Moroney’s bill is a dead duck

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’s 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.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Blokeintakapuna

    Yep – this is about as “effective” as Bradford’s bill of making parents criminals for disciplining their children… years later – teachers are unable to control, let alone discipline unruly children in the classroom – thereby disrupting the entire classroom…

    It only proves that Labour politicians are a complete waste of valuable oxygen…

    • Gazzaw

      It’s another bribe though that will be taken on board by the majority of couples about to start procreating. Think interest free student loans, WFF etc. The only way these fuckers who are so bereft of ideas to get votes is to buy them.

  • Pete George

    It doesn’t commit the government to spending at any specific time (yet). The detail would be worked out in select committee, but the initial proposal is to phase it in over several years. When this starts to phase in could be negotiable and may not start until we’re back in surplus, which is 2014 isn’t it? That’s not far away.

    Most of the opposition to the bill seems to be coming from men, not surprisingly.

    Peter Gluckman is a fan of investing in early childhod for future reward, perhaps he will have a chat to Key about it.

    • Salacious T Crumb

      The same Peter Gluckman who advises the government on Climate Change?

      Farrar’s comment on ZB summed it up. People should weigh up whether they are in a financial position to have kids, not except the government to provide handouts.

  • Peter Wilson

    I actually have some sympathy for a measure like this one. But, there are too many logic flaws in the bill to be convincing. The bottom line is surely the affordability. Perhaps parents should have the choice of full parental leave, with no job waiting for them, or partial payments and jobs held.

    I did like this from Franks though,

    …from world economic powerhouses to parasites on the energy and capital forming sacrifice of poorer people.

    Took me a while, but I think he’s saying all these left wing namby pamby ideas, while nice to have, are being paid for by huge taxes and a low wage economy as businesses struggle to meet their tax bills.

  • NotLen

    What about only having children when you can afford them and then limiting the fruit of your loins to the size of your budget?  I am pretty sure thats what we did 20 years ago.

    Also, now that I run a business that includes a lot of women, maternity leave can be a pain.  More often than not, a valued employee becomes pregnant and then takes her maternity leave, only to resign at the end of 12 months.  In the meantime, we have to hire someone on a fixed term contract, which of course limits the choice somewhat.  The good ones go for the permanent positions.

  • Phar Lap

    Notice Peter Dunne from the Ohariu  electorate and nemisis of the guy called  Chauvel has indicated he is a starter for Moroneys “get well”  votes  bill.Wonder where his own proposals like
    the Income Sharing  Bill, and the revised Child Support bill is.After all he promised both in his election campaign.Time for Dunne to front up.never mind him supporting a no good Liebour Politician.I heard her interviwed on one radio station when she played down the cost .Never once letting on the the game plan was for FIFTY TWO WEEKS paid maternity leave.Also saying nothing like the cost would be borne by the long suffering taxpayers.

  • johnbronkhorst

    For the sake of young women everywhere, I hope it fails. The cost isn’t to govt., or the tax payer, they can make it fiscally nuetral by reducing child care subsidies. The risk is to small business (collectively the largest employers) if you have 4 employees and 1 is a pregnant woman, that 25% of you workforce disrupted for 6 months. This will have the result, that small employers will avoid employing women aged 18-30, or women who may be percieved to have a familly within the next 5 years (average term of employment). This bill will mean that 18-30 yr old women who would on average spend 5 years with one employer, will spend 6 months (10%) of their employment on parental leave, if they are replaced by another woman of similar age the problem repeats!! Making small employers adverse to taking on young women, sad day for all!!

  • Ele

    PPL is the only benefit, apart froms ueprannuation, that isn’t means tested. I don’t udnerstand why wealthy women or their partners should get public support just becuase they choose to have babies.

    It’s more a subsidy for employers who would have given PPL anyway – many still do on top of the taxpayer benefit.

    • johnbronkhorst

      The money isn’t the point, it is the fact that business is disrupted, by having to temporarilly replace an experienced employee with an inexperienced one for 6 months, then a the end of 6 months, where the employer HAS to keep her job open, she can at any time hand in her notice and leave. Effectively meaning she could spend 6 months PAID leave looking for a new job…….I have SEEN this happen under the current law!

