Robert,
It would not be a good look but the available funds will only go so far. If the government is to keep that undertaking, they will have to cut other things to get the money.

Looks like being between a rock and a hard place.

That is what happens when one over commits or costs arise that one does not allow for.

Spose they could do the Labor thing and just keep borrowing, but that also tends to catch up at some stage.

Their call.

Suseonline,
Nobody should be allowed to have children unless they can afford to raise them WITHOUT taxpayer funding.
Why should I be obliged to pay for someone else's children.
Are they going to look after me in my old age.
Is is bad enough that government allows genetically defective adults to procreate at taxpayers expense and even encourages the practice and now they expect me to fund more and more socially dependent variables in the equation.
--"I believe low and middle income women should be paid their full wage while off with their babies for 12 months"--
With who's money Suseonline. Not mine. Why not ask me first. I and mine have to go without to support some irresponsible parent who decides to get pregnant because there is money in it.
I"m sorry Suseonline your argument is full of c%$p.

Chrissgaff,
It gets even worse.

There are now allegations that Tanya Plibersek, as Minister, was responsible for a low cost rental housing scheme that apparently cost $4.5 billion of our money.

The scheme has many twists and turns but it appears that developers were making a monsa and the places ended up being rented to overseas students. So much for the poor who were supposed to get them.

Complete mismanagement and disregard for the proper use of our funds. More to come on this I venture.

Robert, while i agree that lies should not be taken to an election,or at any time actually, you would have to have been very neieve, or ignorant to our financial situation leading up to the recent election if you thought Abbotts PPs was affordable, along with labors unfunded dreams, Gonski and NDIS.

If a person was ignorant to the situation, then this just provides more strength to the argument that compulsory voting should be removed, as it forces people with no interest in our situation to vote.

Furthermore, if Abbotts PPS scheem was the primary reason for voting libs, then more fool them, as my best advice to them is to take a little more notice of what makes the wheels turn, rather than just focusing on the self interested juicy bits.

rechtub,

"Furthermore, if Abbotts PPS scheem was the primary reason for voting libs, then more fool them, as my best advice to them is to take a little more notice of what makes the wheels turn, rather than just focusing on the self interested juicy bits."

What a hoot!

You know how it's done, especially these days - and why Howard initially championed "middle-class welfare" and Labor continued with it - the pork barrel is to get people to vote a certain way, primarily resting on self-interest.

The problem is, if you believe Hockey's swagger and his line that a post GFC AAA economy with one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios is a basket case, you'll believe anything.

People vote out of self-interest. People spruik their political views for the same reason - as you are doing now.

Dear Rehctub,

I definitely support the removal of compulsory voting, yet I will continue to vote anyway:

<<my best advice to them is to take a little more notice of what makes the wheels turn, rather than just focusing on the self interested juicy bits.>>

Why should I care whether their wheels are turning while they forbid me to turn mine?

I state again: in the next federal elections, I will give my vote to the party who will allow me to ride a bicycle (without wearing a pot on my head, which is out of the question).