Shifting ground: PPL

Written By: - Date published: 11:55 am, October 24th, 2012 - 27 comments
Categories: babies, child welfare, employment, equality, families, feminism, national, workers' rights - Tags: , ,

The government is vulnerable around the Paid Parental Leave Bill.  They don’t want it to pass, but they risk losing support from women for not supporting it.  A financial veto of an entire Bill has never been done before, and it’s experimental for the government. There are certain clear rules around excercising the right of veto, but there also seems to be some uncertainty around specific procedures.

Last night I went to the public meeting in Auckland about Sue Moroney’s Extension of Paid Parental Leave bill. As I indicated in an earlier post an extension to PPL is good for children, parents, families, employees, employers, the community, society, education, health and crime prevention.

Michele A’Court, Sue Moroney, Prof Tim Hazeldine, Marama Davidson, Jan Logie, Jacquie Brown.

According to Sue Moroney nation-wide polling on voting intentions, conducted after her Bill was drawn from the ballot, showed a drop in women’s support for the National Party. The night the Bill had its first reading, government MP’s were viciously aggressive  in the parliamentary debate.  It was the night that the government lost a vote for the first time in 4 years. Some National Party women have privately expressed support for the Bill. It’s thought that some women in the government’s caucus are very uneasy about their party not supporting it.

The government’s threatened veto is by no means a foregone conclusion.  The day the Bill went to select committee, Bill English changed his argument against it. The committee is where the Bill and its costings get thoroughly scrutinised.  So once English’s dodgy figures were going to get shown up, he shifted the reason for opposing it from claiming it’s unaffordable, to “It’s not our top priority…”.  Now the challenge is to provide convincing arguments for extended PPL being a priority.

Tim Hazeldine is an economist after my own heart.  He said he didn’t need to do financial costings to decide that he supports the Bill.  He supports it because it’s the right thing to do. Women have babies, and that has natural consequences; large numbers of women now work in the paid employment.  When it’s right to do something, then a government needs to find a way of funding it.

Hazeldine also put forward some challenges that supporters of the Bill need to be prepared to counter. What will need to lose funding to make way for this Bill?  RONS?  What about unintended  consequences?  More people having babies in an already over-populated world?  However, it’s more likely that the Bill will result in lower birth rates due to it enabling better family planning? Should Boomers like Hazeldine pay for PPL through raising the super age? What about beneficiaries?  They also need financial support, but it doesn’t need to be at the expense of PPL. Supporters of the Bill should not allow themselves to be pitted against other high priority policies and people.

Moroney also said that the Bill has yet to be fully costed, including the benefits and trade-offs that will bring the costs down: e.g. women staying at home to look after their children, means they won’t be using tax payer funding for child care; when an unemployed person is employed to cover parental leave, that’s a little less money WINZ needs to pay out.  And then there’s the long term financial and economic benefits to society in having children growing up well-adjusted, healthy and well-cared for.

Business NZ’s submission comes before the committee today, and it should be worth watching for media reaction. After reading it, Moroney had to check the date on her phone to reassure herself she was not in an earlier century – it could have been written by Alisdair Thompson. (Interview on Breakfast TV One 18 October, with Business NZ CEO Phil O’Reilly).

Note: now it’s “not a top priority” due to current economic conditions, but the Nats opposed the original PPL Bill in 2002 in good economic times. Sue Moroney says she drafted the Bill in 2009, and that it reflects the fiscally-challenged times.

Update:  Reports of heated exchanges at the selct committee during Business NZ’s submission today. TV3, Voxy, Stuff, RNZ, TVNZ, and NewstalkZB.  And CTU’s submission, Labour Party Press Release, CTU ‘Reconsider the Veto’ Press Release.

27 comments on “Shifting ground: PPL”

  1. Bunji 1

    Great post Karol.

    I was disappointed to have not been able to make the meeting – so it’s great to get a report of it.

    Was the meeting as well supported as I hope it was?

    • karol 1.1

      Thanks, bunji.  It was fairly well supported.  I reckon 70-80 people.  I will do a more detailed report of what the speakers said, and some of the questions, on another day.  A lot of interesting and important ground was covered – sometimes with humour.

      • ianmac 1.1.1

        A fascinating read. Thanks karol. This Bill is essential progression in the rights and needs of society.
        Funny how the Government overstates costs for this Bill and for such things as the Christchurch Education rebuild or the rise in Minimum wage. Downside for Bill English is that the people would automatically doubt any figures he gives to justify a position.

  2. Lanthanide 2

    So if this bill gets kiboshed by the government, as it likely will, it seems relatively easy that the left could campaign on this at the election and resurrect the bill as it was after all the consultation was through and pass it fairly quickly, correct?

    • karol 2.1

      Yes, that is what Moroney said is an upside.  All the work that has been done, and is being done now in fine-tuning the Bill under select committee scrutiny, will be valuable for the future. Another upside is the potential damage to the Nats’ support amongst women.
       
      Moroney doesn’t think there is any certainty the government will use the veto.  They have a tightrope to walk to get there, and some unknown ground to traverse in order to use the veto. Also, the government’s resident hairpiece and revenue minister supports the Bill.

  3. kousei 3

    Phil O’Reilly’s biggest ‘disconnect’ is between his brain and his heart and probably from reality. I wonder when he would consider it a good time to become family and children focused? The neo-libs always predict a pot of gold waiting at the end of the rainbow for us all as long as we are ‘pragmatic’ and quietly take some more of their medicine.

  4. Lanthanide 4

    The PR machine is starting now: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/7857404/Job-warning-for-potential-parents

    “Potential parents” could find it harder to find a job if paid parental leave is extended, says an employers’ lobby group.

    Business New Zealand today appeared before the government administration select committee which is considering a member’s bill by Labour MP Sue Moroney to extend paid parental leave from 14 to 26 weeks.

    Its employment relations manager, Paul Mackay, said international research showed extending paid parental leave could discourage employers from hiring potential parents.

    He said potential parents could include women aged anywhere from 15 to 45 and men of any age.

    Since women aged 15-45 and “men of any age” make up a good 80%+ of the workforce, this isn’t much of a threat.

    • karol 4.1

      And I’m just catching up on Question Time today.  The first question from Nat Bennett is to get Blinglish to parade his latest figures around PPL.

    • QoT 4.2

      Well, he said it “could” include men. I think we can all take a good guess at who they’ll actually try to use this against, i.e. the people this argument has always been used against.

      • karol 4.2.1

        Well, he said it “could” include men.
        I thought that, too, until I saw the TV3 video, as linked at the bottom of my post .  At about 1 minute there’s an image of a page in the Business NZ submission that says employers “may well think hard before again employing a woman of child bearing age”.

  5. tc 5

    This gov’t is vulnerable on any issue where morality and money clash as money always wins in their world.

    Morals cost extra so it’s a hard place for them to go unless the lure of swing voters is strong.

    • fatty 5.1

      The problem with the current vulnerability of National in regards to morality is that the loss of National votes could go to the conservatives. The swing voters need to be drawn to Labour…being turned off National is not enough, particularly if they are conservative in nature.
      Conservatism has not really existed in NZ politics for a while until Colin Craig popped up. Ironically, if John Key and National continue to be framed unethical/immoral, it could end up getting them back into power at the next election.

      • McFlock 5.1.1

        I disagree. Part of the problem Labour has (and still) faced is that it dropped its left identity to get these mythical swing voters. What happened is that they lost the left and failed to get much traction on the right. 
             
        What happened is that a very significant chunk of the electorate has become disengaged. Basic marketing says “look for the gap in supply, and that will give you an indication of how to pick up non-customers”. We are not short of middle-right (where the right wing of Labour is “middle right” just as an arbitrary measure), social hard right, or fiscal hard right parties.
             
