A paid parental leave debate
May 31st, 2012 at 11:00 am by David FarrarThe VUW Debating Society has a debate tonight on paid parental leave. It is in Rutherford House Lecture Theatre 2 starting at 6.30 pm.
The debaters are:
- Sue Moroney, Labour Spokesperson for Women’s Affairs
- Paul Callister, Victoria University of Wellington Economist
- Barbara Lambourn, Advocacy Manager, UNICEF
- Max Harris – Champion Debater
- Richard D’Ath – Champion Debater
- Olivia Hall – Rising Star Debater
Should be a good debate.
Related posts:
- Paid Parental Leave
- How would Labour pay for paid parental leave?
- Mitchell on paid parental leave
- Paid Parental Leave Pains
May 31st, 2012 at 11:32 am
Sounds great!
Vote:May 31st, 2012 at 12:33 pm
I bet these women won’t offer NZ women what is fair: Full pay for parental leave.The Australian Liberals are offering it.
Instead they will offer what the ALP are offering – less paid parental leave for women on high pay [compared to their income]- and more paid parental leave for women on low pay.[also compared to their income]
rich prick babies !
But seriously, it proves the point that lower paid women are having babies they can’t really afford, if they NEED paid parental leave that is ACTUALLY HIGHER than the pay they will get when they return to their job.
As usual, this will be another debate that will be hi-jacked by emotional left leaning women.
Vote:May 31st, 2012 at 12:40 pm
How is paid parental leave for every woman fair? Why should I have to pay for the lifestyle choices of women who can afford kids? It’s bad enough that I have to pay for the lifestyle choices of those who can’t afford kids.
Vote:May 31st, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Parental leave is intended to be the first step toward full pay for woman who stay home to look after dependent kids. The drive to pay family for looking after disadvantaged dependents is part of the same crusade. All laudable but unaffordable.
Vote:May 31st, 2012 at 1:02 pm
gazzmaniac #
Women, if they are allowed to by LAW to take time off work, should be reimbursed in FULL what they could have earnt if they stayed at work.Or they ALL receive nothing.
To do otherwise is nothing more than injustice and tokenism .
Vote:May 31st, 2012 at 1:06 pm
gazzmaniac #
I also meant instead of ‘full pay’ -80% or 50% etc- but ALL women should receive payment[if there is any] under the same CONDITIONS as any other women.
Vote:May 31st, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Harriet:
I think you’re conflating an employment right (a woman’s right to retain her job, despite a short-term absence for childbirth & parenting) with a government payment (the taxpayer then paying that woman during her time off work).
As far as I can see those two things should remain quite independent. All woman are entitled to take time off work. But that does not require that all woman are then paid during that time off, and furthermore not be paid the full value of their lost wages.
Vote:May 31st, 2012 at 3:24 pm
More nice to haves if you can afford it. Take the great debate on Nz child poverty for example. The more money you throw at it the worse it gets. Why is that you ask? Simply because the more you pay peolpe to have kids that they cnat afford the more kids they will have to improve their state funded lifestyles.
Vote: