Mitchell on paid parental leave

March 17th, 2013 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

blogs:

The private members bill legislating for an increase of taxpayer-funded (PPL) from 14 to 26 weeks is back in parliament today. Bear in mind, if lobbyists get 6 months it’ll only be a matter of time before they want 1 year.

The main argument goes that bonding and breastfeeding are so important they should be encouraged as much as possible.

If you look at how mothers are behaving after a birth most already appreciate that.

NZ statistics analysed data from 2002 -2005 when the provision was for 12 weeks PPL.

Did most mothers return to work when their leave entitlement ran out?

No.

4 months after starting PPL only 12.5 percent were back working – at 5 months, only 33 percent.

30 percent had not returned to work after 18 months.

So very very few mothers go back to work the moment PPL runs out. Hence the arguments about giving more bonding time are over-hyped. An extension will simply be another tax and spend income transfer.

Tags: ,

14 Responses to “Mitchell on paid parental leave”

  1. kowtow (8,774 comments) says:

    Hang on a mo!

    This is a Labour private members bill dealing with love and commitment and relationships,surely we should all get in behind it.

    You know like that other one on “equality”.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. duggledog (1,589 comments) says:

    And it will happen too I reckon. Forget the cost – what’s that?

    An own goal for women as employers won’t employ ladies of child bearing age.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. thedavincimode (6,877 comments) says:

    Cue the next batch of WFF and PPL bludgers who berate welfare bludgers and even welfare itself for those who need it, pretend to support personal responsibility, but then for reasons of self-interest, rationalise their bludging on the basis of breeding being in the national interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Kowtow

    You know like that other one on “equality”.

    Tragic mate ,tragic – I see nothing in the marriage bill which says an employer has to pay for the wedding!!!!!!!
    But don’t let that get in the way of your world view.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. kowtow (8,774 comments) says:

    Yep and all that time spent in parliament and amending a host of laws is going to have no cost to the taxpayer…..

    all so that a tiny minority of activists (and their “progressive” allies) can feel good about themselves.

    As you say ,tragic.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. rg (214 comments) says:

    And Bill English of the socialist National Party said extending PPL was a good idea but we can’t afford it. That means one presumes that once we can afford it we will get it. There is no hope.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. tvb (4,512 comments) says:

    We can afford this. It will not break the economy. It is in the interests of the economy long term to remove the disincentives to have children. It could be implemented in stages and perhaps increase it to 12 months over 5 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Viking2 (11,568 comments) says:

    Another Maori and Catholic Social Service coming to the breeders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Redbaiter (9,609 comments) says:

    Kowtow is right- this is all about “EQUALITY” in the workplace, and introduced by another extreme left Labour party MP, so all you boneheaded liberals who are so intensely concerned with achieving that idyllic state of affairs (thedavaselinemode for example) should be all for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. thedavincimode (6,877 comments) says:

    rg

    Or it could have been English saying “no” and reminding himself to come up with another reason when we can supposedly afford it.

    To my way of thinking, it isn’t actually so much the money that makes it unaffordable, but rather a continuation of the erosion of standards of personal responsibility; something we’re meant to be turning around.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Bullitt (141 comments) says:

    “It is in the interests of the economy long term to remove the disincentives to have children”
    I wasn’t aware the government had put in place any disincentives to have children, the only disincentives arise from other areas, similar to how there are for any other activity. Running a marathon is difficult therefore there is a disincentive to do it, maybe in the interest of better health people should get a tax rebate for each one they complete?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. snapdragon (7 comments) says:

    Why do we put up with all this bullshit about paid parental leave? Until a few months ago I was an employer (24 years) and had a 90% female workforce. I had a number of staff who left work to have a baby and be a stay-at-home Mum but I also had a few who got pregnant and applied for aid parental leave meaning I expected them back at work in 3 months’ time. After rearranging rosters or in some cases recruiting new staff on fixed term contracts I was always told the week before the 3 months was up that they wouldn’t be returning to work. The PPL was just a money grab. If we agree that a higher birthrate is better than immigration why don’t we just pay new Mums a baby bonus like the Australians do? Then all new mothers would get it and employers are excused this obligatory farcical leave situation. Give employers a choice – if staff want time off to have a baby and spend 1, 3, 6, 12 months or even longer away from the job, let the boss decide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Paulus (2,664 comments) says:

    Thank goodness for somebody like Mitchell to have an accurate picture, in itself a story.
    It has been know for a long time that women taking maternity leave, often upsetting company work flow and structure, wait until the last minute, before the expected recommencement date then to say to the employer “stuff you”. I am not going back to your shitty job.
    Employers are getting well used to this, and it is not new.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    At 4 months (17 weeks) only 12.5% have returned to work showing 12 weeks is too short.

    Extending it to 26 weeks/6 months is the obvious period to support breast feeding and be in accord with common parental practice.

    I would have jobs held open for up to one year and 6 months paid parental leave.

    By 5 months 33% are back in work and it is is 70% at 18 months.

    It would be good to have a figure for 6 months to compare the impact of an extension to 26 weeks on those back at work at this time.

    The right/left political debate should be around 26 weeks or 52 weeks paid parental leave – the existing regime of 12 weeks is simply too short to support breast feeding and thus the divergence between parental practice and the support regime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote