Even Conservative commentator (whatever that means) Tim Wilson from the IP deplores the Coalition's PPL scheme.

Also agreed with his comments about children being constantly portrayed by both sides of politics as some kind of 'burden'. And had to agree, in part, with some of his comments about Age of Entitlement although am sure on closer analysis would disagree on some aspects.

Pelican,

In any society where consuming is the name of the game, anything that impedes the ability to get out there and earn the bickies to buy the crap will be construed as a burden.

As you know, I'm not in favour of very young children being dumped into childcare at the earliest opportunity...also not in favour of the government paying rich people to stay at home and look after their own children, so they can keep up the lease on the BMW. (That's something they should do out of their own pockets)

Here's Minchin on Abbott's PPL:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-23/nick-minchin-predicts-senate-will-scupper-coalition-ppl-plan/4908872

"There is also disquiet in the Coalition ranks. One National MP was quoted in this morning's Australian Financial Review as calling the policy "a heap of sh!t"."

The PPL scheme is driving me nuts. By all means have one, but make it means tested! Makes my blood boil to think one family could benefit from $75,000 when my entire community could use that figure and put it into our school, or set up a child care centre, or after school care, the list goes on. My husband wouldn't be entitled to 6 months of maternity leave or PPL so why should anyone just because they are female and have a child?
Do you know why I'm not a "Successful women" earning ANY money? Because all child care centres within a 100km radis of me have a 8mth to 2yr waiting list!
Utter waste of money! And that is coming from a person that normally votes for the Coalition.

Yes. I agree all the way with that, Bec.

pelican, "Even Conservative commentator (whatever that means) Tim Wilson from the IP deplores the Coalition's PPL scheme"

While that might be the case it is a logical flaw and doesn't justify reducing the pay of a sector of the community. Why not reduce their pay for recreation leave for instance?

In fact, why not put a limit on the remuneration of women since they are likely to use more of certain types of leave?

If parental leave is to be approved at all it must be applied the same as any other form of leave. To not do so is to reintroduce the inequities of the past and not just for women.

Abbott and co are the first to cry that we have to "live within our means", and we can not afford the luxury of paying ourselves things that are unaffordable. With the state of our hospitals, schools infrastructure etc can anyone honestly support this grandiose welfare for the rich ploy. It is certain that a mother on a salary of $150k pa will be part of a household with an income far in excess of $150k. Should we not pay all an aged pension equal to the mean average wage, which is about $60K pa, certainly improve the lifestyle of the majority of pensioners. For those who cannot or choose not to have children, can we not recompense them with a special cash payment to ease their sorrow of being childless or as compensation for making the sacrifice for Australia of choosing to work rather than have children.
If you think about it there is a multitude of opportunists where we can apply welfare for all.