Choices, choices: parental leave too expensive?

Written By: - Date published: 6:40 am, April 11th, 2012 - 190 comments
Categories: benefits, same old national - Tags: , ,

The Right says that extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks is too expensive. Typical. The bastards know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

If anything, Sue Moroney’s Bill doesn’t go far enough as it doesn’t extend eligibility to the nearly 60% of mothers who don’t meet the rules currently (only 26,000 of 60,000 mums per year get it).

But, if money is so tight, how does the cost stack up against other National Party decisions?

So, we’re talking about a tiny sliver of government spending – 0.2% to be precise. And a tiny fraction of what the government is borrowing. If money is really so tight, there’s plenty of poor quality decisions that National could reverse first.

190 comments on “Choices, choices: parental leave too expensive? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. deinacrida_v2 1
    11 April 2012 at 7:38 am

    Parental leave?
    [Bunji: fixed}

  2. james 111 2
    11 April 2012 at 8:01 am

    Nice idea from fantasy land however totally unaffordable $150 million we dont have as a country. We have to earn the money as a country before we can spend it. This is a problem with Socialist thinking spend spend spend but where does the money come from? Tax Tax Tax and more Tax

    • mickysavage 2.1
      11 April 2012 at 8:04 am

      So James you must think those roads of national significance really suck.

      • Deer Hunter 2.1.1
        11 April 2012 at 8:31 am

        Roads of national significance are paid by road users. Good thing you don’t own a shop. A customer comes in to buy some bread, you’d take their money and say: “Actually bread isn’t good for you. I’ll give you half a weetbix instead.”

        • mickysavage 2.1.1.1
          11 April 2012 at 8:37 am

          But I do pay fuel excise duty.  The RONS still suck.  My fuel taxes should be used on the inner city rail loop instead.

          • Deer Hunter 2.1.1.1.1
            11 April 2012 at 9:22 am

            Road users disagree with you. Road users want better roads. The only referendum on the inner loop was the auckland central election, what happened? Pony girl did no better than Judith Tizard.

            • Bunji 2.1.1.1.1.1
              11 April 2012 at 9:33 am

              The road user in your head wants better roads. I want a city rail loop.

              The only ‘referendum’ on the rail loop? If anything it was the mayoral election, trains being the centrepiece of Len’s campaign, and the rail loop the centre piece of the trains.
              Who won that again?

              The AK central election was hardly a referendum – Nikki Kaye supports the rail loop too, just her party doesn’t want to pay for it. So if you count voters who voted for a candidate who supported the rail loop (Kaye, Ardern, Roche…), vs those who don’t… Well, we better get on with that rail loop…

              Road users should all support the rail loop: it’ll get lots of people off ‘their’ roads…

              • LynW …
                11 April 2012 at 10:23 am

                +1 🙂

              • Rusty Shackleford …
                12 April 2012 at 10:38 am

                This is shithouse reasoning. People love voting for stuff when someone else is going to foot the bill. It’s easy to make promises, economic viability be damned.

            • Matthew Whitehead 2.1.1.1.1.2
              11 April 2012 at 10:38 am

              Actually I want better buses and trains.

            • bbfloyd 2.1.1.1.1.3
              11 April 2012 at 12:16 pm

              my word, what a load of specious drivel you speak little fawn…. EVERYBODY who pays tax, irrespective of whether they drive or not pays for roads…

              and one assumes you believe that none of those “road users” would switch to public transport if it was widely available… especially in cities where past national govts have allowed transport infrastructure to become horrendously overburdoned….

              but no…. you have to be utterly narrow, shallow, and self interested to the point of excluding everything that could undermine your deeply held bigotries, and everyone capable of exposing your ignorance of common sense….

              you aren’t related to “convoy” joyce are you? … or own a freight company do you?

            • lprent 2.1.1.1.1.4
              11 April 2012 at 2:01 pm

              Actually she did.

              However I’m puzzled why do you think that was a referendum on the central loop (it barely came up during the campaign).

              The primary use of the loop is allow the more effective use of the rail system throughout the whole of Auckland apart from the North Shore without getting bottlenecked at Britomart. At the current rates of expansion of use in the rail system and assuming that we get the usual increases in usage from the current updates, Britomart will be at capacity within a decade. The inner loop is designed to increase the capacity for trains both into Britomart hub and also bypassing (ie south going west).

              It also means that when the lazy idiots in Wellington NZTA get around to putting another harbour crossing in, it will be able to handle the capacity from a rail link to the shore.

              Of course these are things that I really shouldn’t expect an idiot to think their way through… It might cause you to strain something through unexpected usage

            • David H 2.1.1.1.1.5
              11 April 2012 at 9:57 pm

              I’m a road user and don’t put words into my mouth. This is a fucking disgrace. Children NEED to have that first year -18 months to bond, my little boy is 11 months old, and as we have been made redundant the only bright side to being broke is his smile we see every day. and we would have hated t o have some stranger, caregiver telling us about his first words, and his crawling, standing up Laughing. we would not have missed that for the world. So stick the RONS up your arse, they are nothing bit a complete waste of money. And only the trolls think they are a good idea.

        • Blighty 2.1.1.2
          11 April 2012 at 9:02 am

          So, you’re saying the government doesn’t have a duty to spend the revenue from transport taxes on projects that get the most bang for the buck? They should just build highways to nowhere instead?

    • Zetetic 2.2
      11 April 2012 at 8:15 am

      Are you for real James, or just playing at being this dumb? It’s like you missed the whole post. Which is a rebuttal of your rightwhinger argument.

      If we don’t have $150m for paternal leave, how come we’ve got $1.4b a year for roads to nowhere also known as the RoNS, or a billion a year for tax cuts for the rich?

      • Hami Shearlie 2.2.1
        11 April 2012 at 10:59 am

        Z, you know the rich NEED their tax cuts. If they don’t get them, their annual holiday in the South of France might have to be reduced to only 1 month, instead of 2! Shame on you Z, fancy wanting to deprive them of that! Next you’ll want them to drive around in cars that are more than 1 year old! Awful! LOL!

    • mike e 2.3
      11 April 2012 at 4:56 pm

      jturd we can afford it!
      spending on consultants a staggering $600 million National
      Borrowing $14 billion a year under national
      tobacco $6 billion a year problem
      alcohol a $6 billion a year problem
      Gambling A 6 billion a year problem
      poverty a $ 6 billion a year problem
      National is the problem the do nothing government!

    • Georgy 2.4
      11 April 2012 at 5:41 pm

      So James, how do you see the tax cuts National made in their 2008-2011 term? Affordable? Did NZ earn the money or did it borrow the money? How have these cuts helped our economy? Compare this to the value placed on parents being at home with their babies without being penalised.

  3. james 111 3
    11 April 2012 at 8:11 am

    Need to get cars around Micky cant afford Lens rail loop dream that only affects 50,000 people in a city of 1.5 million

    • mickysavage 3.1
      11 April 2012 at 8:26 am

      The cars get around just fine now james. And as oil becomes more expensive people will drive less.  And they will think what bunch of idiots built all these roads we do not need?  And they will complain the the train system cannot handle any more passengers because we did not build the inner city loop.

      PS try nesting your comments. 

      • aerobubble 3.1.1
        11 April 2012 at 9:36 am

        Its a fact that much of the growth (energy into the economy) has stopped coming from new oil coming to market but come from citizens cutting back their travel, this will continue for a time until we reach a tipping point, where drivers cannot even afford to get to work. People by then will be screaming for homes near work places and public transport. Every moment the left gets a chance they will be citing Nationals roading white elephant. As capitalists the money is in sidewide economics, where people shift away from high energy usage patterns. That’s why its so shocking to hear the rightwing and their media buddies still pushing the naked weirdo neo-liberal economic paradigm. Methinks its more because they are alrady shifting their own investments to the new societial architecture while the party faithful are being taken for mugs. i.e. farmers are handing out shares in Fonterra, and tax payers handing over state energy asset. Oh, and no buying energy share isn’t the money spinner, the money is in the fees and the bend over approach to trade with China, opening doors here opens doors there for the few behind National spins.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 3.2
      11 April 2012 at 8:32 am

      The roads are north of Puhoi !

      • fender 3.2.1
        12 April 2012 at 12:31 am

        Please dont confuse james 111 with geographical facts, hes just looking forward to playing on a new road on his mobility scooter, drunk as usual, naked apart from his old socks.

    • irascible 3.3
      11 April 2012 at 1:52 pm

      If you really want to experience driving where roading & private cars have taken priority over public transport try driving in Egypt or Lebanon or any city where there is no public transport available. Roads are clogged with cars and trucks as well as pedestrians – traffic jams are what you join and spend more time in than getting to work or getting home.
      Give me efficient public transport over roads clogged with private cars any day.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.4
      11 April 2012 at 6:02 pm

      Need to get cars around…cant afford Lens rail loop dream that only affects 50,000 people in a city of 1.5 million

      Man, are you out of touch with reality.

      We can’t afford cars as they’re far too inefficient especially now that Peak Oil has hit – that’s the real problem that NACT won’t face.

    • rosy 3.5
      11 April 2012 at 6:51 pm

      “Need to get cars around “
      Funny, I thought we needed to get people around. Cars are simply a method of doing that, and not necessarily the most efficient method. Also thought you’d be for personal choice – which doesn’t mean ‘shall I take the blue car or the silver one today?’

  4. Craig Glen Eden 4
    11 April 2012 at 8:20 am

    If we cant afford this we cant afford tax cuts, loan to Media works, payouts to failed investors, holiday roads. But hey this money to help parents and babies aye so National wont give a shit.

    • burt 4.1
      11 April 2012 at 8:27 am

      Craig

      Tax cuts are not something we afford… it’s not money the government spends…. I know to a loopy lefty with a sense of entitlement to other peoples money that’s a hard thing to grasp.

      • Zetetic 4.1.1
        11 April 2012 at 8:39 am

        In your dipshit world, we could cut all tax and it wouldn’t matter. The fact is that, against the status quo, the 2010 tax package has resulted in a billion dollars a year more borrowing. The decision to cut taxes isn’t free or consequenceless.

        • burt 4.1.1.1
          11 April 2012 at 7:10 pm

          Zetetic

          In your dipshit world, we could cut all tax and it wouldn’t matter.

          Only a complete dipshit would say that Zetetic… I could be equally demented and say in your dipshit world we can spend as much as we want because all we need to do is tax the rich pricks more to pay for it….. Hey lets quickly forget that under Labour’s great promise to make the rich pay more tax that the real top earners weren’t paying it and the burden fell on middle earners…. Harsh reality…. sorry Zetetic to burst your beautiful dream that socialism works…

          • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1.1
            11 April 2012 at 7:54 pm

            Hey lets quickly forget that under Labour’s great promise to make the rich pay more tax that the real top earners weren’t paying it and the burden fell on middle earners…

            Got proof of that?

            And, also, rich people engaging in theft isn’t an excuse not to tax them.

      • framu 4.1.2
        11 April 2012 at 9:50 am

        i think youll find burt that taxes are most definately money that the government spends

        can you afford to cut your revenue stream?

        • burt 4.1.2.1
          11 April 2012 at 7:00 pm

          Really, taxes are the money the government spends … who would have guessed….

          But seriously, the point is that tax cuts are not an increase in government spending. I can understand that if you take the approach that all income above the level paid to a beneficiary is there for the government to take so it can spend it elsewhere then it’s easy to conflate revenue with expenditure.

          • Draco T Bastard 4.1.2.1.1
            11 April 2012 at 7:52 pm

            That makes no sense burt. Taxes are there to cover government spending. NACT cut taxes which cut the government revenue which meant that the taxes could no longer cover the governments spending – especially after this government radically increased government spending.

      • Matthew Whitehead 4.1.3
        11 April 2012 at 10:47 am

        Burt, if I was selling you a product, and you asked me for half off, and I told you I couldn’t afford it, you don’t get to tell me that’s loopy logic just because “it’s your money”. If you want even a semblance of a functional government, you have to pay for it, and that means we have to take in enough in taxes that we can afford minimal social protections, which means we can only afford to cut taxes so far.

        Now, I acknowledge many on the right do NOT want a functional government, but that just isn’t something that the rest of us will ever agree to.

        • burt 4.1.3.1
          11 April 2012 at 7:05 pm

          Burt, if I was selling you a product, and you asked me for half off, and I told you I couldn’t afford it, you don’t get to tell me that’s loopy logic just because “it’s your money”.

          Ah no… that’s not even remotely similar to revenue v expenditure.

          Now, I acknowledge many on the right do NOT want a functional government, but that just isn’t something that the rest of us will ever agree to.

          Functional government…. so extending paid parental leave when we need to borrow to do so is functional government now – god help us when we get closer to the election and all sorts of lolly scramble bribes get classified as essential for functional government.

          You loopy lefties need to understand that every time you dream up new ways to spend other peoples money for electoral popularity that it is actually other people paying.

      • Reagan Cline 4.1.4
        11 April 2012 at 7:43 pm

        Burt, “entitlement” is a very recent word, therefore a very recent concept, could be a term for a fad concept. You don’t want to be unduly influenced by a fad concept do you ?
        The money you control is yours temporarily, until you dispose of it in some way – how about helping find a way to get it to people who do need it ?

    • ghostwhowalksnz 4.2
      11 April 2012 at 8:34 am

      Dont forget the scholarships to private schools. Can we afford that , so that full private schools can boost their declining numbers

  5. Pete George 5
    11 April 2012 at 8:42 am

    Peter Dunne acknowledges that it is expensive, but he’s claiming that in the long run it will save money as it’s an investment in early childhood. Very difficult to quantify that though.

    For every parent on paid leave there is also the opportunity for another person to come off the unemployment benefit or DPD to take up the position, albeit often temporarily. But it may be an important first step into (or back into) the workforce for some.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 5.1
      11 April 2012 at 8:47 am

      Surely you arent having a doubt about Peter Dunnes fiscal probity ?. The Minister of Revenue, by definition is an expert on these matters !

    • Matthew Whitehead 5.2
      11 April 2012 at 10:57 am

      $150 million is not that expensive as government projects go. If we normalise tax per individual, it adds up to about $9580 each. If we didn’t reduce any costs for the paid parental leave, it would bump that up to about $9600. I’d be quite happy to pay $20 a year to know that if I want kids I get half a year off to bond and take care of my kid, and I’m quite happy to pay that even if I never have kids myself, because I know people who will, and I want them to have plenty of time.

      (If that number seems high, it’s because it includes corporate taxes and other indirect taxes that you don’t directly pay to the government)

  6. ghostwhowalksnz 6
    11 April 2012 at 8:45 am

    What about the $180 million paid out to bond holders ( who didnt have a guarantee) in South Canterbury Finance ?
    Was that affordable ?

    They have just built a $30 million temporary rugby stadium in Christchurch- in record time , which is unusual as far as any reconstruction goes down that way.

    • james 111 6.1
      11 April 2012 at 9:14 am

      I believe it we can make it cost neutral by stopping young female breeding machines using the DPB as a revenue source without due consideration for the children then it may be possible.

      If we limit the DPB to a genuine accident 1 child as Bill Clinton did in the States we could probably afford to give parents this payment.

      Unfortunately we don’t have money trees out there and the problem for Socialists has always been when they run out of using other people money what then?

      When you have a child you have to make sacrifices be it financial or life style. What I don’t understand with the Socialist ideology. They want to take personal responsibility and accountability out of every situation is this carefully contrived thought controlling process agenda? subtle Social engineering may be

      • framu 6.1.1
        11 April 2012 at 10:44 am

        why are you bringing the DPB into this? they arent the same thing

        also – your last para makes no sense

        • ghostwhowalksnz 6.1.1.1
          11 April 2012 at 11:07 am

          What he means, is the rich can afford to have a mother full time at home, the poor just ‘make bad choices’

        • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.2
          11 April 2012 at 6:18 pm

          It’s james111 – he doesn’t make any sense at all, ever.

          • fender 6.1.1.2.1
            11 April 2012 at 8:24 pm

            NEVER EVER

            james 111 needs to stay off the grog, he’s off the planet and requires help.

            As McFlock pointed out a few weeks ago there’s a rather gross habit james has to ensure he never impregnates a woman (although surely just him talking would ruin his chances to copulate). It involves an old sock and clearly its overflowing again. But take it easy on little jim as its obviously time his extended family intervened to cure his drunken wanked up ramblings.

            james dont be too embarrassed if you read your posts after you recieve treatment, we understand and look forward to you showing us that you do have a coherent thought process.

      • Uturn 6.1.2
        11 April 2012 at 10:46 am

        If you reference your own misunderstanding of concepts then it’s no wonder you’re confused. Who really can help you? You could pick up a book, or even do a google search, to find the definition of the terms you redefine here incorrectly, but your ideology has stolen all your personal responsiblity. Subtle social engineering, maybe? I don’t even know how a person can hold an ideology they clearly don’t understand. Like some others, I think you might be more interested in the philosophy of Egoism rather than right-wing politics.

        The idea you were looking for is… unavailable. Uturn has not charged you for this idea.

      • Hami Shearlie 6.1.3
        11 April 2012 at 11:04 am

        “Young female breeding machines”? I think you’ll find it takes two to tango J111! The women are left holding the babies, but where are all the invisible fathers. When does their share of blame get meted out?

        • mike e 6.1.3.1
          11 April 2012 at 5:16 pm

          HS the men that help create the children are in the prison Australia .
          The rest are in the Nact party misogynist rednecks.
          Ask dirty old Don or nick

      • McFlock 6.1.4
        11 April 2012 at 12:09 pm

        I think we could lower the number of “breeding machines” by giving abstinence rings out in schools, and shooting more storks as they fly overhead with the babies.
           
        Better yet, even more tax cuts for the rich will motivate more “breeding machines” to avoid pregnancy and concentrate on their careers. /sarc
              
        I think that covers most of jimmy the turd’s idiocy for the next couple of hours.

      • mike e 6.1.5
        11 April 2012 at 5:00 pm

        J turd Paula Bennett her daughter grand child future son in law John Key all products of the DPB.
        I rest my case.

        • burt 6.1.5.1
          11 April 2012 at 7:19 pm

          Exactly, so what’s the plan – win an election by creating more of these people – yep that will be good for NZ.

          • McFlock 6.1.5.1.1
            12 April 2012 at 9:33 pm

            “these people”
                      
            One of the expressions I regard as a big flag that the commenter is possibly an ignorant jerkoff.
            Oh, it’s Burt. Issue no longer in doubt.

      • Millhouse 6.1.6
        11 April 2012 at 10:31 pm

        @ james 111

        I am afraid to say that the “young female breeding machines using the DPB as a revenue source” are simply a lurid and masturbatory fantasy dreamed up by people like you in order to justify class warfare. Only 3.1 % of those on the DPB are under 20 years of age, and of those 67.7% are on the DPB for less than four years. Aside from the odd morally bankrupt person nobody is breading for $293 a week.

        Grow up.

        • ianmac 6.1.6.1
          11 April 2012 at 10:59 pm

          Millhouse good response, but I am afraid that James 111 is impervious to facts and figures. Fairly sure that he plays a weird game of deliberate provocation. And it works. A sort of bullfighter from the safety behind the rails of the arena.

    • aerobubble 6.2
      11 April 2012 at 9:56 am

      National like to assert the deposit guarentee was Labour’s policy (despite there being a global crisis) and ignore the fact that National failed to manage the scheme leaving it open.

      Remember that National does not believe in regulation. Did, for example, Peak River Mine suddenly become even safer when key won power, because of the now widespread belief that deregulation makes the markets more concerned about disasters? Or really does it just give middle managers more time to relax and not do their jobs? Safe guard investors and keep employees safe.

      National are naked freaks and weirdos, their beliefs are moronically simplistic and self-over rated.

      • Dv 6.2.1
        11 April 2012 at 2:06 pm

        And the nacts agreed to the scheme too!

      • Frida 6.2.2
        11 April 2012 at 3:50 pm

        But the decision to pay out the unsecured, unguaranteed bond holders was definitely under National, not Labour. Same with the decision to let SCF into the extended scheme.

        • mike e 6.2.2.1
          11 April 2012 at 5:49 pm

          Frida against treasury advice, I suspect to many Nat supporters would have gone bankrupt.

  7. Colonial Viper 7
    11 April 2012 at 9:48 am

    When the RWNJs say its “unaffordable” its because the money is going into the community at large, and isn’t going into their rich mates’ pockets. If it was, it would be a “national priority”.

    • burt 7.1
      11 April 2012 at 7:18 pm

      No CV, money is going to people having children…. many of which will enjoy it but certainly don’t need it. But I’ll put my socialist hat on – why only 26 weeks ?

      Why not pay full parental leave till the child leaves home – whatever age that is?

      • Colonial Viper 7.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 2:02 am

        burt returns to his well worn “you’re asking for one lollypop, but we’re going to turn you down because next you’ll be asking for the whole chocolate factory” argument.

      • framu 7.1.2
        12 April 2012 at 7:32 am

        ” But I’ll put my socialist hat on – why only 26 weeks ”

        no – thats putting your idiot hat on

  8. bad12 8
    11 April 2012 at 9:54 am

    Lets have a little look at the economics of this,an examination of such economics should by definition be of more intellectual rigour than that which can be mustered by the economic neanderthals currently in charge of the treasury Benches,

    National,s economic ”thinking” on this and ”its” overall approach can be best described as more akin to economic decisions a tribe of Chimpanzees would make around a collection of Bananas,

    To make such an extension of Paid Parental Leave stack up in terms of economics We only have to satisfy ourselves of one economic ”Given”,

    If We take it as a ”Given” that those who would be the beneficiaries of the Paid Parental Leave extension,(leaving out the impending moko’s for the moment), were in fact in employment on the basis that that employment was neccessary for the employer to enable His/Her business to successfully operate,

    Then the supposed 150 million dollars cost to Government is simply highlighting the downside of the cost while ignoring any benefits on the plus side of the Governments revenue indicators,

    Heres how it works,assuming that the employer will have to employ someone for the 6 month period of Paid Parental Leave to cover for the employee away on Paid Parental Leave then in the churn of employment someone will be employed,

    That person employed isn’t neccessarily going to be employed in that particular position having come straight off of the dole queue BUT in theory someone must become employed and there would now be a reasonable expectation that in the economy there would now be 1 more employment position available albeit only for the 6 month period of the Paid Parental Need,

    The economic reality says that for every Parent off work for a period of paid leave should that leave be extended to 6 months there in fact will be 1 person currently unemployed who will be employed for that 6 months

    So,while Government pays out 1 Paid Parental Leave it will gain 1 new employee into the workforce paying tax and that 1 new employee would have been either on the dole or expected to join the queue,

    Its a blindness that the economic Chimps currently pulling the levers of economy in desperation to create for themselves some good news just cannot grasp as they view the economy through a microscope concentrating on the micro and macro situation whilst ignoring the glaring realities that sit mere inch’s from their noses,

    Of course 6 months Paid Parental Leave is affordable, such an extension also creates wider social and economic pluses than just within the family where the Parental Leave is being extended to….

    • ChrisH 8.2
      11 April 2012 at 10:48 am

      Actually this is more likely to happen with 6 months leave. The employer will take on a temp for that long. At 14 weeks they’ll just let the work pile up because it won’t be worth the hassle to take on someone for that short a time.

      • Colonial Viper 8.2.1
        11 April 2012 at 11:18 am

        Taking on a temp means another worker employed in a useful job. Awesome!