  • Adolf Fiinkensein

    Sue Maroney must some sort of serious dumbarse.

    Labour’s official policy is for 52 weeks paid parental leave.  So the silly bitch lodges a bill for half that amount.

    Is this the start of ‘New Half Labour’ under Casper the Ghost?

    The one where you cut all your policies in half and hope like hell that more than half the people will vote for you?

  • Kosh103

    If it passes and the Govt vetos it, National are finished.

    • Why is it that Labour thinks that the state should pay people to have children…I might be a bit old fashioned by surely having children is a decision best left to individuals and the state should not provide financial insurance against pregnancy which is what this is….if you want to have kids then provide for them yourself.

    • Mike

      IF god himself appears in a flash of thunder, and reveals that Kosh is his lovechild, we will all worship Kosh.

      See, a false premise can lead to the most unlikely conclusion.

    • Patriot

      Kosh – Labor wanting us to pay more money is crap when we have Christchurch wanting new everything — they even want us to pay for their Art Gallery , when their toilets are not ALL working yet . No to Art Gallery , No to paying mothers more money .

      NZ is already borowing $300m a week ..

    • Doug_S

      Your remark suggests the voting majority of NZers have so financial sense whatsoever. IF it passes and National don’t veto it then they are in trouble.

  • Evan Johnson

    The Bill will pass, and Bill English won’t scupper it.  Already women have 12 months of maternity leave.  It will be no big deal to extend 14 to 26 weeks – not even doubling the time.  

    Its a fait accompli.

  • Alloytoo

    If it looks like a bribe, and smells like a bribe, it is probably is a bribe.

    • Kosh103

      Or perhaps it is genuine concern about a mother and her childs bond and puting a 12 week old baby into child care in order to be able to pay the bills.

      • Super_Guest

        Labour has no “genuine concern”, they are only interested in gathering power and taxing us to death to pay for useless public servants – but they sucker idiots like you into voting for them with their sanctimony. Case in point, nine years of Comrade Clark.

        Besides, shouldn’t an adult be thinking about being “able to pay the bills” before they have a child? Where’s the personal responsibility from people who claim to be able to raise another human being into a functional member of society? I’m not saying I’m for or against this bill, it doesn’t effect me, but if you’re popping kids out left and right with no idea how you’re supposed to feed them, you’re a ridiculous human being unfit to call yourself a parent or an adult. Same goes for if you vote for Labour, Green, Mana, etc.. It also raises the question as to why the poor breed like rabbits.

      • johnbronkhorst

        To sum up “super_guest”‘s comment for you Kosh…………..BOLLOCKS.

      • Patriot

        Why not pay mothers 5 years + pay Fathers 5 years — to bond with each of them  before they go to school … maybe even pay for a car for the mother to drive the child to the swings n slides .  BOLLOCKS to that

        There was a time — if you cant afford children – dont have them – its cheaper to pay for womens contraceptive pill . And the bastards got adopted out for the many wanting to adopt a child .

        Thats more responsible than the rubbish idea of having babies as a career choice – called DPB.  Get rid of the DPB

        If mothers want babies — the Fathers can pay for their babies by staying off the fags and out of the boozer for a start . Pay for their babies not the state

      • Kosh103

        Super do you have any proof beyond right wing nastiness?

        Paid parental leave is good for kids. Simple as that.

        This has NOTHING to do with “poping out kids” to get money. Those sorts of people are on the DPB and almost never in paid work.

         It allows people to have a family and keep their jobs. Both good things.

      • Kosh103

        Patriot your position stinks of ill informed right wing nonsense.

        It allows parents to bond with their kids and stay in the work force. All good things.

        It has nothing to do with poping out babies, sucking of the tax payer teat or any other silliness you care to spout.

        Its good for the family, its good for employees and it is good for the country.

        And if National veto it, they are screwed.

      • Alloytoo

        It’s an unbalanced emotional appeal designed to sabotage a government that’s trying to be fiscally responsible.

