He is full of it, 457 visas. He will be hoping it won't go through. Can he explain the 185 million / day he is spending. That was another problem he had before the election but now it seems ok.
Even qld is 80 billion in the red. All talk and unemployment is not in his favor, that is why the 457 visas i suppose.

rechtub,

"The reason it would be sad is because he would have lowered himself to Gillards level, lies."

Ho,ho,ho....the Abbott govt almost totally misrepresented its intentions before the election.

If it was a product, we'd be able to return it under the trade descriptions act.

Howard had his "core" - "non-core" spiel....sadly Abbott has a lesser version which runs something like: "We're going to implement the policies we outlined pre-election - not the ones 'people thought' we outlined."

What about Gonski? Pyne says pre-election: "Oh this is terrible, we'll leave it for a year then dismantle it and fix things up"

24 hours later (pe-election) he says: " OOh we like it now. We'll stick to the script and leave it. We're on unity ticket with Gonski."

Post-election, Pyne tries to pull a swifty, then backflips, then forward somersaults - then pikes...in fact he's still in mid dive...tune in next week for his latest manoeuvre.

With Abbott's terrible problems wooing half the population's votes, women, he had to do something didn't he?
Thus the paid parental scheme.

In order to honour his main election promise, he had better come through on this one.
I'm hoping my daughter will consider having a baby soon :)

It's pretty much a huge indictment on our social democracy that a con-artist supposedly "fiscally responsible" govt can woo people in on the strength of handing out welfare money willy-nilly to rich women who don't "need" it.

It should be means tested.

So Suxe, correct me if im wrong, but what your saying is, although it is an unaffordable policy, you hope it gets in for your daughters sake. interesting view.

Poriot, which ever way you care to look at it, Abbott's perceived incompetence comes a distant second to that of Rudd, Gillard,Rudd.

I for one never thought it would get in, one because it was too generous, and tow, because it was unaffordable.

I still say people wanting to have a family should be able to better utilize their super, as this would take the financial burden away from the tax payer at large, because after all, having a baby is a personal choice.

Finally, for this who say other countries have such schemes, all i can say is just have a good hard look at how they're fairing.

.....It should be means tested.

Theres that means tested argument again.

Firstly, that woman who you say doesn't deserve assistance, has no doubt worked very hard to get to where she is and, has no doubt paid a lot of tax along the way. To say they don't deserve to be looked after is just wrong, as it is they who are actually looking after the two thirds of the population that cant look after themselves, without government hand outs.

Now while i may be against the policy, i get frustrated with those who think while they deserve a hand out, well off people dont.

Either people are treated equally, or they're not, which is it, because equal treatment 'when it suits' just doesn't cut the mustard in my opinion.