Paid Parental Leave

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

A little reminder

Since it appears that the Paid Parental Leave bill is going to be debates this evening I think it is timely to have a little reminder about Sue Moroney’s thinking behind the bill.

The Shearer Disease it seems is contagious:

Yeah that’ll sell them

Cash-strapped Labour’s latest fundraising drive is the sale of Paid Parental Leave tee-shirts at $25 a pop.

Perhaps they can put that money towards paying for the policy, which Labour itself estimated to cost $150m.

Thankfully for Labour, there’s now bound to be a stampede of people wanting the shirts, given Sue Moroney’s modelling efforts…

I’m not sure this version of the shirt is a winner¬†though…telling us that Labour plans to borrow the $150 million. Great messaging for Labour’s policy. One shirt says we can’t afford it and the other says we need to borrow millions to fund it…way to go Labour.

UPDATE: Some of you haven’t¬†grasped¬†that the shirts have added truthiness statements at¬†the¬†bottom.

Paid Parental Leave – A highly flawed concept

ŠĒ• Taranaki Daily News

Gordon Brown uses some plain provincial speaking to deride the poster child for picking the pockets of taxpayers for paid parental leave:

Ultimately though, this debate comes down to the highly flawed concept that somehow, the rest of us have to pay women for having babies. It’s their choice, surely? It seems not. Once again, we are being flogged by some for not doing enough for working women.

One Sunday paper even had the issue as a lead story on the front page and used the example of a journalism graduate who now had a 15-month-old child. The poor dear was complaining that the entry-level pay wasn’t enough to make it worth her while to actually get a job, what with the cost of childcare.

Somehow this was the Government’s (our) fault. Naturally there was no mention of a dad or a partner – she was “on her own”.

She also said she got pregnant (despite the free contraception we supply) while studying journalism, so presumably that wasn’t in the plan. It’s only a short leap of logic to imply that that would somehow be the Government’s (our) fault as well. Maybe there could be a work scheme for the unemployed so that someone could actually get the pill from the packet, get a glass of water and administer it to those poor dears who can’t manage it for themselves?

14 weeks is stuff all

There is much bickering over paid parental leave being extended from 14 weeks to 6 months. 14 Weeks is essentially three months.

While the living are wailing that they think they should get to pick the pockets of the taxpayers for some extra cash to extend their bludging to 6 months there are people out there that 14 weeks is literally a lifetime.

Take Helena McAlpine…given 3 months left to live she went out on the town and got pinged drunk driving. I doubt she cares very much about paid parental leave being extended, much less attending court…she is busy trying to work out how to live past 14 weeks. She would pay almost anything to extend her life to 6 months…or even two years. She has had her ovaries removed in a bid to extend her life.

Think about 14 weeks for a moment from¬†the¬†perspective of the dying rather than from the living…it is 14 weekends to spend time with family…but likely to only be 12 depending on how aggressive the cancer is. 14 weeks is just 98 days and every day you wake up is one day less in the count down to the end of your life.

For the dying even 6 months or 180 days just doesn’t seem like much…so let’s get some perspective shall we. Screw paid parental leave, it is just greedy living people picking taxpayers pockets for a little bit more.

If only we could simply buy people more time to live by extending an entitlement from government.

Holmes on Paid Parental Leave

ŠĒ• NZ Herald

Paul Holmes explains why National is winning and Labour losing the argument on Paid parental leave:

In the end, people are realistic. They hear the numbers and they know what’s realistic and what’s not. People are happy that we can afford $150 million annually for 14 weeks’ paid parental leave, but they believe English when he talks about the destabilising effect of a paid parental leave bill rising suddenly to half a billion dollars a year.

We know that any dramatic increase in paid parental leave from 14 weeks to six months would be paid for by borrowings.

Meaning more debt. English is confident that argument will win through.

Labour will emphasise the value of mother being at home with baby for as long as possible.

And this is a good argument which no one seriously dismisses, but even Helen Clark was firm with Leila Harre, the champion of paid parental leave, that you can’t have nirvana overnight. Especially now that the country is in the doldrums economically.

Comment of the Day

Simon Bridges sums up Sue Moroney’s silly bill well:

Politician of the Week – Bill English

ŠĒ• NZ Herald

Bill English gets Politician of Week for telling Sue Moroney to shove her silly paid parental leave bribe back from where she pulled it. Good luck calling Bill English anti-family when he has a full sevens team in his family.

Finance Minister Bill English confirmed this afternoon that National will veto a bill to extend paid parental leave from 14 weeks to six months.

He said the Government would have to borrow more money to fund it just at a time when it was trying to reduce its deficit.

“We have maintained paid parental leave and we currently spend about $150 million [a year] on it,” he told reporters at Parliament.

“But we are still two or three years from getting out of the woods on the deficit so we think it is a bit soon to be trying to expand entitlements when our big challenge has been to maintain them as they are.”

Mr English said Labour specialised in trying to get political benefit without showing the real cost by saying it would take 10 years to implement.

“That’s just misleading the public. The fact is doubling it will cost another $150 million a year. You’d have to borrow half a billion over the next three or four years. We’re simply not willing to do that.”

Expanding entitlements at this stage would be ”getting a bit ahead of ourselves when we are still $10 billion away from clearing our overdraft.”

“We’ve got to get on with that and be fair to everybody in achieving surplus and people can have those choices once we get there.”

Um of the Day – Sue Moroney

Asked for her estimates on the cost of Labour’s latest big ticket spending promise, Sue Moroney secured Um Of The Day…

Moroney’s bill is a dead duck

ŠĒ• Stephen Franks

Sue Moroney has had her bill to extend the cost to taxpayers for paid¬†parental¬†leave and the media have lapped it up…however it commits the government to spending money, therefore it comes down to supply, Stephen Franks explains why her bill is as dead as her ability to win an electorate seat.

It has no show of passing without Government support, as she would know, yet it has been reported widely as if it could proceed over the objections of the Government.  Without that spurious possibility it would have had no newsworthiness.

Standing Orders are clear. A money bill (which would commit government money)can be vetoed by the Minister of Finance.

“The House will not pass a bill, amendment or motion that the government certifies it does not concur in because, in its view, the bill, amendment or motion would have more than a minor impact on the government‚Äôs fiscal aggregates if it became law”

The Bill is, nevertheless the kind of measure that works politically, even if it is bad for the economy, and bad for the women of child bearing age who become more susceptible to the covert discrimination by which employers protect themselves from unequally shared social costs. The accumulation of such feel-good measures has transformed Western democracies over two generations from world economic powerhouses to parasites on the energy and capital forming sacrifice of poorer people.

Greece is just the most obvious case. It¬†is a poster example of what happens when cynical politicians pander to a nation of¬†greedy, dishonest, whining bludgers. The honest toilers pay the price along with those who’ve ruined them.

Stephen Franks gives Labour a challenge in his parting paragraph:

What a pity Labour has not put up a bill to reform something they campaigned on last election, where the embarrrassment of the financial veto would mean more politically. They could, for example, lodge bills to push out the pension age, or to impose capital gains tax. If they got a majority to support those, consider the political impact of forcing the government to exercise the veto to protect John Key from doing what he has already admitted to be the right thing for the economy.