      • Patriot

        i have 2 sons , as you know, i worked hard to save up to have them & bring them up … cost of bringing them up — is my cost not yours . I sold my boat, quit expensive smoking, rarely drink grog , holidayed at home — i made sacifices to bring up my kids ..
        Guess what — i was paid ZERO by the state to bring up my kids cos i did not ask you for anything — my babies are my responsibility and my cost .

        My wife happily stopped work for years to have these kids — yep, i am Married – not a civil union – and i worked to pay for my kids — today my 20 and 21 year still live at home

        Never had a benefit anywhere, anytime .

        Kosh – get your Labor lot off your lazy arse — or if you like backpay me for bringing up my kids that i elected to have — try $1000 per year x 2 for 5 years to include all other benefits i did not ask for .

        Shit – you Labor lot are a lazy bunch of pricks .

      • Cynic

        Beneficiaries have all day to bond with their child. If it was that important, why aren’t beneficiaries NZ’s best parents? If $451 a week matters, you are hardly going to be able to afford child care from 12 weeks are u?

  • Ele

    Kosh, PPL isn’t means tested os it’s not just for those who really need it to pay the bills.

    • Kosh103

      Thats a thing that is easily fixed.

      • johnbronkhorst

        So you are say this bill is so flawed it needs changing already!!!???

      • Kosh103

        john, is any bill perfect from the outset? Are you suggesting there have been laws go through the process and come out the other end 100% unchanged.

        Dont bother with silly little games like the one you just tried. Its just nonsense.

      • johnbronkhorst

        But this bill hasn’t even gone to select committee yet, where any flaws are usually found….this has only just been drawn from thne ballot and already we know it is stupid and full of not so subtle HOLES. Typical labour they could write bill when they were in govt., without MAJOR flaws, remember the holidays act…they were told it had flaws around the statutory holidays and claims , it tested within weeks of being law and EXACTLY what everyone was saying was wrong was found out (ability to claim twice) that had to be rectofied under urgancy.

      • Kosh103

        The thing you are forgetting John is Labour wont see that as a flaw. They will want  it applied to all mothers.

        I dont  consider it a flaw in the bill either. Rather a suggested method to make sure it is more affordable.

        I suggest taking the blinkers off. It might let you think more clearly.


      Agreed if this goes ahead,it should be means tested.PPL,and WFF,how much more do we need to do.Seems like $150 million would be better used to fix Christchurch.Or have we forgot them,and resumed by now politics.

  • johnbronkhorst

    This bill will have the same effect as the stupid abolition of the youth minimum wage act had! There, youth unemployment skyrocketed, because employers figure why take on a kid when for the same price I can get a grown up. Here why take on a woman of child bearing age when I can avoid the hassle!!!??

    • Kosh103

      Why hire a woman who can have kids? Well for a start its illegal to discriminate, so you would be in the shit.

      Second, given that a considerable amount of a womans working life falls within the child bearing years, what you seem to be advocating went out a few decades ago.

      • johnbronkhorst

        1.. prove it, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of age too, but youth unemployment skyrocketed after the youth rate was abolished…FACT. anyway a job interview is descimination by it’s very nature, you get the BEST person for the job taking into account ALL characteristics of their suitability, that includes person preference and how it is percieved they will fit into the work environment!!
        2…NO, it didn’t..and I am not advocating any thing just making an observation. Besides a womans working life 18-65 is 47 years, child bearing years (very generally) 18 – 30 or about 25% of her working life. on average she will have about 2 and a bit jobs during her child bearing years and about 2 and a bit kids in that time so 3 employers will be effected and 1.5 years of her “working” life during child bearing is effected or 10% of the time during which she is building a familly. If an employer decides “No women under 30” this  will detimentally effect any career path for her, salary aspirations, promotion etc. 10% of her working life that also corresponds to child bearing disadvantages the employer through MAJOR disruption especially small emplyer (the bulk of the workforce is employed by this group)
        Finally…just like youth rate we want to ENCOURAGE employers to take on women at the same rate as men and give them the same opportunities as men this can’t happen if their work time is severely interupted and employers see this as a burden to them!!!

      • Kosh103

        John, if a woman really felt you had not employed them because they might have kids – they would sue, and at the very least create a whole lot of bad publicity for you.