        • Jim Nald 8.2.1.1
          11 April 2012 at 7:40 pm

          Re economics … cost … benefits …

          It would be nice to hear the progressive parties stating the case for this legislative initiative as a worthy and financially wise investment in families, children, our next generation, et al.

  9. tsmithfield 9
    11 April 2012 at 10:01 am

    So, if this parental leave proposal isn’t too expensive, perhaps some of the lefties here could give an opinion on the level at which it would become too expensive.

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      11 April 2012 at 10:07 am

      Just cancel the fucking holiday highway, it’ll pay for 20 years of additional paid parental leave.

    • Uturn 9.2
      11 April 2012 at 10:09 am

      Alternatively, can you give an opinion of when it would be affordable?

    • bad12 9.3
      11 April 2012 at 10:30 am

      Naturally as per your political prediliction you can only see Paid Parental Leave in strict dollars and cents,

      The imperative for such Paid Parental Leave rests not in any ”we thunk it therefor it should be” mentality,such Legislative imperative is strictly the preserve of the National Government,

      EVERY study whether local or international on the raising and caring of children clearly shows that in particular Mothers should be on hand for the first 6 months of a childs life not on a part time basis but as a matter of full time care,

      It would then seem obvious to all except the most dull that 6 months would be the ultimate in terms of time for such Paid Parental leave to be extended…

      • tsmithfield 9.3.1
        11 April 2012 at 10:52 am

        I am not the one claiming it to be affordable. If someone is claiming something is affordable, they must have some idea of when it is unaffordable to make the first claim.

    • McFlock 9.4
      11 April 2012 at 12:14 pm

      If we can afford to spend many times the amount on roads that will probably not be needed, we can afford to enable parents to spend more time with their newborn. In fact, I’d suggest at least matching funds.
            
      It’s not a fixed amount that determines “affordability”, it’s a question of priorities. Children or limos with heated seats? Children or tax cuts for the already wealthy? Children or casino conference centres? Children or roads to nowhere? 

      • tsmithfield 9.4.1
        11 April 2012 at 12:31 pm

        See my post below. I agree with you it is about priorities.

        Roads are obviously an important function of government. I am sure there is a lot of varying opinion on the merit worthiness of any particular roading project.

        I agree with you about MPs and Limos. We should have our politicians and visiting dignatories transported around in 1992 Camrys. We could also bowl the beehive, sell off the land, and find a farmer willing to rent a large barn somewhere for the politicians to debate in. That would also free up more money for social endevours.

        • Colonial Viper 9.4.1.1
          11 April 2012 at 12:34 pm

          We should have our politicians and visiting dignatories transported around in 1992 Camrys.

          I’m glad you brought this up. What exactly was insufficient about the 2007 BMW 7-series limos valued at over $170K each new, that they had to be replaced during this time of “fiscal restraint”?

          Seems like another case of priorities for rich mates and the road transport industry, and nothing for young mothers.

          National is getting fucked over this. They’ve got another 2.5 years to keep it up.

          • tsmithfield 9.4.1.1.1
            11 April 2012 at 12:41 pm

            If the deal stacked up financially, I wouldn’t have a problem with this. For instance, if the cars were coming out of warranty, but still had high resale value, and the new cars were purchased on very favourable terms, then it may well have stacked up as a package.

            I guess it is the price of running government that there needs to be some prestige and respect associated with the role that is reflected in the type of car driven. Notice that the previous government set up the deal for the 2007 BMW’s, so you shouldn’t just blame National in this respect.

            We just need to decide what is an appropriate level of vehicle for government officials and dignatories. I don’t think many here would think my suggestion of 92 Camry’s is suitable, for example.

            I would question buying BMWs though. European cars tend to be maintenance nightmares, having owned a Audi previously (never again). I would prefer to see them in Lexus’s, as they are just glorified Camry’s so, tend to have much higher reliability.

            • Colonial Viper 9.4.1.1.1.1
              11 April 2012 at 2:19 pm

              So you agree that there are a lot of savings which could be made, and which wouldn’t be at the expense of young expectant mothers?

              • tsmithfield …
                11 April 2012 at 2:55 pm

                I agree there are savings to be made. Where those savings should be directed is another matter. For instance, should they go to young mothers, health care, paying off government debt etc etc?

                • McFlock …
                  11 April 2012 at 3:10 pm

                  Prioritising needs is definitely a debate to have. In the future. When we get to it. When the government decides that the various cases of bling-expenditure (like roads that aren’t actually needed, or limos with all the options, or ministerial jaunts on the airforce 757) should be turned into actual savings.
                         
                  At the moment there seems to be an awful lot of higher-level waste at the whim of ministers. Once that is sorted (probably by an incoming Labour/Green government) we can argue about prioritising which needs are addressed first.

                  In the meantime this is a piddly step in the right direction.

                  • tsmithfield …
                    11 April 2012 at 3:19 pm

                    And the government is focusing on getting rid of waste from the public service, so in principle, you would agree with this sort of approach if it frees up money for other things?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 April 2012 at 4:05 pm

                      I guess doubling and tripling consultants fees is “getting rid of waste” eh?

                      Oh I see, spending money on helping people who need it is “waste”, while spending money on National friendly consultants is “important”.

                    • tsmithfield …
                      11 April 2012 at 4:29 pm

                      I didn’t mean that you necessarily agreed with the way the government is going about it. But, would you agree, in principle, it is a good thing for the government to cut out waste so they have more to focus on important areas?

                    • McFlock …
                      11 April 2012 at 4:57 pm

                      It is a good thing to cut out waste from the public service.
                              
                      Where “waste” is synonymous with “duplicated or archaic work practises that serve no good purpose, excessive higher-level remuneration packages, appointments that do not follow best practise, or projects that have negligible benefit:cost ratios”.
                                
                      This government seems to ignore all the above and instead define “waste” as “firing trained and experienced public service staff who previously provided needed, but unglamorous, services to the general public, and fill in the gap with often issue-unfamiliar people who charge more to do less”.  

                    • tsmithfield …
                      11 April 2012 at 5:29 pm

                      Ok. We’re on the same page, in principle. It is just a matter of objectively identifying waste, free of political bias.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 April 2012 at 2:04 am

                      Clearly, poor people are a waste. Send them to Fiji.

          • Fortran 9.4.1.1.2
            11 April 2012 at 3:13 pm

            CV

            Please advise where you got the “$170,000” limos from ?
            Just bulldust – look up the relatve figures and get your fact right.

            • Colonial Viper 9.4.1.1.2.1
              11 April 2012 at 3:21 pm

              $180K then. That’sshowroom sticker price of course, the Govt got them cheaper by buying a shipload.

              But why did they need to be replaced?

              Savings need to go in sensible places and not buying new cars for a couple more years in a time of “fiscal restraint” would be more sensible than harming young mothers and infants.

  10. Pete George 10
    11 April 2012 at 10:27 am

    Dune from Firstline:

    Parental leave bill ‘step in the right direction’ – Dunne

    The bill will strengthen the relationship between parents and children, providing a long-term benefit for social development, Mr Dunne says.

    While the $150 million required for the bill “is expensive”, Mr Dunne says criticism of the cost “actually misses the point”.

    “There’s a long-term saving because of other social costs not having to be met [and] you can stage the implementation over a period of time, to spread that cost,” he says.

    Issues including cost and implementation time “can be teased out during the select committee stage”.

    • bad12 10.1
      11 April 2012 at 10:38 am

      In the context of the ”Government Spend” 150 million is a mere puff of steam from the boiler-room of economy,

      Government could simply rid itself of the myriad ”con-sultants” busily goosing the various Ministers egos by writing white papers for Ministers attempting to find justification for actions the various Ministers want and intend to do…

    • Pete George 10.2
      11 April 2012 at 10:43 am

      Dunne on the confidence and supply possibility (from FB):

      I would be very surprised indeed if the government chose to make this a confidence and supply issue. While it is technically possible, it is most unlikely, I would think.

      I think National will have to tread very carefully considering use of the veto. I expect they’ll do their usual research and find that it’s something heavily supported by women – it’s mostly men arguing against it.

      • Pascal's bookie 10.2.1
        11 April 2012 at 10:48 am

        using the veto wouldn’t make it a C&S issue, it would just mean that the bill would be denied a third reading and vote.

        He is saying that he doubts the govt would grant leave for a confidence vote if/when they use the veto.

        • ghostwhowalksnz 10.2.1.1
          11 April 2012 at 11:09 am

          The veto is not a vote , its just a procedural thing that stops it in its tracks.

        • Pete George 10.2.1.2
          11 April 2012 at 11:16 am

          Yeah, I mixed the two up.

          The C&S possibility was first raised, but that’s moved to speculation on a possible veto. Far too soon for that anyway. The bill should at least be considered by select committee.

          Instant blog and MSM decisions fortunately aren’t a binding part of our democratic process.

  11. Karl Sinclair 11
    11 April 2012 at 11:13 am

    Quote from the Movie Equus:

    ‘The normal is the good smile in a child’s eyes. There’s also the dead stare in a million adults. It both sustains and kills, like a god. It is the ordinary made beautiful, it is also the average made lethal.’

    The National Party is AVERAGE……

    Mind the GAP (educational one that is)

  12. tsmithfield 12
    11 April 2012 at 11:47 am

    I don’t think anyone would argue this is a bad idea. In fact, if both parents are together, it would be even better if they both could have time off with the new child. For a whole year would be wonderful. However, it is a question of priorities.

    If the government wants to run a zero budget, or reduce debt through reducing expenditure even further, then something else has to miss out. If the government increases income through higher taxation or borrowing, then that extra funding could have been applied elsewhere. Perhaps more hip operations, or increased funds for parents to care for disabled children maybe.

    • Roy 12.1
      11 April 2012 at 2:08 pm

      Hip operations for old farts who are socially and biologically obsolete, rather than paid parental leave for the citizens of the future? Makes no sense at all. What we ought to have is palliative care only for anyone over 75. Oh yeah, and means-tested superannuation. That would save a lot of money that could be spent on people who are more valuable to society: Babies and children!
      There is no more important time of life than prenatal, infancy and childhood. THAT’S where we should spend money, not on the Greedy Greys.

      • tsmithfield 12.1.1
        11 April 2012 at 2:22 pm

        See if you still think like that when you’re over 75.

        • King Kong 12.1.1.1
          11 April 2012 at 2:31 pm

          See if you still think like that when you are over 18.

          • tsmithfield 12.1.1.1.1
            11 April 2012 at 2:56 pm

            To true. 🙂

            • Roy 12.1.1.1.1.1
              11 April 2012 at 3:24 pm

              I’m over 50. I still think people over 65 are socially and biologically obsolete, and need to get their greedy snouts out of the trough and recognize that infants and children matter far more than they do. If my kids don’t love me enough to help me when I’m old, that’ll be my fault and proof that I failed as a parent. I think they will help me, though. Why, won’t yours help you?

              • Colonial Viper …
                11 April 2012 at 4:13 pm

                I still think people over 65 are socially and biologically obsolete

                Some are, but some get this way by the time they turn 35.

                Frankly, some of our rasher younger ones have a lot to learn from our wiser older ones.

              • lprent …
                11 April 2012 at 4:15 pm

                Ummm. An interesting viewpoint. So because I didn’t have kids to support me (I merely supported my parents helped raise my sisters kids and half of the teens around the family), then by definition I will be worthless.

                Damn I knew that I should have never paid all of those taxes for the superannuation of others and to help raise all of those kiddies.

                Basically, I’ll file you under category “A fool for the teasers to play with” aka dickhead

                • tsmithfield …
                  11 April 2012 at 4:21 pm

                  I can’t tell if this person is left wing (e.g. he wants to spend lots of money on children and babies) or right wing (e.g. he wants to reduce costs), but you can have him on your team if you want.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    12 April 2012 at 2:06 am

                    It seems the Right haven’t figured out that in an aging population, you have to look after the young ones and keep them in NZ, or you’re going to be stuffed when its your turn to be a geriatric cripple.

                  • Roy …
                    12 April 2012 at 10:31 am

                    I want to spend lots of money on babies and children, and I propose to raise the money by halting the absurd practice of throwing superannuation at multi-millionaires (e.g. Bob Jones, Don Brash)just because they are over 65. Hence, I think superannuation should be means-tested so that if you have lots of money from other sources (continued employment, investments etc) you don’t get it. That’s what Australia does, and it works.
                    I am also opposed to squandering money on top-of-the-line medical care for people over 75, at the taxpayer’s expense. Hence, palliative-only care for those over 75, or maybe over 80. Whatever. I’ve seen in my own family people well into their 80’s, whose bodies are trying desperately to die, being propped up at ridiculous expense to the taxpayer, and I know plenty of medical and nursing professionals who complain about the same thing. Society’s attitude that length of life, rather than quality, is important, is foolish. So is our practice as a society of pandering to the aged and assuming that grey hairs mean wisdom, while treating children and those who care for them with contempt. That’s completely ass-backwards. Grey hairs don’t mean wisdom; people who have been stupid all their lives stay that way when they are old or get worse as senility sets in. Infants and children are the most important stage of life, in terms of establishing the physical, mental and social health of the person for the rest of their life, and we should be recognizing them as the most valuable. Old people should have the humility to recognize that their time is over and that it’s someone else’s world now. Instead we have the Greedy Greys enjoying the lowest poverty levels of any demographic (<5%) while 25% of children grow up in poverty. That's obscene, and it suggests that sociopathy is epidemic among our elderly.

                • Roy …
                  12 April 2012 at 10:34 am

                  If you didn’t have kids, you should have been able to save $$$ for your retirement and medical care therein. If you didn’t save, that makes you the dickhead.

                  • lprent …
                    12 April 2012 at 12:26 pm

                    Apart from my own personal stash, I have also paid taxes for a universal untargeted national superannuation and the health system. That makes that system simple, effective, and covers the whole of our society. If you want more than is available from that, then you pay for your own extras like health insurance and extra savings.

                    The costs of means testing most of these types of systems almost invariably costs more for both the system and participants than what would be saved. It is cheaper for society to not means test. It is only a few mindless dorks like yourself who prefer inefficient systems who ever argue against it.

                    Doesn’t rely on freeloading on kiddies – which is what you were advocating.

              • King Kong …
                11 April 2012 at 5:02 pm

                You make a splendid argument for privatised healthcare.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 12.1.2
        11 April 2012 at 3:15 pm

        And what about disabled people?

        Thats about $2 bill a year for people who will never work and are also “socially and biologically obsolete”

        • Roy 12.1.2.1
          11 April 2012 at 3:26 pm

          Why do you assume disabled people are socially and biologically obsolete? I wouldn’t make that assumption. I know too many disabled people who are socially and/or biologically functional.

          • ghostwhowalksnz 12.1.2.1.1
            11 April 2012 at 4:19 pm

            Your argument is absurd. Now we are down to choosing who is obsolete because you know a few that arent?

  13. jcuknz 13
    11 April 2012 at 11:59 am

    If you are going to keep the children you have around eight/nine months to prepare for the expense …. if you cannot afford it then take precaustions so you don’t have children. The world doesn’t need more children.
    I am sure the money can be found, just borrow more.
    It is typical and foolish left wing ‘money grows on trees’ thinking.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 13.1
      11 April 2012 at 1:43 pm

      Thats why the taxpayers spent $1 billion plus to the investors in SCF, plus the bondholders who werent guaranteed.
      They got the money because it was ‘tidier’

    • ghostwhowalksnz 13.2
      11 April 2012 at 1:50 pm

      What about this on IRD website for 2012

      You may be eligible for a tax credit if you:

      paid for childcare or a housekeeper.

      Paying for childcare is a tax credit, ie government giving you money , while an extra 14 weeks parental leave is impossible since money doesnt grow on trees

    • QoT 13.3
      11 April 2012 at 7:18 pm

      take precaustions so you don’t have children

      Check it out! JC has discovered a completely free, convenient, 100% effective method of contraception! Awesome! Or, possibly, lives in a magical alternate New Zealand where abortion is legal! Someone pass the ‘shrooms, I wanna go visit.

