I have been on here attacking what I see as bad policy by The Coalition. One. the excessive $75,000 payment to well off mums to maintain their lifestyle, and two the idiotic idea that in some way Australia could "stop the boats" with a boat buy back scheme operating in Indonesia. One policy is unjust and the other is stupid.
In fairness I want to point out a new Coalition policy I believe has merit and one I can support. Providing help to apprentices to complete their training with interest-free Trade Support Loans of up to $20,000.
Some points I agree with;
-Australian apprenticeship completion rates are far too low – one in two apprentices do not complete their apprenticeship.
-Australia’s future productivity and competitiveness depend on a skilled and trained workforce.
-Trade Support Loans will be repayable at the same thresholds as FEE-HELP loans for university students, so apprentices do not have to repay any money until they are earning a sustainable income.
-Apprentices who successfully complete their apprenticeships will receive an immediate 20 per cent discount on their Trade Support Loans.
This is the kind of policy I can support. Something some will disagree with is that I see it as necessary to maintain apprentice wages at a sustainable liveable level. I also want greater support to integrate trade courses through the schools system in conjunction with TAFE and use this as an incentive for employers to take kids on.
Maybe some of the money from that $75,000 payday scheme for rich mums could be better used on the baby when he or she is a little older like about 15 or 16.

Paul,

Maybe the government could use the money it's going to "gift to rich mothers" to give to apprentices to buy their tools.

Maybe the government could introduce a scheme of loans for rich mothers to pay for their maternity leave (I'll bet there wouldn't be too many takers because these mothers don't need the money for anything as urgent as "tools to learn their trade".....they are being given this money to continue their "lifetyles")

Poirot, "gift to rich mothers"

No it is not, but what a sly way you propose to undermine equal pay. Disgusting politics.

Next you will be arguing for 'rich' women to take any special leave, recreation leave and long service leave relating to fertility and child care on reduced pay. Might as well reduce their pay for anything to do with their plumbing eh?

It is well established in employment conditions and for donkey's years that when a man or woman employee avails him/herself of leave eg special leave to take care of a close relative his/her pay is NOT reduced.

As far as I am concerned any reduction in pay cuts at the long established and valued role of women in particular in being carers as well as workers. Honestly, how would the disabled, aged and infirm ever survive without the nuturing and care of women relatives? That is not putting down men's contribution, but it is necessary to underline the enduring role of women as pivotal in holding families and society together.

Regardless of one's position on this, whether there should be parental leave or not (and any modern State does have such provisions), if there is to be parental leave it must not discriminate. It must be fair and equitable. Cox and others are right.

It is astounding how sexist you are while always pretending to be the opposite. Or do you only despise women who are successful?

otb,

"It is astounding how sexist you are while always pretending to be the opposite. Or do you only despise women who are successful?"

Up for a round or two with Poirot, are you?

Sorry mate, but a "welfare" scheme where those who need it less are paid more, is a mockery.

Why isn't this scheme means tested?

These women and their spouses don't "need" welfare.

Why are they set to receive it?

Why are "upper middle-class" women being given government largesse at all?

I haven't met anyone from either side of the political fence in favour of this "pork-barrel"....have you?

You're right about one thing - it is "disgusting politics"!

Laura Tingle,

http://www.afr.com/p/national/politics/abbott_promises_trust_and_little_w1QmkvE36ztw2a7lb3dCPN

"In the 1972 movie The Candidate, a man with no hope of winning runs on the promise he can say whatever he likes.

But as the campaign goes on, the spectre of defeat and the lure of victory loom. The candidate gradually tailors his message into a more and more generic bit of political twaddle.

When he defies all expectations and wins, he pulls his mentor aside and asks: “What do we now?”

Abbott may well be asking his colleagues the same question 100 days after winning office."

Where's the detail, Mr Abbott?

Poirot,

So apart from your class war and jealousy you have no argument.

No wonder you never got ahead and are bitter. You're fired! LOL

Successful women have every right to fair and equitable treatment in their conditions of service. Why discriminate against them anyhow? It would be a very backward step.