        Paid parental leave is good for kids and it is good for the country because the woman has a job to return to as opposed to being on the tax payer funded benfit.

        Other western countries understand this, why is it so hard for NZ right wingers to grasp it.

      • johnbronkhorst

        sue on what grounds….she has to PROVE it was the ONLY reason and that there were no other candidates suitable!! Paid parental leave good for kids…really good for teaching them that somehow the world owes them a living and they don’t have to sacrifice anything to get what they want in this world…man are they due a BIG surprise!!!

      • Bafacu

        Kosh, unfortunately the real world doesn’t work like your utopian perspective. As someone involved in recruitment I can assure you that employers currently do discriminate against various groups in society (including child-bearing-age women) on the basis that they need a “balanced” team.  As recruitment/employment is a subjective matter there is the ability to hire as required and make it look totally legitimate. I can only assume that this Bill will make matters worse.

        An employer is disrupted by the need to get a “fixed term” employee in (generally at higher rates due to the short term nature of the role) who is also generally not as experienced as the person going on PPL (who they also they therefore need to train).

        Sorry but practicality and expediency will always win where it ios going to affect business (especially small business where thjere is less ability to absorbe the additional costs and disruption).

  • Hang him

    It will make women of a child bearing age in some career areas unemployable, jobs in sales etc where building relationships with customers. Also it only values women in the work force what about the ones that look after kids at home they get nothing. Dumb idea.

    • Alloytoo

      It will just lower the glass ceiling.

  • jay cee

    either way you look at it if national veto his bill its going to be tough for them to convince half the voting public that they are female/family friendly.

    • johnbronkhorst

      No really, it just shows they are….EQUAL opportunity advercates, not promoting a free lunch or benefits for those that CHOOSE to have a familly.

      • Kosh103

        If you really think that John I hope you will be happy when Labour are the next Govt.

        National will be killed if they veto this.

      • johnbronkhorst

        you are an idiot kosh….if they do defeat it….hey haven’t TAKEN anything away from anyone…they just haven’t GIVEN them more!!!!

      • Kosh103

        John, if this law passes without the Govt support, and then they veto it – Labour will be the next Govt.

    • Patriot

      JayCee – your logic is wrong .
      If family friendly is the voting criteria — why stop at 26 weeks PPL — why not go to 2 years and buy  ALL the young womens votes — or wrap it up and get really Family Friendly and make it all the way to Primary school — 5 years PPL for 5 years of Votes bought .  Break the Nation , force more debt on us , borrow more money , increase the deficit . or tell the Fathers to come back and pay for their baby …

      This PPL is taking the fathers duty away from him + putting it on us — NO – make the Father pay for his Baby and committ to his actions — why should we pick up his costs . Bugger him .  

  • Blokeintakapuna

    Personal responsibility. If someone wants to breed and have children – all power to them – PROVIDED they can provide for the child themselves and not expect anyone else, or the tax payer to fund their lifestyle choice.

    Anyone breeding without the ability to fully support the child financially, emotionally, physically and spiritually should be deemed akin to child abuse. IMHO

    You bring them into this world – you are responsible for them – not the hard working tax payer.

    Remember – the government can not give to someone without firstly taking from someone else…

    Personal responsibility…

  • Sarrs

    In the world of schools with countless relief teachers and teacher’s college graduates, it’s not difficult to find a temporary replacement there. In the world of small accounting firms, law firms etc that replacement is next to impossible to find. If you are going into business and are going to be reliant on one key employee…it doesn’t pay to employ someone who, at any point after working for six months, can take a year off and you have to keep their job for them. I’m a female – I understand this without getting upset about it. It is a fact of life. One could argue that the joys and rewards of maternity, giving birth and being a mother outweigh any perceived disadvantage in the work place. Men don’t experience that. Women can find a donor and have a child on their own – men can’t. Why must this world insist on homogenising the genders so all our ‘rights’ are equal when in fact our own biology and anatomy dictate huge, significant differences that can’t be ignored. 

    Well that went wildly off topic, sorry. Birth control is affordable and effective – people should use it and stop having kids when they can’t afford it. You wouldn’t get a horse or a dog if you couldn’t afford to feed it, house it and take care of it. And what some don’t seem to understand is that people run businesses, not employment charities. They want to make money. Keeping a job open for someone for 12 months with no guarantee they will return at the end will not make you much money. If ladies take PPL they should be bound back to the business for 6 or 12 months after they return. 

  • Leata

    Well this is a very interesting topic, and funnily enough reading both sides of the argument is very enlightening. I am an employee, business owner and a mother of 3. I raised my first two on my own with the help of the DPB for a total of 5mths before I started my first business and supported them on my own. I moved overseas had my own business there and was then employed by a shipping company and moved back to NZ where i continued to work for the same shipping company. 14 years later doctors told me i had the flu and hello we had #3. I was working full time and so was my husband. 
    Unfortunately for me i earned more than my husband so we decided it was best that he stopped work and became a full time dad. Instead of crying about how we were going to replace 50k a year we put on our thinking caps and were able to come up a plan to work towards replacing this income through understanding income streams and finance. We now have a successful home based business that my husband runs very well. 
    I still work full time and I will tell you now that the bond between my 2 year old and I is just as strong as the bond was to my first two. This bill is a total bribe for votes and emotional mothers especially will get sucked in. However i would also like to say that maybe an idea would be to also limit the DBP payments to only been for the 1st child and only for 12mths max. if you choose to have more kids after that, then sort it out yourself. Teaching our society to constantly have their hands out and not relying on their own inborn strengths to cope with things on their own is the path to self destruction. The long term will be discrimination against breeding aged women, men still not having to take responsibility for their own irresponsible sexual behavior, still we will have child abuse at a disgusting unacceptable level and all the while Labour shrugging their shoulders, preaching christian bible quotes, more national debt, working parents having to work longer hours for less then their kids miss out.

    • Doug_S

      Well said Leata and I admire your will.

  • Phar Lap

    I heard the media release from the “Green” Party,on the veto promised on the so called “bill” by National..The wee fat human frog Turei who was missing in action in the lead up to the election,as her eye candy image would have frightened the horses.Her comments were so financially illiterate and degrading ,as if THREE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS,was small change to our debt liabilities.Seems that party and all their wee blood suckers,havn’t heard of the European financial meltdown,which still has not run its course.Seems she is not too concerned if NZ ends up on the same financial scrap heap as GREECE.

  • Robert Anderson

    And of course as predicted, Bill has killed the Bill. Treasurer’s right. hahahaha

    • Kosh103

      Yep he has.

      And prob cost National the next election.

      Labour can now paint National as anti family, anti kids, anti women. And they will be 100% correct.

      • Karlos

        Kosh, If you take your blinkers off,  National could be seen to be fiscally responsable while Labour could be seen as a tax and spend party………..oh wait, so nothing has changed then? Seems like the same result as the last election could be expected then.

        Just curious, have you ever had a job outside of teaching? Just wondering if this could be why you seem so set on short sighted socialist policy.

      • Kosh103

        All Labour have to do is show how they can pay for it with cuts from else where. As soon as they do that, National can be hammered.

        And as for my employment history, I have done a few things in my time and do not consider it short sighted to keep women in their jobs.

      • Patriot

        National keeps its high rating — Labor will not be the Govt as it is too irresponsible with money especially at a time when Chch is trying to hang an increasing amount of Disney costs  on Govt , like a new Art Gallery  .

        Kosh — your dreams of a Labor Govt are Fairydreams with a bottomless pit of money — Economic responsibility is required to run a Nation with a Quake city in Chch to underwrite + fund .

        Those mothers with babies — ask the father of those babies to pay for the costs — or Dont have more Babies if they cant support them — heard of contraception  ???  — No to 26 weeks PPL

  • jay cee

    cant argue with the numbers you quote people however in politics perception is everything so i’ll stick with my earlier statement.

  • Chunky

    Don’t lefties just  love spending other peoples money.
     With all her talk about democratic rights being ignored it shows Sue Baloney has thrown all her toys out of her cot  now her bill has been vetoed