Paid Parental

133 comments on “Paid Parental ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lanthanide 1

   10 April 2012 at 1:20 pm

   If the bill was passed, would it have any implication on the government’s supply and confidence of the house? This is essentially a bill that will spend government money.
   • Gosman 1.1

     10 April 2012 at 1:56 pm

     If it requires Government money in it’s implementation then yes it is a matter of supply and confidence. Matthew Hooten hinted that it would likely need some when he discussed this on Radion NZ National Nine to Noon programme this morning. Therefore the bill is dead in the water. Nice try from Labour though.
     • Lanthanide 1.1.1

       10 April 2012 at 2:00 pm

       But what happens if parliament (61 votes to 60 against) passes a bill that requires spending but that spending isn’t authorised in the budget?
       • Gosman 1.1.1.1

         10 April 2012 at 2:07 pm

         As Matthew Hooten pointed out, Bill English could simply turn around and state that he isn’t under any obligation to provide funding for the bill won’t and it would kill it stone cold dead. Even if they passed it into law, (unlikely), if the funding wasn’t provded and somebody decided to take this matter before the courts it would be an interesting constitutional case. Can one non confidence and supply law force the Government to spend additional funds when they don’t want to? I would suggest not
         • lprent 1.1.1.1.1

           10 April 2012 at 3:06 pm

           Ah, nope. I have no idea if the bill requires government funding. But if it did and if Bill didn’t want to provide the cash then he’d be required to by the courts to the extent covered by the legislation.

           It isn’t the government who is sovereign, it is parliament. Such a case barely requires the courts to look at it because the intent of parliament would be clear. An injunction requiring the government to do it would be easy to obtain. I think that it’d be highly unlikely that such a case would be allowed an appeal after it was lost.

           In any case he’d be required to account for the obligation in the FRA.

           You should brush up on your constitutional matters…
           • Gosman 1.1.1.1.1.1

             10 April 2012 at 3:18 pm

             Then the bill in effect becomes a supply bill as it requires funding does it not?
             • Lanthanide …

               10 April 2012 at 3:31 pm

               Yes, hence my question about what this would mean for the government.
             • Pete George …

               10 April 2012 at 4:07 pm

               As far as Dunne is concerned he can support it.

               For any who may be surprised about UnitedFuture’s support for Labour’s bill to extend paid parental leave to six months, the explanation is quite simply. UF’s election policy favoured 13 months ppl, so, it is proper to support Labour’s bill as a step in the right direction – in exactly the same way UF is supporting the mixed ownership model for state assets, because that was also in our election policy. It is called consistency and keeping one’s word.

               (posted on FB)

               I don’t see how National could block it due to funding, otherwise they could block other bills that the majority of parliament votes for. That would make a nonsense of parliament. Mondayising will cost the government money (payroll expenses), not talk of that being a supply bill issue.

               All eyes on NZF.
               • Gosman …

                 10 April 2012 at 4:10 pm

                 The trouble is Pete is if Bill English claims this is actually a supply bill and the Government will not support it. At that stage it looks like to get it passed it will become a matter of no confidence in the Government and that might fly in the face of the agreement Dunne signed.
                 • Pete George …

                   10 April 2012 at 4:16 pm

                   Perhaps theoretically he can do that, but as Dunne has confirmed his position already it would reflect poorly on the coalition arrangement and on parliamentary process.

                   I don’t see it being likely, and if he did it would be damaging for National.
               • Frida …

                 10 April 2012 at 4:12 pm

                 Pete, I’ve given you heaps before on your strange views at time and your association with UF but big ups to Peter Dunne on this one (from a pregnant woman whose husband will be staying at home)
             • lprent …

               10 April 2012 at 5:39 pm

               Then the bill in effect becomes a supply bill as it requires funding does it not?

               No. Supply bills are separate and are done at least once each year. The supply part refers to the authorization by parliament to gather taxes and/or borrow rather than ability to spend.

               There aren’t that many examples because most bills that have spending in them. Usually they have the spending limit governed by orders in council or other similar regulatory measures rather than in the legislation. That allows the government to vary the level of spending of something like superannuation.

               However that they have to provide superannuation is governed by the legislation, and there are sometimes constraints in the legislation setting lower limits based on some kind of measures.
           • Pascal's bookie 1.1.1.1.1.2

             10 April 2012 at 3:31 pm

             What happens is that the Finance Min hands a note to the speaker saying that the bill will have a serious effect on the govts finances, speaker then doesn’t allow third reading & vote.

             It’s basically the govt vetoing parliament. Parliament can then respond with a no confidence vote, in which Dunne rolls over.
             • Gosman …

               10 April 2012 at 4:03 pm

               So no show in coming in effect unless Dunne brings down the Government. You lot might have to be nicer to Pete George 😉
               • Colonial Viper …

                 10 April 2012 at 4:12 pm

                 We could be bestest buddies sweetie pies with Pete George and Dunne will still root the country.
               • Pascal's bookie …

                 10 April 2012 at 4:20 pm

                 “Error has no rights”
             • Pete George …

               10 April 2012 at 4:20 pm

               All dramatic speculation – but when did something like that last happen?
               • Pascal's bookie …

                 10 April 2012 at 4:24 pm

                 I dunno when the govt last vetoed a bill the parliament was going to pass, but I/S says National did it during the 93-96 govt.
               • Jenny …

                 10 April 2012 at 8:56 pm

                 The last time that parliament threatened to over rule government was in 1984 over a parliamentary vote on banning Nuclear ship visits. To stop parliament voting to pass that legislation, Muldoon closed parliament and called a snap election.

                 Would Key do the same if he didn’t have the numbers?

                 Informed by Muldoon’s miscalculation. I would doubt it.

                 All it requires is for Peter Dunne to stick to his guns and the Nats will back down.

                 National may even decide to back this legislation in their need to keep United Future on side.

                 If Parliament manage to get this legislation through, it will be a vindication and a triumph for United Future and Peter Dunne personally.

                 If Dunne caves in, it will be the end for him and his party.
           • Matthew Hooton 1.1.1.1.1.3

             10 April 2012 at 8:49 pm

             Sorry, lprent, you may need to brush up on your constitutional matters. What I was referring to on N2N with Kathryn and Josie was the Government’s financial veto provided for in Chapter VI of Standing Orders (see http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/E6C5B1AA-535D-4363-AC16-4AA786FCDD18/74193/standingorders20099996.pdf )
             Under Standing Orders 318 and 319, the Government has a veto over bills like this, so I don’t see it has any chance of going ahead. If the Government decides not to use its veto, it will surely legislate itself for an extension and not let the Opposition take the credit.
             • Colonial Viper …

               10 April 2012 at 8:59 pm

               I really hope that the Government does exercise its veto on this Bill.
             • Pete George …

               10 April 2012 at 9:11 pm

               When did a government last use this option for veto? Just because it’s in standing orders doesn’t mean it’s practiced?

               I don’t see why National can’t just say “we’re against it but we’ll let majority democratic process to go ahead”. They’d get credit from their own supporters but also credit from (some) supporters of the bill.
               • Treetop …

                 10 April 2012 at 9:27 pm

                 National do not know what majority democratic process is, just look at their attitude over asset sales and knowing that Dunne can stop the asset sales were he to really think the matter through.
                 • Pete George …

                   10 April 2012 at 9:31 pm

                   Dunne is being as consistent and true to word on this as on asset sales. It just happens that he’s supporting different sides on different issues.
                   • Matthew Whitehead …

                     11 April 2012 at 2:16 am

                     Except that keeping a promise on your policies is less important than following the will of the electorate for the benefit of the electorate, so nobody really cares about his vague bet-hedging on asset sales where he opposed a policy nobody had to look like he wasn’t going to vote for asset sales he actually supported.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     11 April 2012 at 3:24 pm

                     Dunne is being as consistent and true to word on this as on asset sales.

                     Once a sell out, consistently a sell out. Just don’t expect brownie points for it eh?
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 10 April 2012 at 10:09 pm

                 When did a government last use this option for veto?

                 Well, according to I/S, quite often – especially ’93-96.

                 I don’t see why National can’t just say “we’re against it but we’ll let majority democratic process to go ahead”.

                 Because they’re dictators that want to give themselves and their rich mates tax cuts.
                 • Matthew Hooton …

                   11 April 2012 at 9:36 am

                   That can’t be right because the financial veto was only introduced in 1996 because of the introduction of MMP. I/S must be talking about something else.
                   • Pascal's bookie …

                     11 April 2012 at 2:46 pm

                     A newer post explains the history: http://t.co/mrf2nakj

                     The answer, of course, is Britain. Our Parliament descends from the English Parliament, which began not as an independent, elected, representative body, but as the King’s Parliament. It existed basically for one purpose: to approve taxes to pay for the monarch’s hobbies (such as drinking, buying palaces, and waging war against his fellow monarchs).

                     Of course, it grew into something a little different from that. But the underlying feudal mindset remained (and remains to this day in the UK). So when the British drafted our first constitution in 1852, they included a clause saying that Parliament (or the Legislative Assembly as it was then called) could not appropriate money except as recommended by the Governor. When we took control of our constitution in 1986, this clause was re-enacted:

                     The House of Representatives shall not pass any Bill providing for the appropriation of public money or for the imposition of any charge upon the public revenue unless the making of that appropriation or the imposition of that charge has been recommended to the House of Representatives by the Crown.

                     In other words, Parliament was (still) simply the financial rubber-stamp of the executive.

                     But our Parliament grew again, with MMP shifting power from the executive to the legislature. In recognition of this – and the fact that the government no longer had an inbuilt majority to vote down spending – the Standing Orders were changed, introducing the “financial veto”. This reflected the law at the time. But then, in 2005, the law was repealed. So now we have a financial veto with no underlying statutory authority.
             • lprent …

               11 April 2012 at 1:45 pm

               That is a power that the government may choose to use. Of course it would show that the government has a real problem.

               The immediate result of such a certification would almost certainly be a motion of confidence because it wouldn’t have been used unless there was a danger of the bill passing, ie in the case of a majority coalition like this one, one or more coalition parties wanting to pass such a bill.

               That is of course not a constitutional matter. It is a matter of the internal regulation of parliament by use of standing orders.

               However whoever I was discussing this with yesterday (gosman?) wasn’t exactly discussing parliamentary standing orders. What he was saying is that the government could refuse to fund a bill if it passed and was made an act. That was the complete constitutional bollocks that I was referring to. Acts of parliament are largely controlled using the courts and police. The government is just as subject to their enforcement regime as any other company or individual.
               • Matthew Hooton …

                 11 April 2012 at 1:51 pm

                 Well, it would certainly be a bad look because it would suggest the govt didn’t really control parliament on supply. It’s a matter of debate about whether the Standing Orders are part of the “unwritten” constitution. In a way they sort of are because, for example, they outline how NZ ratifiies a treaty.
2. Tigger 2

   10 April 2012 at 1:35 pm

   Just looked at the full list and there are some really interesting Bills from Labour and the Greens. Meanwhile, what is National concerned with?
   47. Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, Todd McClay

   Good luck to Sue on this Bill.
   • alwyn 2.1

     10 April 2012 at 2:22 pm

     The National party doesn’t need to put up private members bills Tigger.
     It’s only opposition parties that need to do so because any bill that the Government wants debated simply becomes Government business and will autonatically be part of the business of the house. Private members bills put up by Government backbenchers are usually those to change by-laws for local bodies in their electorate or for organisations that are based in their electorate. They are non-contentious in the most part. They can of course be put up by opposition members as well such as the Royal Society bill that Grant Robertson used to prevent any action on private members bills for most of last year.
     If you think that a member will put up a bill that his party leadership doesn’t want him to you are dreaming. Thus only the Labour, Green, NZF and Mana parties will, in general, bother.
     Equally of course they put up bills that they hope will embarass the Government of the day
     • Tigger 2.1.1

       10 April 2012 at 4:57 pm

       Huh? He has put up a Bill about controlling who enters Parliament buildings.
       • Chris 2.1.1.1

         10 April 2012 at 6:04 pm

         Yeah he has, but the point is in normal circumstances the opposition will always have the more interesting private member bills.

         The only ones that a member of National (when National is in power) will put up are ones they personally have strong feelings about that the party doesn’t agree with (unlikely to be many of those as the party wouldn’t put up with it) or useless little ones like the one you mentioned that aren’t worth becoming govt business. 

         To be honest I would assume the main reason they even put any in at all is just so they have a chance to get those bills chosen and therefore deny the opposition a chance to get one of theirs in.

         It would have been the exact opposite situation when Labour was in power (more interesting bills put in by National – note I said more interesting not ones that people on this site are likely to agree with)
     • Jenny 2.1.2

       11 April 2012 at 5:12 am

       Equally of course they put up bills that they hope will embarass the Government of the day

       alwyn 10 April 2012 at 2:22 pm

       Or alwyn, even further than embarrassment, overturn the government’s majority in the house.

       A La’ the 1984 opposition Labour party’s ‘ban nuclear ship visits bill’.
       • alwyn 2.1.2.1

         11 April 2012 at 12:05 pm

         That is certainly the ultimate embarrassment. I’m not actually sure the bill you mention was passed while National was still the Government but Marilyn Waring’s action certainly led to Muldoon’s (alcohol encouraged) snap election and the bill’s subsequent passing.
         Incidentally it was a bill put up by Richard Prebble. I wonder if the current Labour party care to acknowledge that or is Richard still persona non grata?
         I think the comments I made on private member’s bills in general are still valid.
         • Jenny 2.1.2.1.1

           11 April 2012 at 11:03 pm

           It didn’t get put, so it didn’t get passed. But it had already undermined National’s majority. The snap election was called to prevent the vote being passed. Alcohol had nothing to do with the actual decision. After deciding to throw all his stakes on the table and gamble it all on little hope of winning, Muldoon got stuck into the booze, before going on camera to announce his decision to the country and who wouldn’t, in his situation.

           The myth is, that it was the other way round.

           “The prime minister called a snap election because he was drunk”, while amusing, has all the unreality of a fairy story.
3. King Kong 3

   10 April 2012 at 1:43 pm

   This bill will have terrible consequences for the career aspirartions of woman of child bearing age.

   It also shows that Labour is seemingly still the party that loves chucking the countries money into increased benefits
   • Dv 3.1

     10 April 2012 at 1:49 pm

     10 April 2012 at 1:43 pm
     This bill will have terrible consequences for the career aspirartions of woman of child bearing age.

     Why KK?
     • Te Reo Putake 3.1.1

       10 April 2012 at 1:55 pm

       At a guess, because KK thinks most employers are sexist dinosaurs like himself.  He’s probably still trying to work out why Alisdair Thompson doesn’t work for the EMA anymore, too.

       Edit: What a top guess that turned out to be! See below for confirmation of KK’s misogyny.
     • Kotahi Tane Huna 3.1.2

       10 April 2012 at 1:55 pm

       He doesn’t know why, any more than the average parrot really wants a cracker.
     • Gosman 3.1.3

       10 April 2012 at 2:02 pm

       It’s called the law of unintended consequences. If you raise the cost for an employer of having a woman who is not working in the first months of their child’s life it isn’t too much of a stretch to presume that the employer might take this into account when choosing between two candidates for a job, one of whom might become pregnant at some stage in the near future.
       • Kotahi Tane Huna 3.1.3.1

         10 April 2012 at 2:12 pm

         “The law of unintended consequences” – like the way deregulation tends to drive wages and conditions down to the extent that most people can no longer support a family on a single income any more? Or was that an intended consequence?

         How about a new law: the one that says “what do other successful countries do?” Then we could look at Germany, and see that for the first 14 weeks parental leave is paid 100% by the employer, who then pays 65% for the rest of the first year.

         Obviously Germany is a bad example, since it doesn’t fit RWNJ ideology, but here’s the thing: I can’t seem to find a single one that does.

         No wonder the words “right wing” and “deluded” are joined at the hip.
         • Gosman 3.1.3.1.1

           10 April 2012 at 2:19 pm

           Rubbish. There are plenty of examples of countries with rigidities in their labour laws which have the unintended consequences of higher unemployment. You just have to look at places like Spain to see this. As for Germany, I don’t know what the statistics actually suggest about child bearing age woman’s employment rate. Do you happen to have any facts?
           • Bored 3.1.3.1.1.1

             10 April 2012 at 2:29 pm

             And vice versa. I can think of a lot of examples where a lack of rigid labour laws has increased unemployment in other countries. Its the logic of mobile capital, you drive down production costs as far as anybody can with the machine, then you take production to where the labour costs least (China etc). Which means places with shit conditions. Workers in NZ and similar places are then faced with similar shit conditions or no job.

             Tell me Gos, what do you think of the morals of exporting misery? To you is life just a transaction?
             • Gosman …

               10 April 2012 at 2:37 pm

               I don’t agree you export misery. For example Chinese labour costs have been rising steadily over the past decade or so. Chinese workers are having increased living standards. The same applies to other nations where ‘outsourcing’ of Western jobs have occured. This flies in the face of your seeming belief that there is a race to the bottom of standards as a result of this. On top of this the fact that if labour standards alone were the driving factor behind where investment and production took place Africa would be awash with factories.
               • Bored …

                 10 April 2012 at 2:57 pm

                 I knew you would not agree because you are totally incapable of seeing reality, or even with any breadth. Yes Chinese standards come up, so the race to the bottom you describe goes off to Somalia or where ever. Meanwhile the rust belt comes somewhere new (like China) as capital and jobs migrate to the new cheap zone.

                 Fortunately all this will stop, it is predicated on cheap energy and capital abundance, soon to be replaced by localisation and the arch heresy of protectionism.

                 Misery you probably don’t countenance either, have a look at the track record of Nike. it is very well documented (undeniable reality).
                 • Gosman …

                   10 April 2012 at 3:09 pm

                   I obviously completely disagree with your view on this.

                   On top of that you haven’t dealt with my point that if labour standards were the primary decision about where production goes Africa would be awash with factories (As would a place like Bangladesh). The point being there are a multitude of reasons for business being located in an area, labour standards just being one of these.

                   The other problem with your view is it reflects the Mercantalist view of the world where trade is a virtual zero sum equation. This isn’t surprising as you are likely an old school State interventionist. However the benefits of free trade is that the increased activity in one area doesn’t necessary mean the subsequent impoverishment of another.
                   • Bored …

                     10 April 2012 at 3:34 pm

                     Gos, you really need to get off the dogma and open your eyes.

                     So in order:

                     * capital goes where it gets the best deal which means in the case of our current world China, where it gets all sorts of benefits such as infrastructure, repressive regime, cheap labour, lack of regulation, etc etc. The single biggest determinant however as all your neo lib economists will agree is labour “flexibility” aka cheap wages, no conditions. And that means loss of jobs somewhere else, like Spain where youth unemployment is 50% plus, no backfilling of jobs from some imagined “service” industry.

                     * merchantalism…what is wrong with a zero sum gain? A fair trade? if you examine the “Free Trade” agreements in place world wide they are anything but free, they are definitely partisan.

                     * do you object to me describing you as a Randist, or a neo lib ultra? If you could conceive of anything other than communists, socialists and interventionists you would find I live in an entirely different camp. Go guess.

                     * impoverishment of one area in favour of another does not necessarily follow from free trade agreed (see above, free is not necessarily free or fair), it just happens to be the norm.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     10 April 2012 at 3:39 pm

                     The point being there are a multitude of reasons for business being located in an area…

                     The main reasons I see are:-
                     1.) No labour standards
                     2.) No environmental standards
                     3.) A government willing to put the boot in for the benefit of the corporations
                   • Gosman …

                     10 April 2012 at 4:01 pm

                     There’s a dozen or more African nations which would meet those criteria DTB. Yet for some reason Africa hasn’t had the level of investment in outsourced businesses that Asia has. Care to explain that dichotomy?
                   • Gosman …

                     10 April 2012 at 4:05 pm

                     Bored,

                     I don’t mind you calling me anything you like. It is no skin off my nose. I prefer to see myself as a free market realist, along the lines of what The Economist magazine promotes in it’s editorial policy.
                   • lprent []

                     10 April 2012 at 6:10 pm

                     Complete with it’s disdain for the American style of health system?

                     It always amuses me every few years when they point out that the “free market” style health system in the US is both exorbitantly expensive and produces some of the worst public health outcomes.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     10 April 2012 at 5:30 pm

                     Oops, missed one:
                     4.) An educated populace
                   • Gosman …

                     10 April 2012 at 6:51 pm

                     Why do you find that so difficult to understand lprent? The Economists seems eminently practical in it’s views. It acknowledges strengths and weakenesses of all policies. I remember how the two extremes of health systems were compared where both Denmark and the US spent a high amount of GDP (compared to other nations) on health.
                   • Gosman …

                     10 April 2012 at 6:53 pm

                     Zimbabwe has a highly, (or at least did pre 2000), educated workforce DTB. Hasn’t helped it one little bit.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     10 April 2012 at 9:47 pm

                     Zimbabwe has a highly, (or at least did pre 2000), educated workforce DTB. Hasn’t helped it one little bit.

                     And it’s a place where, instead of the government helping the corporation, they’re more likely to nationalise the corporations assets.
                 • Reagan Cline …

                   10 April 2012 at 6:45 pm

                   Gosman, If free market realism means a woman bonded to her child is constrained from caring for the child by fear of loss of employment opportunities and income and if that care nurtures, as Locus put it yesterday, “an individual with consideration for others in society” then free market realism is not the best option.
           • Kotahi Tane Huna 3.1.3.1.1.2

             10 April 2012 at 2:33 pm

             Plenty? Cite them – vague assertions about “places like Spain” don’t cut it.

             I know that Germany has generous paid parental leave, that employers meet the majority of the costs of, and also has a strong economy, but according to you if we offer more parental leave the sky will fall on our heads and there will be bogey-men “unintended consequences”.

             Moving the goalposts to “rigidities in labour law” doesn’t cut the mustard either – NZ being the second third (we slipped a place over the last three years) easiest place in the world to do business.

             Why are right-wingers such cry-babies about measures which if Germany is anything to go by, will be good for the economy?
             • Gosman …

               10 April 2012 at 2:55 pm

               Here is some information about unemployment and labour market rigidities in relation to Spain

               http://business-econ.blogspot.co.nz/2010/09/spains-labor-market-reform.html

               and here is some information about Italy

               http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.ox.ac.uk%2F~hine%2Fseminarpapers%2Fdellaringa%2520paper.DOC&ei=9Z-DT4CnKs-wiQe405WlBw&usg=AFQjCNHrZQejojHP9Smvv3ZYkhNvEUXaGQ&sig2=GsGZ-pYgdDyw6hy4ybjvZQ

               Specifically this section in the last paper is illustrative of my point

               “On the whole, while the effect on overall unemployment seems to be rather small, more relevant and negative effects are produced by stringent EPL on the employment rate of particular categories such as young people, women, and older workers, and also on the long-term unemployment rate.”
               • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                 10 April 2012 at 3:02 pm

                 Why are you wasting your time with these examples, none of which relate to the need for more paid parental leave in New Zealand.

                 Unable to address the specific, you scurry for the security of ideology. Chanting “private good public bad” isn’t an argument, Gossie.
                 • Gosman …

                   10 April 2012 at 3:13 pm

                   Ummmmm..I stated that there were plenty of countries where the rigidities of the labour laws have unintended consequences of higher unemployment like Spain.

                   You then demanded I produce evidence for this which I duly did.

                   You now state that this is not relevant because it has nothing to do with increasing the paid parental leave entitlements in NZ?!? I never stated it did.

                   The whole point of my discussion was about the unintended consequences of labour market reforms generally not specific to NZ nor just around paid parental leave.

                   Additionally I asked you to provide some evidence on german unemployment rates amongst women of child bearing age. Do you have this?
         • Draco T Bastard 3.1.3.1.2

           10 April 2012 at 3:35 pm

           Or was that an intended consequence?

           That was an intended consequence – more people working means that the capitalists will be able to accrue even more unearned wealth. Clip the ticket of 100 people of $1/hour gets the capitalist $100/hour. Add another 100 people…
           • Gosman 3.1.3.1.2.1

             10 April 2012 at 3:56 pm

             Which fails to take into account the law of diminishing return and is another reason why your socialist economics doesn’t reflect reality.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               10 April 2012 at 5:38 pm

               It was a blog comment – not a thesis. That said, one of the drivers of the Crisis of Capitalism is over-production resulting in the reduction and possible elimination of profits. This over-production is why more and more people in the developed world are finding themselves with falling wages as manufacturing is shifted offshore.

               That’s why I say we should only produce what we need whereas capitalists always try to produce more and more.
               • Gosman …

                 10 April 2012 at 6:58 pm

                 Your problem is the mechanism for determining what level it is you need. No other system has proven to be more efficient than the market mechanism in that regard. Good luck with finding a better system. I await your solution with baited breath.
                 • Reagan Cline …

                   10 April 2012 at 7:30 pm

                   Gosman, “an efficient market mechanism determines what level it is you need”. So why is there an advertising industry ?
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   10 April 2012 at 9:33 pm

                   The market system has to be the most inefficient system available as it invariably provides more than what’s needed except in cases of disaster where it provides nothing as the response to the Rena grounding and Christchurch earthquakes has proven.

                   My idea so far:
                   1.) Everybody has access to what resources are available taking into account the environment and recycling
                   2.) Everybody has an equal say in how those resources are used through a democratic system

                   some sub-clauses
                   Everybody is ensured of having housing, enough food to eat and adequate clothing
                   Basic human rights are maintained
                   Everybody is supported and encouraged to do whatever they want to do within the physical limits set by resource availability
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     10 April 2012 at 9:42 pm

                     Good thoughts.

                     2.) Everybody has an equal say in how those resources are used through a democratic system

                     There will need to be a system which refines options for wider consideration, and which takes into account a technical/engineering meritocracy.
             • Colonial Viper …

               10 April 2012 at 5:40 pm

               another reason why your socialist economics doesn’t reflect reality.

               FFS its mainstream “orthodox” economics which doesn’t reflect reality.
               • Gosman …

                 10 April 2012 at 6:59 pm

                 Yeah, sure C.V. When you can bother to actually come up with an alternative come back and let us know what it is. Otherwise go back to mooching off your partners family’s wealth.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   10 April 2012 at 8:01 pm

                   The alternative is simple Gossie. You should look at it because the DGSE models used in orthodox economics are full of crap nonsensical assumptions.

                   Steve Keen has even come up with a quantitative simulated model of some aspects of an alternative.

                   http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/papers/PaperPrePublicationProof.pdf
   • Vicky32 3.2

     10 April 2012 at 5:23 pm

     This bill will have terrible consequences for the career aspirartions of woman of child bearing age.

     I sincerely doubt that! You remind me of a colleague of my late brother, who apparently arrived at work one day in a right pet, furious because he had seen what he called “Girls driving mens’ cars” – in other words, women driving cars newer than 10 years old! 😀
     (I never cease from pointing out, or trying to, that girls are children. Females over 18 are women. Thankfully I don’t need to point that out here, but in society at large, it’s as if the 1980s, when I fought that battle every day of my work life, never happened.)
     • Dave G 3.2.1

       12 April 2012 at 11:24 am

       So Vicky

       PLease explain how this country, which is still recovering form too many years under labour economics, and the GFC and the Christchurch Earthquakes, can actually afford this.

       Then, please explain, how a business owner, is looking at a 30 something woman, who is applying for a job. Its a tough call, her opponent is a 45 year old woman – same skills, same attributes. The employer has a nagging question – will the younger woman want to have kids soon, will she take me for 6 months pay, and leave me without the skills i employed her for…….. think critically. The answer – is YES, its too much of a risk. The older woman will get the job.

       You see Vicki, its economic 101, supply demand. The employer wants a long term employee, yet the younger one WITH SIX MONTHS maternity leave is too much of a risk.

       PS: Happy for you and all woman to drive a new Audi or BMW, or whatever.
       • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1

         12 April 2012 at 12:07 pm

         We afford it by cancelling the RONS. Also by cancelling tax cuts given to rich pricks like Key and English.

         Older experienced workers with good work histories get the job now anyway, compared to 20 year old women with short or nonexistant working histories. So nothing will change on that front.

         As for supply and demand – quite right – as women take extended parental leave, the supply of workers will shrink and the demand for other workers to receive temporary jobs will go up.

         Good isn’t it, love the law of supply and demand 🙂
       • Deborah Kean 3.2.1.2

         12 April 2012 at 5:17 pm

         The older woman will get the job.

         Vicky here! (Something has wigged when it should have wagged, but never mind.)
         I am the older woman, and I don’t get the job! Trust me, I wish I would – but employers other than you, don’t seem to have a problem with fertile partnered women that you do.
         I observe that women generally do return to work, so “take me for 6 months pay” and “leave me without the skills i employed her for” (complaints that seem oddly personal!) don’t really apply. Once in a very long while, a woman will decide not to return to work, but as most do, the odds are very good! Look on the 6 months pay as a retainer, if the young woman’s skills (more often her looks, I sadly observe) are that desirable, surely it’s worth it!
   • Jenny 3.3

     11 April 2012 at 5:23 am

     …..shows that Labour is seemingly still the party that loves chucking the countries money into increased benefits

     King Kong 10 April 2012 at 1:43

     And here I was, thinking that it was National that was “the party that loves chucking the countries money into increased benefits” with $billions heedlessly given in bailouts to rich folk whose bad investments happened to go sour.
4. King Kong 4

   10 April 2012 at 1:53 pm

   Because, like many other employers, I wont go near prospective woman employees, who fit the “likely to get knocked up” profile, with a shitty stick.
   • Kotahi Tane Huna 4.1

     10 April 2012 at 1:56 pm

     While the rest of us look forward to the day when low-life employers like you are a thing of the past 🙂
     • Bored 4.1.1

       10 April 2012 at 2:22 pm

       Funny Kotahi, but as an employer I can see KKs ugly argument, its his pocket (more correctly his companies earnings) that the cash comes from. Personally I think the cost should be socialised in the form of income tax
       • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1

         10 April 2012 at 5:43 pm

         Personally I think the cost should be socialised in the form of an asset/wealth tax

         FIFY
   • Lanthanide 4.2

     10 April 2012 at 2:02 pm

     Women are already entitled to 1 year of maternal leave. At the moment 14 weeks of that is paid by the government and after that it’s up to the woman to choose to continue to use her full 12 month entitlement or not.

     Extending the paid period out to 26 weeks will encourage more women to stay out of the job for 26 weeks instead of just 14, but there’s nothing forcing them to do that. They could still go back to work after 14 weeks if they wanted, or even 8.
   • Treetop 4.3

     10 April 2012 at 3:18 pm

     King Kong I suppose you give woman of menopausal age a wide birth as well, incase they are required to have a hysterectomy due to heavy bleeding, or they have menopausal depression, or they get menopausal migraines for a few days each month.
   • Kaplan 4.4

     10 April 2012 at 3:37 pm

     What a disgusting piece of shitty stick you are yourself.

     Do you realise the employers you describe are parasites in this country. They sit back running their businesses, trying to squeeze every bit of profit out that they can while using all the resources this country provides…

     – Police force to provide them safe workers and protect their business
     – A health system to provide them healthy workers
     – An education system to provide them trained and capable workers
     – Transport systems to get the worlers to and from work

     Then along comes a bill, a no brainer, that helps ensure we continue to churn out happy, trained and capable workers for the businesses of tomorrow.
     But the parasitic, shitty employers you describe are too fucking blinded by their own greed to see anything but the immediate impact on themselves.

     Running a business is a two way contract. The country provides resources and workers and in turn the business provide it’s workers the means to survive. The alternative is a complete welfare state, but you don’t want that do you…

     I hope this comes in and even if some employers like this were sent to the wall, which they wont, long term it’ll be better for all of us.
     • Gosman 4.4.1

       10 April 2012 at 4:13 pm

       How typical hard left thinking. No wonder the Eastern bloc economies imploded under such wrong headedness.
       • Colonial Viper 4.4.1.1

         11 April 2012 at 3:32 pm

         What, like Russia and China, currently with roughly 300 billionaires between them? What kind of “implosion” is that?
   • Blue 4.5

     10 April 2012 at 4:53 pm

     I love right-wing logic. Employers refuse to hire women who seem likely to get pregnant in the near future, and then bellyache at how many ‘bludgers’ there are ‘refusing to work’.
   • Nick 4.6

     10 April 2012 at 6:08 pm

     I’m an employer and hire the best person for the job based on their abilities and experience. What you are talking about is disgusting, socially irresponsible and illegal.

     The fact that National are talking about vetoing this bill because of cost shows how short-sighted and stupid the National party are. The long term costs are less if mums who are going to return to work are given a better opportunity to bond and support their child through crucial first months of their life. Peter Gluckman knows what he’s talking about and there are significant social and economic benefits down the line – National is looking at voting against this before it even gets to select committee and the numbers can be worked out.
     • Frida 4.6.1

       10 April 2012 at 6:11 pm

       +1 Nick. Likewise. And the RWNJs say Labour don’t care about families. Sheesh! Disgusting attitude alright. And so shortsighted. 2014 can’t come soon enough.
   • Reagan Cline 4.7

     10 April 2012 at 7:38 pm

     King Kong. I have been thinking a lot about your post (and what you might be like – are you a man or a woman).
     What is the formal education level of the “prospective women employees” you mention in your post.
     • Colonial Viper 4.7.1

       10 April 2012 at 7:51 pm

       In his mind they’re educated as slappers, drunks, and probable DPB recipients.
5. Treetop 5

   10 April 2012 at 2:29 pm

   26 weeks paid parental leave would have good outcomes for everyone in the family.

   1. I am not a fan of day care for children under six months of age unless it is of a high quality.

   2. I believe that there is a 4th trimester (the first 13 weeks of the infants life) and not just three trimesters. An extra 12 weeks would enable an infant to become more settled and if there are any delivery complications to mother and/or baby 12 more weeks at home may make the difference between continuing working or having to stop work due to health issues.

   3. Adjustment is required for every family member and other children would benefit from having a parent at home full time for 26 weeks instead of 14 weeks. (Children under age five in particular and their day care hours could be reduced). I just hope that ECE centres would allow a temporary reduction in hours.

   4. To be able to breast feed for 26 weeks, some mothers would be able to continue breast feeds longer as two feeds a day is easier to keep up when working and solids are usually always started by 26 weeks.
   • Vicky32 5.1

     10 April 2012 at 5:41 pm

     1. I am not a fan of day care for children under six months of age unless it is of a high quality.

     Absolutely agreed! I stayed home with my sons, the first, I was married and stayed with him until he was 3. With the 2nd, I was on a DPB and gave society a stiff middle finger, as in my view, the child of a single parent needs that parent at home much more than the child of a married couple! (My son also has Aspergers, which I didn’t know at the time.) I had a friend also on DPB who planned to go back to work when her daughter (6 weeks older than my son) was 13 months. Thankfully for S., J changed her mind.
      
6. captain hook 6

   10 April 2012 at 3:15 pm

   I think some of these parents whould be paid to do…uh…you know what!
7. bbfloyd 7

   10 April 2012 at 4:53 pm

   nothing like an attempt to give our children, and ourselves the chance to start life as it was intended by no less authority than creation and evolution to expose the very worst aspects of the kind of self loathing politics that would have us denying ourselves any chance of re-aligning our focus as a species..

   as far as the politics go….the nats/acts will take the low road of obstruction whilst tvnz and sky(prime) news launch propaganda to distract from the less palatable reality of the govt approach….so any lowering of respec/regard will be largely confined to those who are already in the loop enough to have lost respect for the “sparkle” regime long since….

   this craven acceptance, and advocacy for assuming that “realism” requires acquiescence to the stripping away of what used to be one of the foundations of the strong, vibrant country that surprised the world on many occasions, and for many reasons…..

   strong, cohesive family units lead to strong, cohesive communities… which leads to strong, cohesive societies, which leads us to what new zealand was twenty years after the first, great reforming government(micheal joseph savage)began the social, and economic reforms which, until the worldwide corporate takeover, defined us as a country……..

   it’s heartbreaking, and utterly despicable, that for the chance to gather windfall profits from the degrading of the family unit, sees us increasingly willing to turn our backs on what we once were, and could still be….
   • Gosman 7.1

     10 April 2012 at 5:03 pm

     Yeah strong cohesive communities worked really well in places like East Germany and The Soviet Union and work really well in North Korea and Cuba. But I suppose you didn’t mean that sort of cohesiveness or strength because that kind is bad for some reason.
     • Kotahi Tane Huna 7.1.1

       10 April 2012 at 5:39 pm

       Once again Gosman demonstrates complete ignorance of basic human values like resilience and community, and fearing the conversation is once again going into realms beyond his ken, he reaches for his security blankie, and plays the dictatorship card.
       • Gosman 7.1.1.1

         10 April 2012 at 6:55 pm

         Bollocks. All I am highlighting is the fallacy of the argument that having strong cohesive communities guarrantees economic prosperity. It is the standard practice of leftists to argue that these sorts of things leads to economic prosperity virtually on their own. Economic prosperity is a far more complex beast.
         • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1.1

           10 April 2012 at 7:54 pm

           Having strong cohesive communities is more important than having strong GDP growth. The economy exists to promote society, not the other way around.
         • framu 7.1.1.1.2

           11 April 2012 at 7:35 am

           ” virtually on their own”

           you see how you added that bit there all by yourself?
     • Colonial Viper 7.1.2

       10 April 2012 at 7:53 pm

       Yeah strong cohesive communities worked really well in places like East Germany and The Soviet Union

       In the Soviet Union strong cohesive communities (and state provided housing which no one could be evicted or foreclosed out of) were absolutely essential to surviving the economic collapse of the 90’s.

       Listen to some Orlov, mate.
8. Robert Atack 8

   10 April 2012 at 5:48 pm

   Anyone stupid enough to have children at this point in time should be taken out back and shot.
   I will happily subsidise the bullet.
   64,000 in 2011, god save the little buggers, we sure as hell can’t.
   • Pete George 8.1

     10 April 2012 at 6:24 pm

     Thats a disgraceful thing to say Robert.
     • Robert Atack 8.1.1

       10 April 2012 at 7:42 pm

       Ignoring climate change, just looking at our ability to feed ourselves on a reducing level of fossil fuels, it looks like we have to lose about 6 billion people over the next 30 – 40 years, so any volunteers?
       @ 1 child per coupling it would take over 100 years to get the population down to the feeding level we will pass in 30 years, at the very best. And the population is still growing?
       But if we factor in ‘mans humanity to man’ then I’m sure the population will plummet way faster than anyone can imagine.
       So why add another person to suffer this ‘reduction’.
       I know, the economy can’t crash, we got Kiwi Saver. And John Key can always find an expert to give another ‘opinion’ .
       Surly encouraging people to have children is one of the most obvious indicators of our collective insanity. The iceberg is in the rear view mirror, and we are all stuck in steerage.
       • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1

         10 April 2012 at 7:49 pm

         Forget about the world situation mate, just look at NZ. In fact, just look at the 200km radius around you.
       • Treetop 8.1.1.2

         10 April 2012 at 8:05 pm

         You paint a grim picture of humanity and fossil fuels.

         I expect that you own a motor vehicle and you possibly eat meat and travel by air from time to time. As for owning a refrigerater one is required to keep food fresh and is economical when buying in bulk.

         How many children is too many?
         How many cars, cows, refrigerators, air travel is too many/too much?
         • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.2.1

           10 April 2012 at 9:28 pm

           Electricity is, fortunately, not a problem in NZ. Possibly unless you are in Auckland or further north. Its transport fuels which is the kicker for this widely distributed and sparsely populated country.
         • Robert Atack 8.1.1.2.2

           10 April 2012 at 9:46 pm

           If I had a child I think I would be more attached to it than my fridge, etc.
           As far as what I do as a person not responsible for the creation of another human, what dose it matter what I do compared to you? You’ve helped create maybe more than 100 years of future environmental destruction than I have/will
           I’m stuck in this life as much as the next person, only thing is I am lucky enough not to have had children.
           What age do you stop caring for you children? … as they enter the interment camp? As they sneak out to another food riot? When they may be living in a toxic atmosphere, if not your children then maybe your grandchildren.
           We have been a cancer on steroids these past 100 + years, and just like yeast we have gobbled up nearly all the sweet stuff, and turned the environment toxic (to more than just bees).
           We are like a surfer on that perfect wave, we are sitting on the top, just waiting for the global current to suck us down. ‘They” say we are heading for the 70s as far as property values go, I think this thing will be so fast 1970 will be like a star flashing pasted at warp 10.
           So yeah it doesn’t matter if every human left the planet tonight, we are heading for an environment like Venus regardless of how many humans are hear.
           So to say it again, the only way to avoid future suffering, is not to create another human, that is guaranteed to be living when this system finally goes tits up.
           We are all responsible, I’m not really blaming you for your passed ‘mistakes’, it has only really been the passed 30 years climate change/global warming has started to sink in, and the peak oil theory has only been around since about 1956 (54?) But a lot of politicians had a wake up call in 1999, they failed to get the message, and continue to ignore the facts, see any new road…….
           So this year will see another 60,000 more NZ children sent flying through the bottle neck of overpopulation and peak energy,only to come smack up against the cork of climate change, and an uninhabitable planet. Great makes me all paternal .
           • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.2.2.1

             10 April 2012 at 10:05 pm

             We are all responsible, I’m not really blaming you for your passed ‘mistakes’, it has only really been the passed 30 years climate change/global warming has started to sink in, and the peak oil theory has only been around since about 1956 (54?)

             And Malthus wrote his essay on over-population 200 years ago – long before over-population became an issue, long enough for us to do something about preventing it. Instead we exponential, especially after the “green” revolution of the 1950s.

             From what I can make out, the reason we went exponential is because of capitalism’s need for growth.
   • Treetop 8.2

     10 April 2012 at 7:24 pm

     As a mother and gran I find your comment to be offensive. My next grandchild is due soon.
   • Tom Barker 8.3

     10 April 2012 at 7:36 pm

     “Anyone stupid enough to have children at this point in time should be taken out back and shot.
     I will happily subsidise the bullet.”

     What a charming fellow you are, Mr Atack. I wonder whether your parents held the same attitude before you were born. If so, it seems a pity they didn’t act on that attitude while they had the chance.
     • Robert Atack 8.3.1

       10 April 2012 at 7:55 pm

       You are right Tom, if the global population had started going down 50 od years ago, the few people left on the planet wouldn’t be looking at extinction, as we are now.
       I’m not anti children, the non producers are the innocent victims. But I am trying to get people to understand that our future is bloody grim, adding another child, be they all Gandhi or Mother Teresa is only going to add to the sadness most of us are going to have to face.
       Tt it is a shame your children didn’t have the opportunity to watch the bellow You Tube skit, I’ve been watching this stuff unfold for the pasted 12 years. It has only been the last few years we started getting neat video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOMWzjrRiBg
       • Colonial Viper 8.3.1.1

         10 April 2012 at 8:04 pm

         You are right Tom, if the global population had started going down 50 od years ago, the few people left on the planet wouldn’t be looking at extinction, as we are now.

         Oh, I’m sure world population will stabilise around 1.5B to 2.5B. As long as someone decommissions those nuclear reactors properly…
       • Treetop 8.3.1.2

         10 April 2012 at 8:20 pm

         DISEASE is what mankind has to fear the most. At some stage there is going to be a mass pandemic.
         • Colonial Viper 8.3.1.2.1

           10 April 2012 at 8:34 pm

           No disease short of the most virulent pestilence spread by the Four Riders is going to cut down more than 5% of the population of a western country. That would be 220K deaths in NZ, as an example. Bad, but it won’t jepeordise the continuation of the nation or even of most communities.

           So nothing to fear UNLESS the population has already been weakened, which will greatly increase casualties, eg weakend by starvation (due to the end of industrial agriculture), shortages of medicines, heathcare professionals and health infrastructure (due to economic cutbacks), and deterioration in underlying infrastructure e.g. water, power (due to general economic and energy led infrastructure run down).
           • Treetop 8.3.1.2.1.1

             10 April 2012 at 9:02 pm

             There is probably a plan A and a plan B globally on who gets the help first during a pandemic.

             I have to give it to Robert Atack that when it comes to fossil fuels and population that everyone will get it as it will be an environmental catastrophe. I still fear disease outbreak more as environmentally a person has more control over fossil fuels and population increase.
             • Colonial Viper …

               10 April 2012 at 9:18 pm

               I still fear disease outbreak more as environmentally a person has more control over fossil fuels and population increase.

               Ahhhh, then recite after me:

               I must not fear.
               Fear is the mind-killer.
               Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
               I will face my fear.
               I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
               And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
               Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
               Only I will remain.

               The key to surviving a major disease outbreak is to upgrade your own natural immune system fitness for purpose ahead of time. That and having the basic resources of a community who will assist you, and whom you can assist in return.

               The clue is this: most virulent diseases do not kill you outright themselves – they leave you open for opportunistic bugs to kill you, or they force your body to kill itself either through an over-reaction or under-reaction.

               A pathway ahead which should not be underestimated is this: learning how directed emotional and mental energy can alter the reactivity of the body and effectiveness of the immune system.

               The strategy to be used is this: to stop illness at the letter “i”.
               • Treetop …

                 10 April 2012 at 9:46 pm

                 I’m not going to sit here and worry about some fatal disease zapping me in the next 24 hours!

                 When it comes to the immune system a healthy mind keeps the body going longer than an unhealthy thought processes.

                 Conclusion: 26 weeks paid parental leave is an option which all parents could take were paid parental leave extended. I am sure that this would be beneficial for the immune system.
             • Robert Atack …

               10 April 2012 at 10:16 pm

               >I still fear disease outbreak more a person has more control over fossil fuels and population increase.<

               Not at all, New Zealand imports 97% of its transportation fuel 'we' have maybe 3 weeks supply on shore (I don't know if they are counting what's in your tank?), we have no control on our oil supply, thank god Key keeps playing the game, and borrowing fictional BS money, and buying the equivalent of 300 slaves each for every Kiwi, keep those tankers coming I say.
               And what could one person do to affect population increase? Hitler, Stalin, Churchill et al managed about 20 od million, we replace them every 3-4 months at the moment.

               If 'they' have a 'plan A and a plan B' I am bloody sure it will not include you or me, not in a good way.
               • Treetop …

                 11 April 2012 at 12:06 pm

                 >I still fear disease outbreak more as a person has more control over fossil fuels and population increase.<

                 I actually wrote
                 "I still fear disease outbreak more as environmentally a person has more control over fossil fuels and population increase"

                 I wrote this because when it comes to having a defence against a pandemic the only thing I can reley on is isolating myself or hoping that my immune system will ward off the pandemic as there will not be a medication available to prevent a mass outbreak in developed countries.

                 Disease is the biggest killer in third world countries. Were aid to be discontinued malaria, measles, typhoid, influenza, HIV/AIDS would take a stronger hold. People are dying of starvation and the shortage of water and civil war which is not part of my discussion.

                 When it comes to fossil fuels there are a number of things which I can do:
                 1. Not own a motor vehicle
                 2. Not travel by air.
                 3. Limit the number of children which I have.
                 4. Have a vegie garden.
                 5. Boycott overseas produce as the transportation requires fossil fuel.
                 6. Purchase essential energy efficient appliances.
       • bad12 8.3.1.3

         10 April 2012 at 10:33 pm

         Ah its so refreshing to hear from the ”We are all doomed” end of the Green Spectrum, We never bought into the ”Emissions Trading Scheme” to have the ability to do anything except prevent Al Gore and the various other Capitalists firmly attached to its teat from getting a ”real productive job” We have never succumbed to ”peak oil” on the ability to find and suck the stuff outta the ground,

         We do tho agree that the explosive growth of the Humans on the Planet will eventually cause some form of ”peak oil crisis” to occur,

         We do tho see very little problem vis a vis energy supplies for little ole Noo Zealand,there,s an abundance of water here and water contains its own energy,unlocked as (1)Hydro-electric energy simply by running the stuff through a generator and as (2) Hydrogen simply further processing water after it has been run through a generator to create electricity and using the electricity created to ”crack” the water molecules into their relative parts thus producing a combustible gas which when burned gives off as exhaust,(who would have thunk it),water vapor,

         So the way We see it is that We are all hardly doomed,oil aint about to run out any time soon or the oil companies and the car manufacturers,along with the bankers at the top end of this little pile would all be falling all over each other to begin the production of a vehicle fleet that combusts something other than oil and the production of the industrial plants that produce the stuff…
         • Draco T Bastard 8.3.1.3.1

           10 April 2012 at 11:33 pm

           So the way We see it is that We are all hardly doomed,oil aint about to run out any time soon or the oil companies and the car manufacturers,along with the bankers at the top end of this little pile would all be falling all over each other to begin the production of a vehicle fleet that combusts something other than oil and the production of the industrial plants that produce the stuff…

           No they wouldn’t, they’d be falling over themselves to do exactly what they are doing – buying up as much hard assets such as state power companies and generators with delusional money as they can get their hands on.
           • Colonial Viper 8.3.1.3.1.1

             10 April 2012 at 11:40 pm

             Exactly.

             Why would bankers and car makers invest billions in designing advanced new petrol-less mass market vehicles (as opposed to niche toys) when consumer incomes all over the western world are gradually collapsing?

             Where’s the profit in creating products for a market which can’t afford those products?
             • bad12 …

               11 April 2012 at 7:16 pm

               You fail to see the macro aspects involved in the Global financial collapse,the marked collapse of income is in fact to be found in the lower deciles,(who would have thunk it),

               Such lower deciles as far as income is concerned are not the buyers of new automobiles,they are the buyers of used vehicles,

               Our point being that auto-manufacture continues at pace continuing to churn out millions of cars annually, We doubt that should those most in the ”know” in the business world would continue with the oil fueled vehicles should ”peak oil” be just around the corner,

               Having said that tho,as far as auto-manufacture goes it is hardly a huge ask in the field of re-tooling the factory,s in terms of building fuel cells and motors that are compatible whichever mode of fuel is the eventual chosen means of propellent in the future…
               • Colonial Viper …

                 12 April 2012 at 2:37 pm

                 the marked collapse of income is in fact to be found in the lower deciles,(who would have thunk it),

                 Not from what I read. Its the former middle class whose jobs and housing assets have been terminated by the subprime and financial markets scandal.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 12 April 2012 at 2:40 pm

                 We doubt that should those most in the ”know” in the business world would continue with the oil fueled vehicles should ”peak oil” be just around the corner,

                 If there’s money to be made in it today, why would they stop churning out petrol fueled cars?

                 Peak conventional oil was in 2006/07 – its in history now.
   • Colonial Viper 8.4

     10 April 2012 at 7:47 pm

     Actually Robert, of all the countries in the world, I’d say that newborns have the best hope in NZ in a future of energy and resource depletion.

     Which is not to say that life is not going to be exceedingly tough for them in their 30’s and 40’s, it will be.
     • Zorr 8.4.1

       11 April 2012 at 12:40 am

       I am replying to your comment here CV because it seems to be the best place to.

       Ultimately there are 2 situations:
       1) The world goes down the shitter – there are a number of various scenarios but we’re still waiting to figure out which one gets us first
       2) Somehow, magically, shit gets fixed or manages to keep on going

       Under situation (1) i would prefer that it is my bloodline that is continued. I am, after all, a mammal and would like it to be my line that is successfully propagated.

       Under situation (2) we live in a capitalist society dependent on continuous growth and a birth rate of 2.6 when our current birth rate is 2.4.

       In both these situations, having more children is the answer because it provides higher likelihood of your line being successful (even if it is just through more rolls of the dice) in sit. 1 and in sit. 2 it is almost required for us to be having more children.

       At least, that’s the way I justify it to myself. But if you want an easy example that feeds in to a lot of the “civilization is ending” stuff, it is bloody difficult to build a house by yourself.
   • joe90 8.5

     10 April 2012 at 10:43 pm

     Oh I think there are events way worse than anything you could dream up Robert.

     http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/tilmari/tilmari2.htm#bc2193
     • Treetop 8.5.1

       11 April 2012 at 12:14 pm

       This current term of the National Government is enough for NZ to go down the shitter. We are half way there already.
9. Jackal 9

   10 April 2012 at 9:41 pm

   National should support Sue Moroney’s bill because early childhood bonding is all important and babies that have their attachment bond broken are more likely to develop physical and mental issues later in life.

   Many studies show that early childhood development and the attachment bond is all-important. Here’s a good one entitled; Effects of a secure relationship on right brain development, affect regulation, and infant mental health (PDF):

   This relationship between events in early development and a later capacity for change is due to the fact that the early social environment directly impacts the experience-dependent maturation of the limbic system, the brain areas specialized for the organization of new learning and the capacity to adapt to a rapidly changing environment (Mesulam, 1998). Because limbic areas in the cortex and subcortex are in a critical period of growth in the first two years and these same neurobiological structures mediate stress-coping capacities for the rest of the lifespan, early interpersonal stress-inducing and stress-regulating events have long-enduring effects.

   It would be complete hypocrisy for National to not support the 6 months of Paid Parental Bill, when just a few days ago John Key announced a modernised mental health initiative for youth.
10. Matthew Hooton 10

    11 April 2012 at 1:49 pm

    Well, it would certainly be a bad look. A matter of debate about whether the Standing Orders are part of the “unwritten” constitution. In a way they sort of are because, for example, they outline how NZ ratifiies a treaty.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS