I would have loved more policy bombshells during this campaign. Something to really get the debate happening, instead of having a debate about a debate.

My question in general is do we really need to keep finding new ways to spend taxpayers money or impose new taxes on business?

I really warmed to the idea of income tax reform that I just published on my blog (yes, unabashed self-promotion, sorry: http://www.currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/) - perhaps with the reduced tax burden, parents-to-be and everyone in general can be encouraged to use the extra money in a more positive way?

It would appear to me that having children has become a fashion accessory that has to be had. All the bonuses for baby and family are obscene. Having a family requires sacrifice and hard work. The children come first not the career. As a single parent it get's even more difficult to balance work and family but it can be done.
The current policies being offered are unnecessary and indulgent to a sector of the community that have stretched themselves way to thin and have mortgage shock or a debt crisis. It is those same areas of the country that make up our marginal electorates and drag our country through some pretty poor electoral decisions based on their small minded greed.
These policies are typical of policy as a whole at this time. Poorly thought out and targeted to a greedy and ignorant marginal that is hungry for money to apease the pressure their lives have become. We need a Leader please.

There is another problem with the scheme, but it's subtle and probably not a reason for voter antipathy, yet.

Explaining his parental leave scheme to Parliament on on 27 May, Tony Abbott said: "Most families cannot pay the mortgage without two incomes."

The extra money in the Abbott option is really a subsidy of home prices. Just as the first home owners grant simply raised the prices of homes, people will pay the highest price for a home that they can borrow, and banks will lend the highest amount they believe you can repay.

If the bank doesn't have to worry about a baby interrupting half of a family's income, it will lend more money. The difference in borrowing power would simply become the difference in home prices. Families buying a home after the scheme becomes law, would never get to spend the extra money; they would receive it in one hand and pay it into their mortgage with the other.

Labor's parental leave scheme is a timely piece of social equity, which would enable Australia to have meaningful families and grow future workers at home.

The difference between Labor's scheme and the Liberal scheme is simply another taxpayer gift to the banks and to those lucky enough to already own a home. Future home buyers, as usual, would be the biggest losers.

It should be noted that both sides of government see the Paid Parental Leave Payment (PPL) as an economic payment not a welfare payment.

It is understandable that some who have not had the chance to have any PPL do not support this payment - stating that they coped without this payment so others should too if they decide to have children.

However I would like to point out to all those commenting that Australia is the only OECD country (besides the USA - which has it in a number of States) which does not have a paid parental leave scheme. There are even a number of third world countries which have a PPL scheme. Almost all PPL schemes around the world are government paid.

Most of these PPL schemes have been around for many years - for example I have an English friend who had PPL for all her children and her eldest is now in his forties.

What makes Australia so different in the needs of our young parents from others? It now takes most couples two incomes to be able to afford to buy a house. Many young people have HECS debts also. It is not just so they can have extras or the biggest house. The costs of child care are high (and going upwards - we need quality care for our children)and places are hard to find.

Let us move with the times and admit it is time that Australia had PPL (join the rest of the world).

It is concerning that Abbott's model makes large businesses pay, it is a shame that after all this time the Labor party model is minimal, but it is the first step.

Australia needs Paid Parental Leave now. My comment to those who keep saying let those who have the children pay remember that without those children being born - who will be looking after them as nurses etc when they are old and may need care? It is the next generation!

Gillian

gillmc: <It is not just so they can have extras or the biggest house. The costs of child care are high>
Dear Gillmc, thet is precisely the reason, the house, the cars and the trappings. There are already tons of family benefits and no excuse to match maternity payments to income up to 75k for six months! I have six kids and we've been a single income family since the first was born, and we have a 200k dolar mortgage!
But we're not really doing our bit, are we? In fact we're downright un-Australian! We should both be working long hours, investing in a condominium, driving BMW's and planning the next world tour while the babies grow up in childcare! Childcare workers btw are payed a pittance, so don't expect Mother Goose to be fussing over the kids while you're keeping up with the Jones's--daycare kids are INSTITUTIONALISED.
As far as I'm concerned, if you're more interested in your bloody lifestyle, don't have kids!
A little bit of sacrifice is good for the soul.
Abbott's scheme is indefensible. Still, it might take the pressure of the hated single mums, who have to get by on a shoestring so the corporate class and the upwardly mobile can keep up with fashion!

Paying someone who earns $3,000 a week, 75,000 dollars to have a child, while paying someone who earns $500 a week 12,500 dollars for the same thing is an obscenity! Tony Abbott is and has always been and will always be an obscenity, the only greater obscenity are the ignorant and or corrupted and the wealthy self interest groups that vote for, support and donate huge funds for this manipulative, conniving, scheming and divisive religious right wing extremist, known to all as the Mad Monk, for very good reason!