Key on Members Bills
April 16th, 2012 at 3:00 pm by David FarrarDanya Levy at Stuff reports:
Key, who is in Jakarta on a trade mission, said he had discussed the use of the veto with English, who made the announcement while the prime minister was on holiday with his family.
Everyone acknowledged paid parental leave was important for mothers and families.
“It’s an important time they bond with their children. Everyone acknowledges having more time with their infants would be an important thing to support.”
However, the Government’s number one priority was getting its books back to surplus.
“We think when the Government’s balance sheet is in order, that provides greater strength for families overall because it is not just paid parental leave we support; it’s Working For Families, it’s access to early childhood education and many other initiatives.”
The reality is that surpluses give you options, deficits just give you debt. Borrowing money to fund extending paid parental leave is not sustainable.
Meanwhile, Key has indicated he would support a Green members’ bill to introduce a record of lobbyists who work at Parliament.
“I don’t think any Government has done as much in terms of introduced transparency into Parliament as we have in the past three-and-a-half years. There’s much greater transparency in terms of MPs’ expenses and the likes.”
Key said he was not “fundamentally opposed” to having a register.
“That’s a matter for our caucus to consider but in principle I’m not opposed to it potentially going to a select committee.”
I’m not a clairvoyant, but I predict National will vote for the bill at first reading 
April 16th, 2012 at 3:05 pm
I can see some increase in the entitlement in the 2014 year to possibly match Australia’s. But it so depressing that people develop a head of steam over an entitlement without considering its financial implications nor the effect on the employment of women. The Government is not doing a good job at explaining the reason for the financial veto, its history (been around for decades and longer), and its past use.
Vote:April 16th, 2012 at 3:06 pm
I find the Government’s reasoning a tad confusing here,
On the one hand they say it is their policy for parents to bond with their children.
On the other they want to force solo parents out to work while their children are still young.
Clearly a budget surplus comes before all else. In that National has something in common with Labor in Australia.
Its called being shortsighted.
[DPF: Actually the Govt is being very consistent. At present working parents only receive income for 14 weeks. Sole parents receive it for six years before work testing begins (soon to be five years). That is getting them closer together]
Vote:April 16th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
I probably should know the answer but how does PPL work with WFF.
Assume, no PPL. The mother stops working so household income decreases meaning they get an increase in WFF. WFF is means tested so the money goes to those that need it. WFF may not be as much as PPL but if that is the issue, tweek WFF, not increase PPL which goes to everyone, including those that dont need it.
Why should families with 6 figure incomes (one salary) be getting a handout from the government.
Vote:April 16th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
I think JK has just given it a rethink, realising the fall out. His position now is what National’s position should have been last week, particularly keeping the Maori party and Peter Dunn in mind. Bill English’s statement was contradictory to National policy of doing more for children in this term.
Vote:Yes, and a budget surplus, or a good run in that direction comes before all else.
While the Nats were getting some praise in aussie last week, Gaynor tore into them over the weekend for lack of leadership on the chch rebuild and therefore weak construction growth, also noting the high dollar damaging manufacturing here. He pointed out that the fastest growing area of the economy in the last 6 years was where we don’t want to to be – government admin and defence. So that surplus or tending upwards might be further away than the predictions by National before the last election, perhaps the real reason for Bill English using the v word.
April 16th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
As Lindsay Mitchel has noted: we support… Working For Families
What a fail, what a turn-around, and what a no-surprise that National will never get the books in black. I personally can’t wait to see John Key go. It’s a nice guy, but completely unsuited for the realities of an impoverished nation which has no ambition than just be another Pacific Island.
As they say, it’s easy to get $1 million: just start with $2 million.
Vote:April 16th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
No government is going to hand over the right to determine what happens to future funds surpluses to the opposition so I would expect the veto to still be applied. To allow this bill through even with delayed implementation is to say that the first call on any future surplus has already been determined by Sue Moroney and her fellow travellers. There are a heap of other spending options that the Government may wish to address and of course that does not cover what happens when the Nats try and claw back some social spending while at the same time committing to greater future benefits. Accusations of inconsistency etc etc.
Talk about handing the opposition a hammer and instructions on where are the most painful places to get hit.
Either the argument still has a long road to travel and the bill does not get the support it currently enjoys or the Nats are backed into a corner of their own construction.
It will take some clever wording to make introduction of more PPL contingent on some future event like Government borrowing reducing to zero and even then a future spending commitment is contrary to the lower taxes argument.
Vote:April 16th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
I hope the Green bill on lobbyists gets passed. I think National will make substantial changes to it to improve it (reduce overheads and make it clearer/simpler) but will ultimately pass the law or one similar to it. It’s a good example of how the select committee process supports a bipartisan approach.
NZ doesn’t need this law as much as a lot of countries, but a focus on reducing corruption and keeping vote buying, and favours out of politics is important if our high rankings for transparency are to be maintained.
Kudos to National on reform of MP’s expenses etc.
I think it’s a mistake for national not to engage with the parental leave bill, if it breaks down in select committee over details of the level of payment, number of weeks, number of years to phase it in etc then fair enough, but to say from the outset that you will veto it is dumb.
If they were willing to discuss it I could see somebody like Jackie Blue sponsoring an amendment (similar to the Chester Borrows sponsored compromise amendment on the smacking bill) to manage the cost while maintaining the maternal health objectives of the policy by phasing it in over a longer period of time (or perhaps phasing out the payments gradually). This would proportionately benefit poor mums more than rich mums which would be problematic for Labour.
Or perhaps even a Key/English solution unveiled at budget time to make it fiscally neutral through savings in an other area that deliver an ideological policy win for National. For instance, the Nats could say they will introduce interest on student loans at the rate of inflation once people start working full time and use the money to pay for PPL. It all goes into the consolidated account so it’s a bit of smoke and mirrors but the public doesn’t really care. But if managed well it would be very effective because if Labour opposes the solution then National get to paint them as hurting young mums to provide a subsidy to full time working professionals with a degree.
Vote:April 16th, 2012 at 4:26 pm
Andrea Vance cries out:
I think quite a few people will see it like that.
Vote:April 16th, 2012 at 7:41 pm
“The reality is that surpluses give you options, deficits just give you debt”
This is an absurd statement, unless you massively privilege the status quo. The government is CHOOSING this year, just like it chose last year, to spend billions on WFF, interest free student loans, bailing out residential property investors in ChCh etc. They’ve got plenty of options.
Vote:April 16th, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Swan
Vote:And the election bribe tax cut that had to be paid by borrowing . A knee jerk reaction, more to do with ideology rather than the merits of the proposition.