Fairness should matter but what I've noticed is those who think the government can do it successfully tend to be very selective about what it means. They will make claims about fairness but when gross unfairness in the impacts of preferred policies are raised those who raise them are attacked for being wingers, selfish and little effort ever seems to be extended to understand any unfairness that does not fit within preconceived notions.

In regard to the issues raised in this article. Yes Abbott's version of Paid Parental Leave is silly, it's pointed out that there is no criteria on the basis of need. Our entire tax system ignores the concept of actual need and runs off assumptions that often don't apply.

The person who does not need much income is taxed very little (or not at all and may receive money from the taxpayer). The person desperately needing income and working long hours to try and get that extra income pays extra tax at a high rate. There is nothing on the tax form to allow for a reduced tax burden because of need for the money, no obligation on those not seeking payment via Centerlink to pay an amount of taxes to tip in their share towards social responsibility (other than via GST and other end usage taxes which are far less than income tax in many cases).

Those who spruke fairness as justification for further penalising those working to gain income so that those who have made choices that don't allow them to support themselves get an easier run are generally very selective in what's considered fair.

R0bert

If the PPL goal was simple short term "Fairness" then a simple flat rate may be best. It is arguable though if a long term Fairness is the goal then an income related system is needed. Abbott is surrounded by smart capable women such as Peta Credlin, many of which are childless or leave it possibly too late. Is it fair to prevent smart women from having children?