I'm in favour of a "breeder pays" scheme. My wife and I both worked for years till we had kids, then she quit work and we've been a one income family ever since. There is already plenty of welfare associated with having children, without offering incentives for a six month holiday. I don't think there should be any maternity leave pay, only the usual centrelink means-assessment and calculated payment. Maternity leave should mean that the job must be kept open for hers or his return, but that's all. If people want to start a family they have to be prepared to make sacrifices. In reality it's no sacrifice.
Given my opinion, Gillard's scheme is bad enough, but Abbott's is obscene!
Having babies should not mean a lucrative six-month leave!
In any case, imagine the corruption; many couples would agree with me that one parent quits work, but of course they would do that after using up that maternity leave! It's just the usual cynical and unsustainable electioneering.

It's an interesting question Graham.

As far as I am concerned, it confirms to me that Abbott is little
more then a slippery political fox, quite prepared to throw liberal
ideology out of the window, in order to get his behind on the PM's
chair. I still think it's a great shame that Costello is not
there to take on the job.

As far as a political strategy is concerned, it could possibly
win it for him. If people change their vote, its commonly over
a single issue which is very much in their self interest and it
only takes a few % to swing an election. How many women are out
there who are thinking of having kids in the next 5-6 years and
will this kind of money influence their vote? Highly likely
it will. 6 months on full pay can certainly buy votes. Even if
it only applies to a small % of the voters, it could be enough
to get him over the line. Next, his own four daughter would
be first in line to benefit.

Abbott's scheme is obscene over-indulgence and contradicts his claim to offer good economic governance.

Obviously mr rabbott thinks some mothers and their babies are worth more than others.
Telling that is.

If this policy was introduced by Labor, it would have widespread appeal, especially form the Fairfax media. The feminists would be crowing from the rooftops every time Gillard said it's a work entitlement and not welfare.

It would be considered progressive, and moving forward.

'overdue' I believe is the feminist mantra.

I believe it is over generous, but if you do see it as a work entitlement it isn't.

The trouble is you cant see it as a work entitlement because it is being paid by the government.

The other trouble is it HAS to be paid by the governmnet to prevent women being discriminated against in the workforce.

IN the end, it's too late for me, but I tend to lean towards the other posters in thinking that people should plan for children, and largely fund it themselves, with the obvious safety nets.

BUT, think of what it could save in FTB, childcare rebates, baby bonus etc, with the added advantage of children being rased by their parents.

I often wonder what the cost is of funding childcare and FTB and the Baby Bonus is against the government's leave.

This is a good article, Graham, one that I find rather surprising.

But then the plan to tax businesses to help a person on $150,000 per year by giving them a $75,000 baby gift seems rather bizarre especially coming from the Liberal Party which is better known for screwing members of the work force.

Hopefully most other Australians will see through Phoney Rabbott and, tomorrow, banish him from the political scene forever!