificate as proof that she exsists.  Stupid Dumb Ass Hospital.  They STINK!  I HATE them!  Trust them to stuff ANOTHER thing up.  I am very angry about it,  as when we took in the paper work for the baby bonus,  I actually had the Birth Certificate right there in my hand!  But nobody asked to see it of course!  So *sigh* yeah that is what I get for giving birth in that crap hole.

Here is a little video of Summer that I took this morning.....

The Good

I was really happy to see the introduction of means testing for the baby bonus and for Family Tax Benefit (B) because I just don't think it's possible to defend giving tax breaks to wealthy families and I think that the cut-off rate was high enough as to be sufficently inclusive for lower-middle income families given the increasing cost of living. It was also really great to see the Federal Government putting their money where their mouth is and investing in the education system.

The Bad

I was disappointed to see that the Federal Government weren't spending more on indigenous issues, particularly health and education and that there wasn't going to be any emergency funding allocated to tie students' associations over until a new funding system is put into place, particularly as both Julia Gillard and Kate Ellis had been so positive and forthcoming in assuring students that they weren't going to be forgotten.

The Ugly

Alcopops, a word I'm sure everyone is well and truly sick of. The tax on alcopops was never intended on preventing binge drinking, it was always going to be used as blatant revenue raising and it's being spun in an incredibly patronising and I think sexist fashion, the Federal government riding in on it's white horse to save young women from themselves with a tax. I call bullshit.

Macklin forced to defend underspend claims in NT

Federal Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin was today forced to defend the government against criticism that it was vastly underspending its predecessor.

Falling short: Indigenous budget spending

The Rudd government has committed a total of $1.2 billion over five years for a range of measures aimed at closing, within a generation, the 17-year gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-indigenous Australians.

Australian Greens senator Rachel Siewert said that was inadequate.

"I'm dismayed that despite the rhetoric from the government on closing the gap, the commitment of funds in this budget simply won't do it," she said.

16,000 families set to lose baby bonus

ABOUT 16,000 high-income families are set to lose the baby bonus, with the federal government means testing the scheme from the beginning of 2009.

Won’t somebody think of the Cougar drinkers?

Brendan Nelson will. And he’s not taking the p-ss. Instead of standing up for stay-at-home mums or solar panels, the Opposition Leader has sided with ‘ute men’ and underage drinkers.

So I suggest that you all start here for a great laugh, move on to this post to share in Wah's moral outrage, and then finish up right here for one of the best and most succinct exposés of Liberal Party hypocrisy that I've seen in some time.

Excellent job Wah, for your efforts you've won an all expenses paid weekend at the Dave from Albury Compound*.

*Expenses do not include transport costs, meals, or alcoholic beverages. Dave from Albury Compound may or may not be capable of providing suitable accommodation, although I hear there's some nice places to stay in Bright.

A story in The Age today looked at the magic $150,000 mark which the government nominated as the cut off point for the baby bonus means test and Family Tax Benefit B.

For a start no one is claiming that families on a combined of $150,000 (which is 2 1/2 tims the average salary) are rich, however they are not exactly doing it tough and should be able to go through life, have children and educate them without hand outs from the government.

The Age story looks at the Scibberas Family of Mill Park who bring home $150,000 and "certainly aren't doing it tough".

However Mrs Scibberas says the cap should be lifted to $200,000 and complained that her only gain at this week's Budget was through the tax cuts - what did she want, a fucking yacht?

Mrs Schibberas says, "There doesn't seem to be any reward for people who have put the hard effort in."

What reward? Why? Working hard and earning good money to send your kids to good schools and provide a comfortable lifestyle for your family is reward enough. It's no one's fault but yours if you're living beyond your more than reasonable means.

It's the people who have to decide between paying for their kid's school camp or the weekly shopping who should be getting all the money we can give them. 

I find it ironic that it was a conservative government, hell bent on keeping its filthy grip on power, that has turned middle-class Australians into welfare whores, who think they are the first generation to have children, buy a house and make a better life for themselves and therefore need all the help they can get.

While I hate the phrase "working families" it's nowhere as damaging to this country as the term "Howard's battlers" which has made a generation of well-off middle class people actually believe that battling meant not having a new car or sending your kid to a private school.

Instead of obsessing with the selfishness of people on very good incomes why doesn't The Age visit a family trying to survive on or below the average wage to put things into perspective.

Harden up you whingeing fucks!

Note: I've never been on the dole even when out of work; I gave up Auststudy in favour of working part time (because it was shit) and I managed to change careers, pay off HECS, have two children and build a new home (we're talking in the past eight years) without the benefit of a fucking baby bonus or first-homebuyers grant, on a fraction of what I earn now - which by the way, when added to Mrs Wah's income is still well shy of $150,000.

Do I want a medal? No, which is my fucking point.

And how many people pissed off at the apparent "Robin Hood" Budget actually earn less than the numbers, and refuse to deny that like most of us they are working class scum?

The fact is while the government will save billions the well-off people these Budget measures will affect will be relatively minimal.

I love how some people on larger incomes in the dreaded comments section of the Herald Sun are complaining that their incomes of $180,000 barely pay for the mortgage and household expenses. What they don't tell you is how big their mortgage is - I'm sorry but if you borrow $600,000 when you could have borrowed $450,000 that's not the government's problem.

And (sorry for all the questions) how many of the Rudd haters crying foul at cuts in benefits for the well off, the first to whinge about THEIR tax payer dollars paying for mythical compensation to Aborigines and foreign aid?

Finally no one is a calling people who earn $150,000 rich - apart from sub editors who have limited space for headlines. But you can't deny that you're beyond a point where the government should be giving hand outs. Unfortunately the ill-directed tax bribes that the Howard Government turned into the very people who espouse capitalism and decry the welfare state, into welfare whores themselves.

I say fuck 'em!

The federal budget has just been announced and it's fairly interesting to skim through the changes. There's an increase in child care rebates, which doesn't currently affect me, but will in a couple of years when Declan starts preschool (oh god the thought sends chills down my bones), the tax thresholds have been moved which will work very much in our favour when it comes to Dan's review time, oh an the Baby Bonus Maternity Allowance is now going to be paid fortnightly, that's the BS part.

For those not in Australia, the "Baby Bonus" is money that the government gives you for popping out a sprog, it's supposed to encourage population growth by easing the pressure of having a baby and the related expenses so the average couple would find it easier to have kids earlier and in a higher quantity and therefore fill up the less populated areas of Australia, of course this is backfiring as 85% of the population is still live on the east coast instead of actually moving to those areas that could do with a few more people. Meaning that certain areas are overpopulated and other areas still can't get together enough people in their entire town for a cricket match.

It's also backfiring in that there are many people procreating, collecting their $5,000, buying the bare minimum for their baby and then getting a really big telly, which is why you'll often hear it referred to as "The Plasma Bonus".

I, like many others probably, had already spent that money, and despite Dan's complaints, it wasn't on a plasma, as soon as we got the cheque it was going towards a booster seat for the car, a toddler bed, a new pushchair (our current one has taken to collapsing mid-push) and a new mattress for us, the rest of it was going to go to paying off what we have left owing on the car, oh, and paying the gap on the medical bill, because we did what the government told us to and got Health Insurance so that we wouldn't be clogging up the public hospitals. I was quite looking forward to that big lump sum, but getting it weekly with our fabulous money management skills just makes it more likely to be lost in the money we spend on food, petrol and KFC, at least getting it in one chunk means that we can go out over one weekend and buy everything we need to set up Declan to make room for the baby, it puts a massive spanner in the works as now we actually have to save up the money so that we can buy all this before or as soon as possible after the baby arrives.

I'm aware I sound whiny as all hell, if I was giving birth back in the UK then I would be laughed at for demanding a couple of grand once they'd pulled my legs out of the stirrups, but, the UK does have one of the best maternity leave programs in the world believe it or not (Labour had to do something right), compared to Australia having no policies regarding it at all, so that does make up for it. But what pisses me off is that it wasn't going to be spent on a TV, it was all allocated for worthy causes, and now because some bogans had to go out and buy a 42inch plasma with HD TV and a built in tuner "for their baby" we're getting moderately shafted.

Bah!

ETA: I've read more into it today and have discovered that the Maternity Allowance changes don't kick in until January, meaning that we're in the clear, and, as this will probably be our last (unless Dan gets his way) then we won't be affected by it. I really do feel sorry for the families that were depending on that money for IVF payments or homebirths, it sucks, but I'm not going to complain too much, because it's still free money ;)

Opposing a means test for the Baby Bonus, Dr Nelson, implied that the allowance was given as an appreciation of little babies, rather than a way to couple to have children to keep the birth rate up to counteract our ageing population - while having the added benefit of a vote-winning bribe to the middle classes.

He said "It's very, very important that Mr Rudd understands that every mother loves her baby and this should be an Australia where all babies are equal."

So how will denying rich people the baby bonus change that?

Anyway, not all babies are equal Dr Nelson, and I haven't seen you or any politician for that matter come out and say how unacceptable it is whenever a child is found dead because over-worked and underfunded social welfare services failed to read warning signs or simply were unable to do anything when they did.

I never saw you, when you were education minister, stick up for state schools and create a funding model that didn't favour our most elite private schools. And I never saw you oppose a child care funding models that allows listed companies to make mega profits from early education, resulted in child care centres closing in inner city areas and ignored parents who could not find a child care place.

To say the means testing the baby bonus means the government does not value all babies is without a doubt the most stupid thing you will say during your short and disastrous time as opposition leader.

I don't understand why, with the need to slash and burn the budget to bring inflation down, the Rudd Government has guaranteed the baby bonus at the bribe levels introduced by the Howard Government.

What started as a $3000 non-means tested bribe is now set to rise to $5000 for every child born, while at the same time charity organisations like Bonnie Babes, carers and pensioners are bracing themselves to see what the razor gang will take away from them.

While Rudd has said carers will be no worse off he hasn't ruled out taking away the $1600 bonus they receive and channeling that money into their minuscule monthly payments. Yet everyone gets a few grand in their skyrocket just for having a baby.

After describing the baby bonus as an expensive flop in 2004 Labor are thinking politically, ahead of wisely, by retaining it at a cost of $1.16 billion a year and rising.

I think there should be some sort of payment made to new parents to help with out-of-pocket medical expenses and even to help buy baby things. But surely it should be means tested and reduced to $1500. The government could also give the mother a Healthcare Card regardless of her partner's income and put money into more child care services.

This would see the money going where its needed and save hundreds of millions of dollars, avoiding the need to slash the few real social welfare services that the Howard Government didn't destroy.

Mr Rudd described the baby bonus today as important in helping nudge the country's birthrate - which is important in an increasingly ageing population. But why it is given to people who don't need it, while people are missing out on other important welfare services and benefits, because their shitty part-time job puts them over a tax threshold that was low in 1995, is an absolutely fucked up state of affairs.

Finally, anyone who won't have children because the government isn't paying them to doesn't deserve to be a parent.

Staggered payments would be made to families to "encourage them for better upbringing of girl child and to educate her", women and child development minister Renuka Chowdhury said in a statement released late Monday.

India has only 927 females for every 1,000 males -- far lower than the worldwide average of 1,050 females.

According to UNICEF, India continues to lose almost 7,000 girls every day through abortions. The British medical journal, The Lancet, estimates the loss of females at 10 million in the past two decades.

Sons, in India, are typically regarded as breadwinners, but girls are seen as more of a burden because of the matrimonial dowry demanded by a groom's family.

Under the scheme, a girl's family will get financial benefits -- including insurance cover -- worth 200,000 rupees (5,000 dollars) until the age of 18 if she is sent to school and is not married young.

This sounds like Australia, who is just paying citizens to just have a baby. Doesn't matter what the sex it is... SOURCE

  There has been a steady trickle of media coverage over the last couple of months regarding under funded and understaffed hospitals, and the impact this is having and has had on women being placed in dangerous and traumatic situations during pregnancy (specifically during labour and miscarriage). With the recent media coverage of Jana Horska more and more women are coming forward with their experiences of being maltreated by hospital staff. And now, a growing body of midwives and other medical professionals are also coming forward and uncovering the severity of the issue. 

SENIOR staff at the state's busiest hospital have threatened to close its doors to women in labour because there are not enough midwives or beds to cope with the baby boom and they fear lives are in danger.Angry midwives at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Camperdown wrote to the Herald to complain women were left to labour in chairs because the beds were full, and that they were asked daily to work double shifts to cope with demand.They said the maternity unit was down 29 midwives, and some staff were working three shifts in a 34-hour period."Our maternity services are stretched beyond a safe working capacity. We are constantly … asked to care for more mothers and babies than is humanly possible," one midwife, who sought to remain anonymous, said."Patient safety is continually compromised … bed block is occurring every day. Delivery suite is constantly overcrowded with 14 women in an 11-bed unit and unsafe staffing levels."She said staff had requested that the maternity unit be closed to new patients when full or overcrowded to ensure its safe operation, and that women be transferred to other maternity units in the area.            The rest of the article is here

This raises a number of issues along the lines of objectification of the body, compassion fatigue, perhaps even misogyny. The victims according to these articles are both pregnant women in crisis, and midwives (generally women). I would suggest that this also points out the current government’s inability to create strong infrastructure to support the results of policies, in this case of the predictable effects of the baby bonus and campaigns to 'have one for the country'...  

M.Stockey-Bridge

This was an issue because moms were having the babies, receiving the cash and then handing the babies over into the care of the state.

After hearing this I was surprised to hear that in an attempt to kick start the lagging population, a Senator will be proposing this week that new moms will receive $10,000 for the third baby they deliver.

He said Australia had a real problem because it was not producing enough new young Australians.

"We think the baby bonus was quite good. We think a bumper baby bonus for those that have the third child would make a lot of sense," he told the Nine Network.

The government's baby bonus is a one-off payment of $4,133 for each child.

Senator Fielding said the government's Intergenerational Report, the second of which was released in April this year, predicted a crisis with an ageing population.

"We need to have kids. If we don't have kids then when we are all old we have no one paying taxes to support us," he said.

"When you think about it, it is really a small amount that we are giving to people to have a third child."

Senator Fielding said concerns had been expressed at the time the original baby bonus was introduced that it would only encourage those more interested in cash than in children.

He said that did not appear to be a major problem.

"I don't believe that is what is happening on the whole. For sure it is probably happening in small numbers but really when we start saying that about people, then I think we have a poorer Australia," he said.

"We have got to encourage people to have kids. There is nothing wrong with that. It costs a fortune to raise kids but it is the most rewarding thing in people's lives."

I think that this guy has lost his mind.  The country has already admitted that the original bonus has caused problems.

Now he has proposed to double the budget if you have a 3rd baby...?  Australia's birthrate is higher than Canada's and the UK.
SOURCE