@gillmc - Yes, and for those reasons both sides of politics have agreed to introduce PPL. One way or another, PPL is coming.

The question has therefore shifted to ... why should rich mums with high incomes receive so much more subsidy than poor mums?

A lot of so-called "middle class welfare" is really just incentive tax relief for high tax payers to change their behaviour - such as choosing private schools or private health insurance instead of placing an even bigger burden on publicly funded options.

But full income continuance stretches the credibility of this concept. A parent staying at home has time to cook, and doesn't need to eat at a restaurant or drink Grange every night. The only reason a rich mum needs more subsidy than a poor mum, is to keep making bigger mortgage payments on a fancier home.

This is welfare targetted as precisely as possible towards matching the prices of people's homes - or as close as you can target it, without making it any more obvious. And as we know from the first home owners grant, subsidies aimed at house purchasers end up being subsidies for house vendors and bank shareholders.

Both the Labor and Liberal PPL schemes would enable battlers to have babies and still eat without saving up or making sacrifices. The difference is, Tony Abbott's scheme would subsidize house prices - which are already subsidized up to their necks - making homes even more unaffordable.

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

Fair enough Gillian. But it does not have to be the most
generous in the world and this one was clearly against
liberal philsophy, so nothing more then a vote porky
for Tony, in his rush to become PM.

So cancel the baby bonus and introduce a scheme such
as labor are suggesting, which is a bit more fair
and reasonable all around. The 5000$ baby bonus
cancellation, would pay for a fair bit of it.