The upcoming US presidential election has increased the volume of discussion around . The far-right evangelical position has always been inexplicable to many, including me. or signup to continue reading How can someone seriously have a blanket opposition to first-term abortions, but believe in a just war? Put aside the ego that allows someone to imagine that the all-omnipotent god in which they believe actually needs them, a tiny fallible human, to act as god's police on earth.
I've been led by this recent flurry of media coverage to something of an epiphany. It's time for a big change in how we think about responsibility for kids. My epiphany relates not so much to the money as to the responsibility.
Why have we for so long left the mother holding the baby? The starting position is that all kids need to be looked after and all of us should chip in where it's needed. There's no question about that. There's no suggestion of cutting back.
My idea is to give power to the mum, not to cut her welfare. Why do we consider it acceptable for the mother to be left holding the baby? She has to decide whether to proceed to full-term. Her whole life plans get changed and all of a sudden she's cooking baby food, doing childcare, school and sport drop-offs, helping with homework, and on it goes, for 18 years at least.
The father on the other hand enjoys a "quick moment" and literally walks away. Probably for a lot more quick moments. Yes, we might pursue him for some child support, if we know who he is.
Ho hum. He's in the all-power, no-responsibility position. Whilst it takes two to tango, he can impact her for life in just a few minutes and effectively walk away.
Why did we ever think that was fair? Why have we done nothing about it? It's time to stop that. We should total up how much we all pay out because he's walked away and make it an accumulating debt for life, with interest. We shouldn't treat it like a debt for a car, or from a business deal, that you can escape by going bankrupt.
Children aren't those objects. They are far, far more important than that. Forget a bit here and there from your welfare or salary.
You can pay the whole lot back. With interest. And yes, you'll carry the debt for life.
You may not have much now, but win the lottery, inherit some cash, strike it lucky any which way and we'll be there to take some. We can't reverse the power play, but we could let market forces put a few cards in the hands of potential mothers. Child Support does want to know who the fathers are.
There might be a bit more interest in remembering that information if there was a real reward for providing it. Maybe not cash, an incentive to have more kids for some, but extra valued services for the mother or the child. We've got great policy minds, we could find a solution.
So then instead of "I can impregnate you, change your life and walk away scot-free", he would be thinking: "She can dob me in and I'm stuck with costs for years and years to come". If that doesn't increase condom sales, I don't know what will. Put long-term consequences on the quick moment and teenagers and young men will have a different attitude.
She might be left holding the baby, but he'll be left with a lot of bills, for life. Oh, if he then fathered another child he walked away from I'd up the interest rate on the debt for the first and subsequent child. The critical change is this: we shift from "what can you afford without making life hard?" And if it's almost nothing, don't worry.
We move to: "this is what is fair, you pay, and you'll take the debt to your grave". So bad luck. He has to cough up.
If you think that's harsh, remind yourself he's not cooking, cleaning, caring, taking kids to school, sport et cetera. Why? ! We need to wise up and share the burden around. If you think this is all too harsh on him try and think about what signalling a marshmallow response has done to the behaviour of young men.
By putting no real consequences on their behaviour we have in fact said that their momentary pleasures are more important than children. You may think we will not collect much. You may be right.
But society making the statement that we put kids first and we will follow through on that commitment is a statement worth making. Hopefully, not very slowly, the message will get through. Society thinks kids are important.
That's important for all kids to understand. Do we want kids learning that someone can create them, walk away, and society doesn't care? Maybe, just maybe we should be looking for more from the father than recouping the taxpayers' costs. Maybe we should start saying: "This is what we've decided is a fair contribution from a father and over time you will have to pay up.
" In effect, we'd operate as the fair debt collector for the mother. If you say no, you're agreeing with what we say now. Here it is in plain English.
You can create babies, pay a minimal amount in financial support, show no interest or care, you can keep doing it time and time again and don't worry you're overworked zipper because people who work hard and look after their kids will pay for your indifference. That doesn't sound great to me. I'd do a few other things as well.
Surely we can refuse you the right to travel on an Australian passport if you owe the taxpayer money. No more holidays in New Zealand or Bali until your bills are paid. There might be other things.
I'd be going on a determined hunt to find things where the Commonwealth could impact on your failure to pay up. And I'd unashamedly try and push the states into doing the same. Any benefit, any waiting list, any extra service, I'd be having a good hard look.
Single mums get a bad wrap. My mum was a sole parent through death rather than design. I've heard all the sniping, catty remarks about sole parents in policy debates than I care to hear.
There are good sole parents and duds. There are couples that are great parents and others that are not. can be the salt of the earth.
The kid with the loving mum, in my view, will be much better off than the one with bickering, part-time, disgruntled or even druggy parents. What astounds me is why we've left single mums to carry the burden and let so many blokes walk away. We've been very stupid.
Amanda Vanstone is a former senator for South Australia, a former Howard government minister, and a former ambassador to Italy. She writes fortnightly for ACM. Amanda Vanstone is a former senator for South Australia, a former Howard government minister, and a former ambassador to Italy.
She writes fortnightly for ACM. DAILY Today's top stories curated by our news team. WEEKLY The latest news, results & expert analysis.
WEEKLY Get the editor's insights: what's happening & why it matters. WEEKLY Love footy? We've got all the action covered. WEEKLY Every Sunday explore destinations, deals, tips & travel writing to transport you around Australia and the globe.
WEEKLY Going out or staying in? Find out what's on. WEEKDAYS Sharp. Close to the ground.
Digging deep. Your weekday morning newsletter on national affairs, politics and more. TWICE WEEKLY Your essential national news digest: all the big issues on Wednesday and great reading every Saturday.
WEEKLY Get news, reviews and expert insights every Thursday from CarExpert, ACM's exclusive motoring partner. TWICE WEEKLY Get real, Australia! Let the ACM network's editors and journalists bring you news and views from all over. AS IT HAPPENS Be the first to know when news breaks.
DAILY Your digital replica of Today's Paper. Ready to read from 5am! DAILY Test your skills with interactive crosswords, sudoku & trivia. Fresh daily! Advertisement Advertisement.
