Paid Parental Leave
April 7th, 2012 at 9:08 am by David FarrarKate Chapman reports at Stuff:
National is likely to come under intense pressure to support extending paid parental leave to six months.
Labour MP Sue Moroney’s Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill has been drawn from the ballot and may have the numbers without National.
UnitedFuture leader Peter Dunne has campaigned on extending paid parental leave to 12 months, and most other political parties, except ACT, are likely to support the bill. That will leave National in a tight spot if it chooses to vote against the family-friendly legislation.
The bill would increase paid parental leave by four weeks a year to 26 weeks in 2014, almost double the current 14 weeks.
It is worth mentioning that the Government can stop the bill being passed into law, even without a majority in Government. If the Minister of Finance signs a certificate saying the bill “would have more than a minor impact on the Government’s fiscal aggregates”, then under Standing Orders the Speaker will not give the bill a third reading. It can however proceed up until then.
On the merits of increasing paid parental leave, lets just say it is a debate which could be worthwhile to have when we are back in surplus, but while we are struggling with debt and deficit, it would be irresponsible to do so.
Related posts:
- Mitchell on paid parental leave
- How would Labour pay for paid parental leave?
- Paid Parental Leave Pains
- Paid Parental Leave for a year
April 7th, 2012 at 9:18 am
…while we are struggling with debt and deficit, it would be ir-responsible to do so.
The bill proposes a relatively modest phasing in. Surplus is forecast from 2014, why not plan to phase it in from then?
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 9:24 am
Er no. Lets not do this at all. Why promise to expand the state and hurt business long term and call it “family friendly”?
Look at why Greece is in the shit, too many handouts, anti business legislation that has turned it into a basket case.
Why should people and businesses without children subsidise those who make that choice to have one or six??
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 9:31 am
Irresponsible even to have the debate? That sounds a bit harsh.
@LMK
Maybe because they ultimately benefit from those children?
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 9:37 am
National will compromise on this perhaps with a 5 year phase in. The fiscal implications need to be looked at as well as the effect on the employment of women of child bearing age. You can be sure Sue Maroney will not have done this homework. She will work herself up into a lather and justify the Bill purely on emotion.
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 9:43 am
May be Peter Done (nothing) quits Parliament, establish a business, the employ young women in the age group who are ready to have kids. See if Mr Done nothing can afford to run his business.
Also that unproductive Sue Moron, can quite Parliament and run a business. She can employ young women too (who are planning to have family – at the time of interview for a job with her) and see if her business can survive. Typical unproductive members of the society dictating or trying to tell the productive of what to do. The National Party shouldn’t capitulate to that unproductive Sue Moron.
This issue is a private matter between the employer & employee. It is non of the Govt’s business to regulate this issue. A good employer can figure out that giving their women employees a maternity leave (perhaps longer than what its competitors have to offer for same position) is part of an package to attract the best. This must be done voluntarily.
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 10:01 am
As an employer, I agree with Falafulu Fisi, that we just cannot sustain continued costs from more ‘regulations’. We have negotiated different benefits to individual employees, depending on their individual circumstances. Isn’t that what democracy was supposed to be about?
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 10:05 am
Bang on the money guys. Why should businesses suffer because it’s a “nice” thing to do. If it’s enforced there is nothing stopping me simply not employing the young woman with a good CV. This is yet more proof Govt should stick its nose out.
@eszett – what’s to say these kids don’t end up on the dole? That isn’t benefiting me at all.
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 10:13 am
Maybe parents are allowed to take the first 12 weeks post natal and the balance 14 weeks be taken over the next 5 years to include various child related issues including illness. At present parents flOg sick leave for this
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 10:23 am
I worked in the Netherlands in the 1990s. The parental leave provisions there were very generous. My extended department of IT workers (total of around 50, which in NZ would probably be 35-50% female) included just a single woman. I asked her why this was. She pointed out that she was in her 50s.
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 10:43 am
Prospective parents should weigh the cost:benefit of having children, and make their own decision. We should resist having the state put a dollar value on the benefit and passing the cost to employers
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 10:58 am
On the merits of increasing paid parental leave, lets just say it is a debate which could be worthwhile to have when we are back in surplus, but while we are struggling with debt and deficit, it would be ir-responsible to do so.
Oh FFS David, you may as well just join the Labour party if you are going to be that wet.
The correct answer to this proposal is “NO FUCKING WAY”. Forcing employers to pay you to sit around at home with your child for A FULL YEAR is the most ridiculous and fiscally irresponsible thing I have ever heard of.
PPL should not even exist. If you want to have a baby, that is not your employer’s responsibility. If you want to be a stay at home parent, that is not your employer’s responsibility either.
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 11:06 am
I would be frankly ashamed to have a child and then from the day it comes out of the hospital me, my wife or child are all dependent on some sort of welfare for our choice. If you have a baby you SAVE up for it. You make the choices and sacrifices yourself and don’t become a burden on others.
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 11:21 am
If the people of New Zealand (stupidly) would like to support children and those having children financially, then all New Zealanders should contribute by giving them government welfare. To force a small minority (employers) of people to pay for this desire of other New Zealanders, even if they are a democratic majority, is wrong and in the long run, harmful to those children.
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 11:23 am
umm are businesses meant to cover the 6 months??? really?? some people live in fucking la la land.
“Hey Dime, I cant help but notice all the women you employ are over 45″
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 11:31 am
Guys – its not the employer paying the paid parental leave, its the taxpayer.
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Further disincentive for employers to employ women.
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Why involve the employer at all?
Are they free labour for the gov to organise their welfare programs?
The government (and therefore taxpayers) should handle all admin and payment of this handout.
If it is administered and paid by employers then it is a targeted tax on them.
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Exactly. Why should we look into this further, even when we are back in surplus?
If someone has a child and needs generous government support from day 1 for 18 weeks, you can bet your life they will be receiving a fuck load more over the life of their children through WFF, child care subsidies, and all sorts of other handouts.
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
When running a modern business you need to take heed of all laws.I wont employ many child bearing age women as it can be very disruptive.Lately we have found that over 50s fit in well with a great work ethic and less problems.
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
The Netherlands has 75% of women in part-time employment, as opposed to full-time, dramatically different to the EU average at 33%. The price of maternity leave is gender inequality. The Netherlands have accepted that- will we?
Vote:[Figures rounded off;
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Employment_statistics.
edited for url readability
April 7th, 2012 at 1:43 pm
It is not administered or paid by the employer, it is administered and paid by the IRD. The only thing the employer gets involved in is confirming the employment situation.
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Yup lived in Holland for 6 years – they had some ludicrous employment laws (including parental and sick leave) many of which they have unwinded and are continuing to unwind (I have in laws there and speak the language and get the goss). They were immensely abused after a while – a surprisingly long while compared to anglo saxon countries and says a lot about the dutch and their overall decent ethics but sadly the welfarism won out.
At the time I was there I was a manager and had employment responsibilities and was informed we could not sack for incompetence – could be done but took years. Drunk on the job, sex while working or stealing were the only reasonably efficient sacking offences. Led to some interesting conversations around underperformers.
What many don’t realise is much of this was funded out of the North Sea oil and gas and not some wonderous efficiencies because of a wonderous welfare state.
Anyway, it was also made clear that parental leave meant women under 40 received less investment and lesser pay. Many career oriented women deeply resented this. We would have officially illegal conversations around their family plans initiated by the women.
I for one don’t mind too much giving parents some extra assistance but the old adage one gets more of what one pays for starts to kick in here. We already pay people to have kids who cannot reasonably afford them.
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
I am touched that you’re all so worried about the gender inequality and discrimination that PPL evidently creates. Couldn’t we fix that quite simply by considering early childcare to be the equal responsibility of both mothers and fathers? I’m sure there are many dads who would love to have a few months at home with their newborn. Or perhaps the partner with the lesser income could choose to stay at home?
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
@salt – that seems an incredibly naive position – women over represent in terms of being the child carer and I don’t see any likelihood of that changing soon to anything close to an equal share. Yes, we have lots more cases where the women is the main income earner and have a couple of friends who have the bloke looking after the kids but this is the exception and strangely enough blokes cannot give birth the last time I looked.
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 2:38 pm
@salt – again – you are getting commentary from people who have lived and worked in environments where a generous parental leave was applied – as per many welfare initiatives that are done with great intentions – the unintended consequences often are much worse than expected.
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Lefties like Moroney (whom Hamilton voters rejected) always want to spend rather than earn. Let her show where the new money is coming from before she tries to get a new hand-out.
Vote:I am all for women getting some recompense for interrupting their careers to have our next generation but we have to make the extra new money first or go without something else.