  14. Sam Hill 14
    11 April 2012 at 12:41 pm

    I get the point of the graphs. Our economy is in so much debt that $150 million is hardly a significant amount to be spending to insure that kids form a bond with their parents. All those people arguing against this because we can’t afford it should be thinking about whether New Zealand even has a chance of fixing our 40 years broken economy without a very radical government being elected. At the moment National and Labour have neither the guts nor the brains to come up with anything that addresses the major problems facing this country.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 14.1
      11 April 2012 at 2:31 pm

      Yeah right , how come ACTs policies which you endorse got a little over 1%.

      The government borrows for the same reason companies do. It spreads the cost over future generations who will benefit.

      • Sam Hill 14.1.1
        11 April 2012 at 3:59 pm

        What are you on about? I don’t endorse Act’s policies. Where did you get that preposterous idea?

        We need to make land available to provide affordable housing for the next generation of New Zealanders. We need to smash down many of our poorly built, damp, leaky homes and build new sustainable homes. We need to understand that Auckland will not be able to cope with the crisis emerging in that city because it has neither the finances or the logistical ability to cope with the task. Christchurch is facing huge pressure right now, but our largest city will face massive population, economic and housing problems in the next 20 years.

        The entire country needs to understand these issues and think of nationwide solutions to the problems. We need to stop looking at homes as financial assets to make a profit on and start thinking about them as a basic human need.

        • Reagan Cline 14.1.1.1
          11 April 2012 at 6:38 pm

          Sam, our government needs to ensure that affordable housing is available to those on a low income, particularly those who support others.
          The interest in Property and Cars is obvious. Look at the Herald supplements, listen to conversations over the back fence. It is pretty strong in NZ – would take a bit of changing.
          It does provide employment – estate agencies, lawyers offices, painting, building, plumbing and electrical and gas fitting firms, furniture and household goods like bathroon and kitchen fittings shops etc etc.
          The craving for capital gain on residential property provides a lot of employment and encourages do-it- yourself endeavours and property maintenance (a creative endeavour – very satisfying to many).
          People making a buck out of residential property is acceptable in my book as long as everyone can readily afford to live in a house or apartment. Housing is a fundamental need and a good government would make sure it was available.
          My own view is all land should be owned by a democratically elected body with universal suffrage and compulsory voting, no election advertising other than of policies and a funding ceiling – and rented out as need be. Owning things is crazy when you can borrow and share.

  15. Treetop 15
    11 April 2012 at 12:42 pm

    The government not finding 150 million a year for child welfare is the third strike for me.

    First strike: punitive policies for parents receiving the DPB.
    Second strike: not completing research and discussion on the green paper (child welfare).
    Third strike: will only increase paid parental leave to 26 weeks if it is going to cost them votes.

    The Nats need to consider a by election being held due to the unexpected occuring.

    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 15.1
      11 April 2012 at 3:31 pm

      Oh noes. Did you vote National last election?

      • Treetop 15.1.1
        11 April 2012 at 4:26 pm

        Did you vote National last election?

        Do I sound as though I would vote for National?

        I always vote.

        • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 15.1.1.1
          11 April 2012 at 4:31 pm

          So what was all that strike nonsense? You were never going to let them bat anyway.

          • Treetop 15.1.1.1.1
            11 April 2012 at 4:47 pm

            You were never going to let them bat anyway.

            I do not go around with blinkers on my eyes when it comes to any government. Occasionally I like a National Government policy. When I feel that a government is getting it wrong I will voice my opinion as I have in 15 and I do realise that I am being judgmental.

  16. Jeremy 16
    11 April 2012 at 3:28 pm

    I agree it’s not a question about being too expensive.

  17. Pete George 17
    11 April 2012 at 4:29 pm

    Apparently the veto is going to happen according top @avancenz:

    English says govt will veto paid parental leave bill.
    He says it will not be politically damaging as the public are “pragmatic.”

    It will be interesting to see how “pragmatic” the public are, especialy when English is making this decision before the actual size and timing has been discussed and decided in parliament.

  18. Ed 18
    11 April 2012 at 5:24 pm

    NRT has an interesting perspective on this
    http://www.norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/financial-veto-and-constitution.html
    Would a majority in favour of the bill be prepared to also vote to suspect Standing Orders?

    • Ed 18.1
      12 April 2012 at 12:02 am

      Of course I should have said suspend not suspect.

      Is such a suspension of standing orders possible by a majority of members of parliament?

  19. fender 19
    11 April 2012 at 5:43 pm

    Its interesting that Double Dipton says we cant afford this and need to wait until we return to surplus, however surely the same argument would apply to cutting taxes.

    • Treetop 19.1
      11 April 2012 at 6:05 pm

      English is not interested in the gains, all he is focusing on is the money hook.

      A major gain would be giving a woman 12 extra weeks to sort out post – natal depression which is not always picked up in the first 14 weeks of a delivery.

      Even if extending the Paid Parental Bill does not make the third reading, I hope that it is debated in the House.

      • Jim Nald 19.1.1
        11 April 2012 at 6:12 pm

        Is TAB taking bets that John Key will go ahead and kill le Bill ?

        • bad12 19.1.1.1
          11 April 2012 at 11:00 pm

          Nah the Tory’s are fronting the Member from Dipton on this, no-one likes Bill so they consider that there is less damage being done to the Party overall at a time when the support has definitely gone soft than have Slippery on the TV giving out the negative message,

          In such situations We don’t see Slippery as having the intellectual rigour to front foot stuff like this anything past the politics of smile’nwave is way over our Prime Ministers head…

    • David H 19.2
      11 April 2012 at 11:01 pm

      And what about the double dipton dipping on his properties???? Farkin thief.

    • PoliticallyCorrected 19.3
      12 April 2012 at 4:23 pm

      Surely the same argument would apply to his double dipton accommodation rort.

  20. George D 20
    11 April 2012 at 6:19 pm

    The moment it becomes about cost, the debate is lost. It’s their spin trump card. Never mind that we can afford it; what do families know about government finances?

    It’s about families, children, mothers, fathers, people. Not cost. It was very nice to see Labour put a policy-based hit on the government. But if they don’t go into an intense media-drive, with a disciplined message about families, they’ll lose the impetus they’ve built. That would be disappointing.

  21. Descendant Of Smith 21
    11 April 2012 at 6:33 pm

    Of course if they paid more money directly to the families there would be:

    1. Less paid to the private sector from government funds for childcare
    2. Less DPB paid as some people currently do separate due to the financial pressure

    It makes no sense to pay childcare centres money to care for some mothers child who has to go to work – much of which would then be paid in childcare.

    Of course if they lifted the minimum wage to a decent amount.

    Here’s some expenditure they could cut:

    It also shows the cost of consultants at the Treasury has increased from $1.5 million in 2008 to $8 million in 2011.

  22. fatty 22
    11 April 2012 at 6:58 pm

    This is National’s forward thinking again…in 16-20 years we should have ourselves a significant crime spike which will create a number of jobs – police, social workers, law etc.
    Reminds me of how Fatty Brownstain claims to be building roads cause oil prices are cyclical…that will come in use in 10million years.

    Roads ‘already paid for’ is a stupid line to suck in stupid voters. Tax is tax, spending is spending.
    please, can people try not to be stupid

  23. Steve 23
    11 April 2012 at 8:07 pm

    Complete BS that we as a country cannot afford this..

    Cancel Puhoi-Wellsford in its current form and instead spend $3-500m on Operation Lifesaver to bypass Warkworth and alleviate the bottleneck at the end of the Northern Gateway. This is estimated to bring in approx 80% of the Puford benefits which if you believe has a BCR of around 1 on a $1.5-$2b project would result in between $1.2-$1.6b of benefits for Lifesaver and BCR of at least 2.4. Wow a BCR that suggests a project is worth doing1

    With the remaining $1b or so spend some on upgrading / extending the North Auckland Rail line to Marsden Point so big freight trains can run from the deepwater port to Auckland. This not only reduces the some of the need for a trucking route but also saves us in maintenance to repair the damage that the bigger trucks on the road do.

    We’ve still probably got $750m left which pays for 5 years of extending paid parental to 6 months and there are likely to be other benefits e.g. costs avoided that make the return on this investment well worth it.

    We could also look at rebalancing some of the WFF spend e.g. why are taxpayers contributing where there are more than 3 kids – population replacement is only 2 point something. Am all for population replacement, but beyond that.. Same could apply with paid parental to make it more equitable..

  24. Foreign Waka 24
    11 April 2012 at 8:24 pm

    I am reading through the comments and a lot of them are about roads, taxes, cars etc…. not many comments about mothers who have to get ready in all but three months to go back to work. Many European countries have a minimum of 1 year maternity leave because of the support for mother and child to establish and maintain breastfeeding, bonding between child and mother, any routine development – sleeping, feeding, health issues etc. I belief that 1 year should be the minimum, after which a good daycare center that has some understanding of the importance of the child’s brain development over the next 2-3 years.Of cause such wild and lofty ideas would need investment but I guess the difference to politicians is the choice of words for such undertaking. One should not forget that a parent thinks about a child’s future that goes beyond 3 years and some populist pondering to the one’s who sponsor the election campaign.

  25. Blue 25
    11 April 2012 at 8:42 pm

    This is what really pisses me off about Labour. Priorities. Extending paid parental leave is a nice idea. But it is not really top priority at the moment. The current leave entitlements are far from barbaric, the country is in the economic shit, and there are bigger fish to fry.

    But Labour only ever get headlines for shit like this, making them look like morons who live on a different planet to most Kiwis.

    This is not the right time for this bill, it’s as simple as that.

    If there is one thing that lame-duck Shearer could try to get right, it’s making sure that Labour focus on and are seen to focus on what is most pressing and important.

    • QoT 25.1
      11 April 2012 at 8:47 pm

      You know Labour’s in Opposition right now, right? You know that the bill is a Private Member’s Bill in the name of Sue Moroney, so not actually official Labour policy (though obviously it has the support of the caucus) right?

      On top of those annoying little facts … you’re talking about a bill which has an obvious good social impact, for comparatively low cost, one which at least in its first reading will have the support of a majority of Parliament, every party except NACT, and is garnering a lot of media attention which is at worst neutral publicity-building and at best a signal to disaffected centre-left voters that Labour gives a shit about important social issues …

      Yeah. Such a terrible own-goal. *headdesk*

      (Well, I’m sure they’ll find a way to spin it wrong, in which case you might have a point, but right now? Not so much, mate.)

      • Blue 25.1.1
        11 April 2012 at 8:55 pm

        I am not saying that this is a bad idea. I am saying it blatantly flies in the face of the public mood at the moment. If the economy was healthy, then I would say go ahead, have at it. But it’s not.

        Times are tough, and people in the street know that because they are suffering. They want a party that understands that, not one that looks like it doesn’t get it.

        Labour right now look like they don’t get it. However the bill came about, all the public sees is Labour with a ‘let them eat cake’ attitude. It is a PR disaster.

        • Colonial Viper 25.1.1.1
          11 April 2012 at 9:04 pm

          You’re no judge of the public mood.

          However the bill came about, all the public sees is Labour with a ‘let them eat cake’ attitude. It is a PR disaster.

          WTF are you on about.

          How does extending parental leave equate at all with a dismissive “let (the poor) eat cake” attitude? Let’s hear your logic.

          • Blue 25.1.1.1.1
            11 April 2012 at 9:17 pm

            It’s about having no idea and being out of touch. If the poor are rioting because there is no bread, well, why don’t they eat cake instead?

            If the people in NZ are struggling with job insecurity, rising living costs and the public services they rely on being cut, do they really give a shit about extending paid parental leave that they will never take because they are too worried about not having a job to come back to?

            It’s about priorities. Extending paid parental leave = cake. Fixing the economic shitstorm we are currently in = bread.

            • Colonial Viper 25.1.1.1.1.1
              11 April 2012 at 9:34 pm

              It’s about having no idea and being out of touch. If the poor are rioting because there is no bread, well, why don’t they eat cake instead?

              Which riots (literal or metaphorical) are you referring to?

              do they really give a shit about extending paid parental leave that they will never take because they are too worried about not having a job to come back to?

              A large proportion of the million or so employed women in this country will care.

              It’s about priorities. Extending paid parental leave = cake. Fixing the economic shitstorm we are currently in = bread.

              Labour can’t fix the economic shit storm we are in. Well, it could, but its not going to be the kind of fix which ‘brings back BAU growth’ and anyhows, the will is not there to do it.

            • Ed 25.1.1.1.1.2
              12 April 2012 at 12:05 am

              So if it is just priorities, would 0.5 % added to all tax rates increase revenue by more than enough to pay for it? That would be choosing a different priority wouldn’t it? Would 0.1% be enough?

              Alternatively, we know that the government believes that reducing the top tax rate stimulates higher profits and increased tax revenue – would a reduction in the top tax rate of say 1% be enough to generate additional revenue to cover this initiative?

        • QoT 25.1.1.2
          11 April 2012 at 9:42 pm

          … You don’t think the “people in the street”‘s concerns also include “how the fuck can I afford to have kids / why would I even bother having kids when I’ll have to go straight back to work”?

    • Draco T Bastard 25.2
      11 April 2012 at 9:28 pm

      The current leave entitlements are far from barbaric, the country is in the economic shit, and there are bigger fish to fry.

      Actually, economically, we’re not – financially we are but that’s all delusion anyway.

  26. Tombstone 26
    11 April 2012 at 9:18 pm

    Hand outs to the rich no problem – do something for our mums and their babies and suddenly the National faithful are beating their chests and claiming that it’s unaffordable and just another case of handouts for bludgers. Seems to me that the National faithful are just a pack of sorry arsed wankers who love nothing more than worship false gods and sneer at those who they consider to be beneath them. It’s called ignorance.

  27. just saying 27
    11 April 2012 at 9:54 pm

    30 years ago I would loved to have had another child. We chose not to because we both worked and could not afford the time off. $150m in the scheme of things is not a lot (if that is the correct figure). The author mentions some National errors etc, so identify those costs, eliminate them and then we can afford the parental leave.

  28. Steve Wrathall 28
    11 April 2012 at 10:45 pm

    So, $1B/month of extra debt piled onto our children is unsufficient? You want to increase this further by even more middle-class welfare? Obviously Labour’s learned nought from last year’s public rejection of their sanctimonious spendthrift ways and their smearing their opponents as anti-family. And funny how the bloated Euro welfare states thrown up as examples to emulate in this debate are hurtling towards bankruptcy and desperately trying tio claw back their entitlements. Yeah, lets follow them over the cliff.

    • Billy Fish 28.1
      11 April 2012 at 10:51 pm

      “And funny how the bloated Euro welfare states thrown up as examples to emulate in this debate are hurtling towards bankruptcy and desperately trying tio claw back their entitlements. Yeah, lets follow them over the cliff.”

      some are and some aren’t so this is a diversion and pointless issue to raise.

      the question of piling an extra $1B per month onto debt is a valid one and how this pans out in this discussion is a good question.

    • Descendant Of Smith 28.2
      11 April 2012 at 11:00 pm

      If you were being consistent you would agree that the tax cuts National gave were unaffordable.

      You would also be critical of much of this government’s expenditure including giving more money to private schools, the spending on the roads that make little difference to the country, the increase in the Prime Minister’s support team, the shift of money to private enterprise via consultants, the Prime Minister awarding financial cash prizes to people, the payments made to Jenny Shipley et al for doing what in Chch ( if you can tell me what Shipley has actually done to earn her money I’d be gobsmacked), the “loan” to cover Mediaworks licensing fees, the millions thrown at religious fundamentalists for “parenting programs”, and so on.