        We are short of a general left wing party. The personalities and chosen issues of the Greens and Mana alienate as well as provide a firm  base for their electoral existence. There is a yawning gap for a broad base left wing  party, and coincidentally there’s also something like 25% of the population who see nothing they want in a current party. Filling that gap would also provide a unique selling point for voters, rather than just playing “tweedle dum and tweedle dumber” with National pretending to be Labour-lite and Labour becoming National-lite.
               
         

        • fatty 5.1.1.1

          I agree with what you have said…but my post was about social rather than economic issues – perhaps that wasn’t clear.
          I do think the same as you on economic issues, the economically immoral actions of Nats (selling assets, tax cuts for the rich, etc) will result in swing voters going to Labour more than anything else.
          I was referring to those with socially conservative tendencies, admittedly this may not appear as large as the number of people that vote on economic issues, but those who do vote on socially conservative issues have had nobody to vote for lately until the conservatives arrived. Most of those conservatives have voted National (despite National being almost as socially liberal as Labour – both neoliberal). I think that Colin Craig has found that ‘gap in the supply’.
          So socially unethical behavior such as treating gays as humans (many see this as unethical), pokies for a convention centre, brain-fades etc, may end up bleeding votes to the Conservatives and end up strengthening Nat’s coalition.
          We live in a socially liberal society, in comparison to a few decades back, but there are many people who hold conservative values. These people have been silenced throughout our society, but they do exist and I feel they are waking up to the fact that National is no longer a conservative party.
          We are not talking about 15-20%, but more like 5%…which could have a big impact on the next election. Maybe I’m way off, but I do know people who are National voters and have become disillusioned with their social ideals, and like the policies of the Conservatives

          • McFlock 5.1.1.1.1

            ye-es but I think that moral conservatives make uneasy bedfellows – those who are concerned by gay marriage might not be okay with the concept of beating children. That’s why most parties avoid explicit policy on changes to things like abortion and prostitution and are happy to leave it to conscience votes – any position (one way or another) is likely to alienate as many people as it aligns with.
                 
            For a while National’s ethical amorality was hidden by its economic conservatism and eagerness to stomp on poor people (sorry, “crime”). But from what I’ve gathered of the Conservatives’ statements, their natural level is around 2% which is actually good for the “left” proportionality-wise. And it’s enough that parachuting him into epsom won’t do them any electoral good in the greater scheme of things. And then being aligned with him might be embarrassing if he feels empowered to speak on moral issues (and who knows, possibly Darwinism and the age of the Earth), although not as embarrassing as Banks. 
                  
            But then again, people wrote off Hitler in the early 1920s, so who am I to judge?
             

  6. One Tāne Huna 6

    Question: what is an appropriate response to a minority group that attempts to blackmail the country?

    “Potential parents” could find it harder to find a job if paid parental leave is extended, says an employers’ lobby group.

    These bludgers need to be taught a lesson.

    • karol 6.1

      Answer, OTH:  So Paul Mackay is encouraging employers to discriminate against people of child bearing age who are parts of a couple?  Or, indeed any employee capable of parenting a child? 
       
      But the real clanger from Paul Mackay is that he compares time off work for parenting duties to a rugby taking a “break” from rugby.  He is obviously pretty clueless that parenting is demanding work and of what it involves.  He talks about “depreciation of skills” while on parental leave. 
       
      But actually, the parents are developing a whole range of, often new, skills that will be useful in many workplaces.  Many employers encourage sabbaticals, whereby the employee takes time to do something different, thereby gaining a fresh outlook.  They can return to work refreshed, possibly with some innovative ideas.

  7. QoT 7

    Awesome post, karol!

    • karol 7.1

      Thanks, QOT.  But I don’t think it gets close enough to representing the excellent work by all the people working on the Bill and its campaign.
       
      And also, in one post there wasn’t space to include what was said about the trials and tribulations of being a mother and parent, especially of a newborn child – and the experiences of going back to work after child birth.

  8. Rich 8

    If Dunne (and the other parties) were really behind this bill, they could vote to suspend or amend standing orders, I think? That would override the veto.

  9. captain hook 9

    who saw the drongo on the teevee tonight use a stupid sports metaphor.
    If a person has only one week off then it is still going to take time to get up to speed again but if the firm values its female employees then it should be willing to give more than the paltry emolument it considers sufficient at the moment.
    A well rested refreshed employee is always going to be more value to an employee than someone browbeaten with stupid fucking sports metaphors.
    where do these people come from?
    He was overweight and had a big nose and he didnt ekshually look like he did much sports to me.

  10. OneTrack 10

    Let me get this right – Ms Moroney drafted the current bill in 2009, but she hasn’t costed it yet. Ok, that builds my confidence. The obvious question is “why not”? I assume it is because when you do, you get the “wrong” answer. And if you haven’t costed it yet, how can you possibly say English’s numbers are wrong?

    Is this going to be another job for the QE printing press?

    • fatty 10.1

      The problem with costing paid parental leave is that is is done over a short term and the cost is related to employers.
      If you want to know the real cost, you need to consider the cost over a 20-30 year period by factoring in the benefits from supporting parents when they have newborns. That requires a move away from quantitative analysis, and towards qualitative analysis.
      Cost needs to be considered against the benefits over a very long time, but it won’t be

      • OneTrack 10.1.1

        But the post strongly implies that Ms Moroney has not even attempted to do either costing exercise. English is wrong. Ok, but what are the right estimates then?

        Also, the two cost/benefits are spread unevenly between the employer and society as a whole. The employer takes the immediate hit of a lost employee for an extended period of time. Bigger companies can handle it, smaller companies, not so much.

        Society gets the benefit, we hope, at some indeterminate time in the future, with little cost to itself.

        • fatty 10.1.1.1

          My point is that the estimate of the cost will be shortsighted so its pointless, if they do not factor in the long-term benefits.

          “Society gets the benefit, we hope, at some indeterminate time in the future, with little cost to itself.”

          Not really, just a little more tax to cover it so the businesses are covered by the govt. Therefore, society is paying, and the businesses are not.
          Society will get the benefit, there is no hope about it. Well established psychological theories which are more robust and have been around for much longer that our current economic theories. These include attachment theory, and the work of development theorists.

        • karol 10.1.1.2

          I don’t have a verbatim record of what was said at the meeting, so it could be my perception that is incorrect.  As I recall, Moroney said the Bill hadn’t been fully costed yet, with respect to trade-ffs.  I got the impression that she was saying the select committee process is where such things are intensely scrutinised. 
           
          So my understanding was that it had been costed, Moroney had clearly read the submissions that contain alternative costings. So the select committee would be scrutinising all that and making a final decision on how much it would all cost.
           
          There seems to be different costings, depending on the factors taken into account.  On the one hand there’s English’s figures. Some of the submissions yesterday included costings, such as the CTU submission.
           

          The Council of Trade Unions believes extending paid parental leave would cost far less than the government claims, producing its own figures showing a cost of about $160 million over three years.

          In a submission supporting the bill, CTU economist Bill Rosenberg said he estimates the cost of parents taking the full 26 weeks leave would be about $160m over three years, with an ongoing cost of $80m a year beyond that.
           
          That cost is based on the assumption the workers will not be replaced by temporary staff during their leave.
           
          However, Mr Rosenberg says if more temporary workers were taken on during parental leave periods, the cost would be reduced because of tax adjustments, including the effects of GST and Working for Families.

          Even greater savings would be made if the person taking on the job came off a benefit.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • National out of touch over immigration
    National’s abrupt backflip on their recently-announced changes to immigration shows they never understood the problem and just came up with a confused knee jerk response, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. “Regional communities and businesses were quite right to ...
    2 hours ago
  • English out of touch on homelessness
    Bill English’s comments that he doesn’t know why people are complaining about the blowout in the number of homeless families the government is putting up in motels just shows how tired and out of touch National is after nine years, ...
    5 hours ago
  • All Kiwis to have same standard of cancer care
    Labour is promising that all New Zealanders will have access to the same level of cancer care no matter where they live in the country, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little.   “As someone who has survived cancer I ...
    1 day ago
  • Infrastructure announcement too long coming
    “What took you so long?” is Labour’s response to the Government’s announcement of a new infrastructure investment vehicle. Labour’s Auckland Issues spokesperson Phil Twyford says Labour announced its policy in 2015 to debt-finance infrastructure and service that debt with targeted ...
    1 day ago
  • Time for a breather on immigration
    National has no idea how to house the record number of people entering New Zealand, let alone cope with the pressure on health, education, and transport from this record population growth, says Labour’s Immigration spokesperson Iain Lees-Galloway. ...
    3 days ago
  • Labour to invest $4 billion in education
    Labour’s Education Manifesto will bring positive change across the education sector and is backed by a massive investment, says Labour’s Education Spokesperson Chris Hipkins.  “Labour’s plan will see an extra $4 billion invested over the next four years. It’s organised ...
    3 days ago
  • National’s shame: worst homelessness in the OECD
    National’s legacy is a housing crisis that has given New Zealand the worst homeless rate in the developed world, says Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. ...
    3 days ago
  • Labour taking action on school donations
    Labour will end so-called voluntary school donations for the majority of parents across the country under its $4 billion plan to revitalise the education sector, says Labour Leader Andrew Little. “Labour has always been committed to a world-class free education ...
    3 days ago
  • Labour to work with Queenstown to build more houses
    Labour will work with Queenstown-Lakes District Council, iwi, and the Community Housing Trust to build the modern, affordable housing Queenstown desperately needs, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. ...
    4 days ago
  • Nats blow the Budget on motels after bowling state houses
    National is spending $140,000 a day putting homeless families in motels, the legacy of nine years of selling off and knocking down state houses, says Labour Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. ...
    4 days ago
  • New revelations in Joanne Harrison report
    The State Services Commission’s report into the treatment of whistle-blowers by Joanne Harrison has revealed new accusations against the convicted fraudster, says Labour MP Sue Moroney.  “The report found that four staff inside the Ministry of Transport who had raised ...
    4 days ago
  • Snafu at Princess Margaret
    Jonathan Coleman has to stop the stalling over a new building for mental health services in Christchurch to replace the quake damaged Princess Margaret Hospital, says Labour’s Health spokesperson David Clark. “The Government must accept that Christchurch is still recovering ...
    4 days ago
  • Labour’s fiscal plan to build a fairer New Zealand
    Labour will re-build our housing, health and education while responsibly managing New Zealand’s finances, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little.  “Under Labour’s Fiscal Plan we will deliver big investments in the services we all need and care about, invest ...
    5 days ago
  • Nats show they’re the tax dodgers’ best friends
    The government is taking the knife to IRD at a time when we need a highly skilled department to ensure that multinationals and speculators don’t get away with dodging tax, says Labour’s Revenue spokesperson Michael Wood. ...
    5 days ago
  • Labour secures the future for NZ Super
    A Labour Government will secure the future for New Zealand Superannuation so we can continue to provide superannuation to those retiring at age 65, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. “One of the first things a Labour-led Government will ...
    6 days ago
  • Multinationals must pay fair share of tax
    A Labour Government will crack down on multinational companies that are dodging paying their fair share of tax, says Labour Leader Andrew Little. “New Zealanders are missing out by hundreds of millions according to the IRD because multinational companies can ...
    6 days ago
  • ACT’s approach to children backward and ill informed
    Act’s new deputy leader’s claim that Labour’s support for families could “extend the misery of child poverty and even child abuse” is ill informed and offensive, says Labour’s Deputy Leader Jacinda Ardern. ...
    1 week ago
  • Canterbury hatchet job a disgrace
    The Government’s glib acceptance of advice that the Canterbury District Health Board doesn’t need more money is a hatchet job and a disgrace, says Labour’s Health Spokesperson David Clark. “To claim that the DHB was using tactics to leverage more ...
    1 week ago
  • Quality for Kiwi kids at ECE
    After more than a decade of rapid growth in the number of children participating in Early Childhood Education (ECE), it’s time to take stock and map out a clear plan for the future, says Labour’s Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins. ...
    1 week ago
  • Labour to boost ECE quality
    Labour will ensure kids get the best start in life by boosting funding for Early Childhood Centres to employ 100 per cent qualified and registered teachers, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. ...
    1 week ago
  • Labour will stump up a million dollars for Maniototo Hospital
    A Labour led Government will make a million dollars available to rebuild the Maniototo Base hospital in Ranfurly, says the Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little.  “This will be a much needed boost for a long overdue rebuild that has ...
    1 week ago
  • No vision for the West Coast
    The West Coast welcomes any Government investment in our region but the lack of any real alternative vision for the West Coast’s economy is disappointing, says Damien O’Connor Labour’s West Coast-Tasman MP.  “The establishment of a Mining Research Unit will ...
    2 weeks ago
  • National’s youth work scheme too little too late
    After nine years, National’s belated attempt to provide work opportunities for unemployed youth should be seen for what it is, a half-hearted, election gimmick from a party that’s ignored the problem till now, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Kiwis won’t fall for Joyce’s spin
    Steven Joyce’s embarrassingly obvious spin on Labour’s Families Package won’t fool anyone, says Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Labour prioritises families and public services
    Labour’s Families Package delivers a bigger income boost to more than 70 per cent of families with children than Budget 2017. By not spending $1.5 billion a year on tax cuts, Labour is able to do more for lower and ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Kiwis can’t sleep in your ghost houses, Nick
    The Government’s housing infrastructure announcement is another Nick Smith special – over-promising with no detail on delivery, says Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Labour helps older New Zealanders and low income families with winter heating bills
    Labour will further boost its commitment to warm, healthy housing with a Winter Energy Payment for superannuitants and people receiving main benefits, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. “Everyone deserves a warm, healthy home to live in. But that’s ...
    2 weeks ago
  • National must rule out retrospective override for Ruataniwha
    National must categorically rule out using retrospective legislation to override the Supreme Court’s decision that the land swap of conservation land flooded by the proposed Ruataniwha Dam was illegal, says Labour’s Shadow Attorney General David Parker. “Having not got their ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Flavell’s failure a win for Māori landowners
    The Māori Development Minister’s admission that his unpopular Ture Whenua Māori Bill won’t pass into law prior to the election is a victory for Māori landowners, but only a change of government will keep the Bill gone for good, says ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Stats confirm growing housing shortfall
    National’s failure to fix the housing shortage has been starkly illustrated by new statistics, says Labour Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Systemic abuse of kids in state care
    After admitting there was systemic abuse of children in State care the Government must do the right thing and launch an independent inquiry, says Labour’s Deputy Leader Jacinda Ardern. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Migrant worker exploitation needs sharper focus
    The astonishing number of employers found guilty of exploiting migrants shows that migrant exploitation is a serious problem in New Zealand, says Labour Workplace Relations and Safety spokesperson Iain Lees-Galloway. “A total of 53 companies have been banned from recruiting ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Minister faces questions over dam debacle
    Today’s Supreme Court ruling dismissing an appeal to allow a land swap for the controversial Ruataniwha Dam is a victory for our conservation estate and Hawke’s Bay ratepayers, but leaves the Conservation Minister with serious questions to answer, says Ikaroa-Rāwhiti ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Too little too late on Wellington housing
    The announcement today on social housing in Wellington by the National Government is a pitiful and cynical election ploy, says Labour’s Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson. “In 2012 Housing New Zealand emptied out the Gordon Wilson Flats, taking 130 places ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Foreign trusts wilt in the sunlight, but more transparency needed
    The fact that the numbers of foreign trusts registered in New Zealand has plummeted after the Government’s belated and reluctant imposition of a new reporting regime, in the wake of the Panama Papers scandal, shows the need for a transparent, ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Speech by Grant Robertson: The Future of Work and Labour’s Economic Vision
    At the election in September voters will face a choice between a government led by Andrew Little with a fresh approach to give every New Zealander a fair share in prosperity or the continuation of a tired government, out of ...
    3 weeks ago