Sue Moroney on Paid Parental Leave

Sue Moroney’s had a slash at Bill English for using ‘trumped-up’ & ‘shonky’ numbers to inflate the cost of her Paid Parental Leave Bill.

Forgetting the fact that whatever the cost we can’t afford it, Moroney is a total moron.

Just so she doesn’t shoot herself in the foot again – I will helpfully provide Labour with its own costings for its Paid Parental Leave policy.  Sue, you can link to this like Clare Curran did.  Pity Labour has removed all its 2011 policies…

Lucky I have copies of them all…Happy to help…

Labour PPL Policy 2011

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=706456651 Nigel Sherrie Fairweather-Hunt

    delicious.

  • johnbronkhorst

    These are just the costs to taxpayers/govt. what about the loss of productivity costs when hiring a temp for 6 months.

    • Harry

      Just hire a male or an older woman in the first place perhaps?

      • Alex

        Agreed. Come to my workplace where no fewer than 5 women were on maternity leave, place came to a grinding halt and still not fully operational as they also want reduced hours when they come back. Of course, they expect to to be promoted and to have constant pay raises despite their productivity going down the drain.

  • Jimmie

    For a moment there I thought you wrote ‘took a slash at Bill English’.

    I wouldn’t put it past her to do an Andrew Williams against English’s leg but still good thing she didn’t eh?

  • thor42

    Typical Labour.
    Encourage the LOSERS and ne’er-do-wells to breed like rabbits and get taxpayers to foot the bill.

  • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    Whale Oil – I salute you and bow my head!

  • Macca

    Of course this would be nothing like Liebours costing on their Capital Gains Tax before last election? Remember, the tax that was going to save the country and rake in billions – never mind the fact that it would be lucky to break even because of its admin costs!

    • Gazzaw

      Sounds like interest fee student loans and WFF in an early bid to buy the next election.

  • pukakidon

    This just raised the prospect of older women getting jobs. You would be mad to hire a woman at these costs.

    • patriot

      Women 25 to 38, will be last cab off the job rank if maternity leave costs go up —

      Employers will just hire 42+ year old women and forget the disruption of maternity leave of younger women . An easy solution to an increasing business cost .

      If you Vote Labour — they will lose women job prospects by increasing avoidable business costs . Nuts

  • Hazards001

    This is just more of the Labour
    and the unions expecting those that work hard to fund other people’s life style
    choices. Many employers will look long and hard at the type of woman they are
    looking to take on and if you’re a smaller business in particular why would you
    take on a 22yr grad with ovaries and a boyfriend? Of course if said grad was
    one of the pinko commies it might not be such a problem as she probably already
    has a girlfriend.

    Labour needs to wake up to the
    fact that we can no longer continue to afford to pay for their election bribes.
    The last 9 yrs worth are costing us dearly as it is and still they want to take
    more from the taxpayer and employer and give it to those who feel they should
    be paid to stay at home.

  • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    Now the pinkos everywhere are trying to paint Bill English as the villain who refuse to help babies…..

  • Adolf Fiinkensein

    Well done Whale! This is priceless. I’m weeping tears of blood.

    BTW, in future would you take a bit more care with your spelling?

    The lady’s name is Sue Moron-E

  • kthxbai

    Paid parental leave is worth the cost, whatever it is – if only to keep the taxpaying portion of the population producing more little taxpayers. It’ll help offset the current situation where we’re being rapidly outbred by people on benefits producing larger numbers of new entrenched beneficiaries.

  • parorchestia

    Brilliant, Cam. Why can’ the Herald’s reporters check the facts?

319%