      The list of expenditure we could not afford is endless.

      You would be highly critical of the government extending the bailout further for SCF and also including interest payments over and above.

      You might also be arguing for income testing of NZS.

      This government has borrowed more money than any other government and somehow you think they are some sort of financial maestro who have the country’s interests at heart.

      The only austerity measures being implemented are on the most vulnerable – it’s completely fucked up and upside down.

  29. james 111 29
    12 April 2012 at 7:00 am

    Interesting when Labour was in and brought in parental leave for 3 months.The mother and leader of the party at that time Helen Clark was asked why they didn’t do 6 months like other countries? She replied we looked at it but it was unaffordable.
    So it was unaffordable then in better economic times than now . Why would it be affordable now?

    Very hypocritical for the Labour party to even be supporting the bill.This is the issue I have with the Labour party there is no pragmatism,and realism.

    • Colonial Viper 29.1
      12 April 2012 at 6:29 pm

      So it was unaffordable then in better economic times than now . Why would it be affordable now?

      Uh, because Labour had a whole range of other important things to spend on back then, and 3 months was a vast improvement on no months. Any other daft questions?

  30. james 111 30
    12 April 2012 at 7:18 am

    Can anyone tell me what the Meatworkers union has been doing with all the funds it has been receiving as it certainly hasnt been fully declaring them. Surely they havent been ripping off the workers ?

    CEO Hamish Simson says the union has not declared its total income, and has failed to disclose what it does with its members’ contributions.

    “It appears from the union’s published financial statements that only a fraction of its total income has been declared,” says Mr Simson.

    “Affco workers contribute over $500,000 to the union each year, paying $5.95 each per week. Affco workers represent less than 10 percent of the 23,000 members the Union says it has and yet it only declares revenue of just over $700,000 per annum”.

    • fender 30.1
      12 April 2012 at 6:43 pm

      Hey “old sock jim”, check out what the SFO spokesman had to say on the matter. He stopped short of calling the allegations “frivolous” to protect himself legally, but its clear to all that Affco were just trying to detract from the real issues with their mud slinging. Theres been no misappropriation of funds as the Union are an honest bunch and dont operate like many dishonest companies, however much you wish they would.

  31. Jenny 31
    12 April 2012 at 7:31 am

    Dictatorship

    Democracy suffers with use of veto.
    What is even more appalling, is that this first ever unprecedented use of the veto in the history of our parliament is being used not in war, or Depression, or dire national emergency but to attack mothers and infants.

    Acting Prime Minister Bill English confirmed yesterday the Government would stop Labour MP Sue Moroney’s member’s bill, which would have increased the allowance from 14 weeks to 26 by 2014.
    The bill seemed likely to pass after most political parties, except ACT and National, had indicated they would vote for it

    stuff.co.nz Last updated 05:00 12/04/201

    The big lie

    Like all attacks on democracy it requires the big lie.

    A Big Lie from a government that has thrown away $billions on bailouts, and tax cuts for the well off.

    “The Labour Party don’t appear to have learnt anything, they think that handing out lollies is how you get political favours.”
    Bill English Stuff.co.nz

    Why aren’t we marching in the street?

    Labour or United Future should be calling a rally on the steps of parliament to protest this attack on our democracy.

  32. james 111 32
    12 April 2012 at 5:36 pm

    So lets explore this Labour fairy dream with a bit more depth it is an own goal as they knew they could never fund it when they were in office Helen Clark said it was to costly. Lets say it got through by some stroke of appalling bad luck

    Here is a very likely Scenario
    Candidate A a male 26 years degree qualified comes for a job well presented could do the job
    Candidate B a female 26 years degree qualified comes for a job well presented could do the job

    Both are equally qualified and could do the job

    I am the employer guess who I will employ every time the Male because there will be less business interruption, and cost to the business . This one change could easily stop females being employed at the same rate as Males.
    Just as Labour thought they were being cute in increasing minimum rates we have never seen so many youth unemployed because an employer can hire an experienced person for the same cost.This is the trouble when you become blinded with ideology you cant look at things rationally and end up shooting own goals

    • handle 32.1
      12 April 2012 at 5:46 pm

      “This is the trouble when you become blinded with ideology”? Your lack of self-awareness is priceless.

    • Colonial Viper 32.2
      12 April 2012 at 6:31 pm

      Lucky most employers I know aren’t as prejudiced and bigoted as yourself.

      Just as Labour thought they were being cute in increasing minimum rates we have never seen so many youth unemployed because an employer can hire an experienced person for the same cost.

      That’s mainly because National dumped older experienced workers as waste into unemployment lines.

    • QoT 32.3
      12 April 2012 at 8:38 pm

      So … the point is that you’re an idiot sexist?

  33. millhouse 33
    12 April 2012 at 6:09 pm

    If you were the employer and employed the man every time regardless of qualification?

    My guess is you would quickly get a visit from the Labour Department / Human Rights Commission for violating the Human Rights Act and the Employment Relations Act. Following that visit you would then find yourself being fined at the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

    • james 111 33.1
      12 April 2012 at 6:27 pm

      Millhouse
      At the end of the day its my choice both are equally qualfied. I chose to take the Male because he was a better fit. It could never be proven as discrimination. Believe me it would happen ,and the trendy lefties havent even thought it through. Females would be disadvantaged by this move and there would be less employed for sure because of a move like this that would not have wide spread employers support ( you know the evil bastards that create jobs for people)

      • millhouse 33.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 6:51 pm

        james 111, I believe that the Human Rights Review Tribunal would call choosing the male every time, as they have in the past, a “pervasive pattern of gender discrimination”.

        Also:

        Q). What two things do Sweden, Denmark, Canada and Norway all have in common?

        A). They all have equal or higher rates of female workplace participation* as New Zealand whilst also having more than six months of paid parental leave.

        *2010 World Bank “Labor force participation rate”

        • james 111 33.1.1.1
          12 April 2012 at 7:18 pm

          Millhouse
          They wouldn’t even know it of course would be done subtly no one would know .Some what similar to Labour filling the Government departments with their cronies. Before you knew it there would be alot fewer females of that age employed over the country in relation to males, everyone would be asking why is this? When the answer would be staring them in the face!

          • fender 33.1.1.1.1
            12 April 2012 at 7:48 pm

            OMG james, you have to stop posting once you are drunk, you are embarrassing yourself.

          • millhouse 33.1.1.1.2
            12 April 2012 at 8:03 pm

            According to both Statistics New Zealand and Treasury female workplace participation rose following the first introduction of paid paternity leave.

            Really, what are you even talking about?

      • prism 33.1.2
        12 April 2012 at 7:05 pm

        ‘A better fit’ gives me fits. Another way of saying – matches my prejudices.

        • rosy 33.1.2.1
          12 April 2012 at 9:25 pm

          hmm. I know exactly the sort of employer he would be (if he made it that far). I once lost out on a job to someone like him. It was something I was easily qualified for and I was the best candidate – I lost to nobody, there wasn’t another person he’d interviewed who he thought could do the job as well as me. But the potential employer couldn’t take the risk that I might take time off because of my children, even though I had an excellent employment record and had just completed a 3yr degree in… 3 years, . He told me that himself and then re-advertised. To this day I hope he got someone who got pregnant after paid parental leave was introduced 😉

      • Descendant Of Smith 33.1.3
        12 April 2012 at 9:08 pm

        James:

        You’re already a prejudiced idiot like Alasdair Thomson so it’s probably fortunate that you wouldn’t employ women. I’d feel sorry for any that had to work for you.

        You pontificate (note to self: must use two syllable words when responding to James) about how anyone remotely left wing must follow the law e.g. your recent drivel about unions, but somehow the same doesn’t apply to you.

        You are somehow magically above the law.

        Maybe your moniker is more appropriate than you know:

        “James III (10 July 1451 – 11 June 1488) was King of Scots from 1460 to 1488. James was an unpopular and ineffective monarch owing to an unwillingness to administer justice fairly and a disastrous relationship with nearly all his extended family.”

Links to post