April 7th, 2012 at 7:02 pm
@slijmbal – my point is, when it’s culturally expected that a particular sector of society will inevitably leave the paid workforce for much of their 30s, of course it impacts negatively on that sector’s career prospects. But why do we insist on hanging on to that expectation? We no longer live in a world where it makes economic sense to expect women to be the default caregivers, and men to always be the breadwinners – nowadays both women and men are expected to work to support themselves. What’s disadvantaging women about PPL isn’t the PPL itself, but the expectation that it will overwhelmingly be women who take it.
Also, childbirth itself is not the reason PPL is needed/desirable. Most women are able to work until very close to the end of their pregnancy, and would be well fit to be back at work in a few weeks if the baby was to be looked after by a stay-at-home dad. So in terms of leave, maybe a month?
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 7:23 pm
What’s to say that they wont become successful members of society and pay taxes and consume goods?
You have to view a policy on the whole, not merely on individual examples. Generally it is beneficial to society to encourage people to have children and create an environment where it is possible to have them.
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 7:32 pm
PPL is a stupid.
This sort of policy sends all the wrong signals. Where the hell does the money come from to pay for this ? Moroney wouldn’t have an economic clue.
Dunne should resign if he wants 12 months paid parental leave.It shows how bereft of economic understanding he is.That MP’s like this hold our country to ransom is an absolute bloody shame.
Vote:What an idealistic world some live in.
April 7th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
This measure falls into the same category as minimum wages, which have priced entry level youth workers out of the labour force. Youth unemployment is now several times higher than general unemployment.
What this bill will do is make it much harder for women of ovulation age to find employment, especially in the small to medium sized business sector, which is where the vast majority of jobs exist.
People who propose these initiatives typically have a public sector background where it’s someone else’s money and you can therefore “afford” all these things. They have no idea of the real world stresses and strains suffered by the owners of businesses.
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
Obviously pregnant women should leave the workforce altogether like they did 50 years ago…
Vote:April 7th, 2012 at 10:05 pm
So the taxpayer pays again.
Vote:From where comes the daft idea that if individuals can’t afford something, that the government can.
April 7th, 2012 at 10:16 pm Vote:
April 8th, 2012 at 1:32 am
You wonder why women find it hard to get a job…
Vote:April 8th, 2012 at 2:14 am
@ Eszett – no. Generally it would be good for all families with children to support themselves and not depend on “other peoples money” in order to get ahead. A favourable environment for this to occur is to reward individual responsibility like savings or waiting until you can actually afford a child is of far greater benefit to society than yet more taxpayer dosh being used as a substitute.
Mikenmild doesn’t have an answer, hence the glib answer. His answer would be for 5 years PPL in which kids would be then sent to union education camps.
Vote:April 8th, 2012 at 3:20 am
Ever thought of changing your name to Libertarian Minded Kiwi?
Of course every civilised nation has some sort of parental leave concept, simply because such a social darwinism as you propose it is nonsense and counterproductive.
It is nonsense to suggest that they use other people moneys “in order to get ahead”. Having children certainly doesn’t get you ahead financially. Society and governments has an interest in supporting families.
Vote:April 8th, 2012 at 4:36 am
How is it nonsense for Governments to take away from workers with no children or those who are single or unable to have children at all – and give to those who choose to breed? Whatever happened to personal responsibility or has that concept been banned from the socialist dictionary?
How did we survive before PPL? Why are you insisting that it’s progress when all it really promotes is more Government intervention in the workplace. When will this end?
Vote:April 8th, 2012 at 5:13 am
Dime
We are the same, recently we were looking to take on two extra staff for clerical work and as usual the applicants were all chicks.
At no stage did the person doing the hiring even consider young married chicks because of the paid parental leave bullshit, needless to say the ladies who ended up with the jobs were 40 plus.
You have to laugh at the socialist wankers, every idea they come up with ends up making it harder for the very people they are trying to help.
Vote:April 8th, 2012 at 7:13 am
More Middle class welfare. This is a stupid idea. Most middle class people managed without having handouts. This just locks in more spending when we should be reducing government expenditure in a massive way.
Vote:April 8th, 2012 at 10:14 am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/07/copenhagen-really-wonderful-reasons
If the Danes – who have to keep their cows inside in the winter – can do it, why can’t we?
Vote:April 8th, 2012 at 10:23 am
Careful fish_boy, you’ll have Gerry Brownlee slanging off the Danes as well as the Finns.
Vote:April 9th, 2012 at 5:25 am
Yes but look at where they left. Finsbury Park is a festering shithole.
Vote: