Baby bribe details not made clear

January 29th, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

3 News reports:

sold the baby bonus as $60 per week “for a baby’s first year”. But the truth was buried in the fine print. For most parents it only starts after an expanded 26 weeks of paid parental leave.

Labour’s own publicity showed the $60 payment applying from birth to age one. It actually starts after six months.

“If the parents are getting paid parental leave, they don’t get this concurrently,” says Mr Cunliffe.

“When I read the speech and looked at it, I thought absolutely you got it for the entire year your child was under one year of age,” says Prime Minister John Key. “I think David Cunliffe is being very tricky. I think he’s actually trying to mislead the New Zealand public.”

And further it seems you may be earning hundreds of thousands you until having the baby, and still get the :

If Labour wins power, all families who earn less than $150,000 will get the bonus. Mr Cunliffe says that limit would be judged when they had the baby and were down to one income.

“It applies to income at the time they are applying for the $60-a-week benefit,” says Mr Cunliffe.

That means a couple earning a total of up to $300,000 would get the bonus if one took leave to be with the baby and they fall under the $150,000 mark. But before this could be properly clarified, Mr Cunliffe walked off.

It’s even worse than that. If Theresa Gattung was still CEO of Telecom and took a year off from being CEO to have a baby, then she’d get the baby bonus (if her partner earns less than $150,000) even though she was returning to a job that paid over a million dollars a year.

also looks at the policy. He notes:

  • A family on $49,000 with a three year old will be taxed to pay an upper-middle-class to families on $149,000 with a three month old.
  • As a parent he knows the first year of a baby’s life is the cheapest as they eat so little. Costs rise as they get older.
  • Will increase child poverty as the experience in Australia is that a baby bribe bonus increases the birth rate, leading to larger families in communities that can least afford it

Matthew also picks up on the point I highlighted a few days ago. David Cunliffe claimed that one in five Kiwi kids can’t afford a second pair of shoes, when in fact the real number is one in 20. He generously suggests Labour mixed up 20% and one in twenty!

UPDATE: Patrick Gower blogs on Labour’s misleading policy:

The Labour Party has been putting voters wrong about its baby bonus.

Labour has been deliberately misleading, and in my view dishonest by omission.

On Monday night I told 3 News viewers that under Labour’s $60 a week baby bonus policy, families would get $3120 a year for their baby’s first year.

A simple calculation you might think, of $60 mutiplied by 52 weeks, given David Cunliffe announced in his State of the Nation speech: “That’s why today, I am announcing that for 59,000 families with new-born babies, they will all receive a Best Start payment of $60 per week, for the first year of their child’s life.”

Now most normal people would think that means “all” those parents will get the payment “for the first year of their child’s life”.

But it wasn’t true – not that you would know that from Cunliffe’s speech, media stand-up, the MPs who were there to “help” and all the glossy material handed out to us.

Because buried in the material was a website link that takes you to a more detailed explanation policy.

And on page six of that policy document, in paragraph 3, it revealed the payment would commence at the “end of the household’s time of using Paid Parental Leave, ie. after 26 weeks in most cases.”

So translated, in most cases, the $60 a week payment is not for the first year, but for the second six months.

Most journalists, like our office, only had time to find this overnight on Monday.

Here’s a question. When all the media reported the policy as applying for a full year, instead of six months, did anyone in Labour contact them and tell them they were wrong? Or were they happy for the media (like everyone else) to report it the way they did, and hoped they wouldn’t notice the fine print?

Now Cunliffe and Labour knew this $3120 for one year figure was wrong, but nobody rang to correct it.

Usually political parties and the taxpayer-funded spin doctors are screaming down the phone if there is an error (and rightfully so, I might add), but in this case Labour was dead quiet.

Question answered.

And I believe that’s because Labour wanted the punters to think it was $60 for a year.

They were desperate to get cut-through and were happy to omit key information and let the wrong message get out there.

And I think that is deliberately misleading and dishonest from Labour.

At some point, I’m sure senior Labour people made a decision to omit key details on the day to maximise publicity – it was no mistake.

But not the way to win friends and influence people.

And it goes on: Labour’s Sue Moroney has just explained to me that there are 60,000 births in New Zealand each year, 59,000 of those families earn under $150,000, 26,000 are eligible for paid parental leave, meaning 23,000 will get the $60 for the full twelve months.

That means Cunliffe should have said 23,000 people will get the baby bonus for a year, which is not “most” of the 60,000 familes that have babies each year – it’s actually under half.

Interestingly it means the baby bonus will mainly go to those who were not working when they got pregnant!

Cunliffe also struggled to explain yesterday whether families would be judged on their pre-baby double income (ie. two earners of $140,000 each, getting $280,000) or after-baby income $140,000.

This seems a pretty straightforward aspect to me, and I wonder if it was policy-on-the-hoof. He either didn’t know the policy properly or was trying to avoid showing how generous the policy is.

For the record, it’s judged on the after-baby, one income and Cunliffe says he misunderstood the questions from myself and Brent Edwards.

So as I said above, the CEO of Telecom could get the baby bonus if she takes a year off. This isn’t middle class welfare, but universal welfare – which we pay for!

The bonus kicking in after six months is nothing to be ashamed of. It is a generous policy and has set the political agenda this week.

Labour didn’t have to be dishonest – it could have just told voters the truth.

Media will be very very careful with the next announcement to ignore the speech and press release and look for the fine print.

Tags: , , ,

65 Responses to “Baby bribe details not made clear”

  1. dime (10,089 comments) says:

    DPF – you obviously dont care about babies.

    My god, would it just kill labour to give a tax cut to everyone?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. JC (967 comments) says:

    Whats been overt about Cunliffe all career is he’s convinced he’s got a brain “as big as a small planet” and he can bullshit the rest of us with great ease.

    This little contretemps proves that.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Manolo (14,024 comments) says:

    This level of economic illiteracy can only be swallowed by morons, and those who support Labour’s proposal are accomplished idiots.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    This is the key point:

    A family on $49,000 with a three year old will be taxed to pay an upper-middle-class welfare to families on $149,000 with a three month old

    Cunliffe says that the “super rich” will be the ones who mainly fund this, but everyone knows it is always the middle-class who get squeezed the hardest by tax-and-spend welfarism.

    And that’s the same middle-class who, under Labour/Greens, will also get hit hardest by mortgage rate rises, fuel price rises, etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Sponge (226 comments) says:

    The venal and power hungry fools are being shown up quite badly at present.

    Good.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    Good to see Labour taking child poverty seriously.
    (hat-tip ross69)

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. alex Masterley (1,523 comments) says:

    Oh dear,

    Labour just lost the trust and I suspect the goodwill of the media by bullshitting.

    Trust/goodwill is very hard to earn but soooo easy to loose.

    Everything Mr Cunliffe says from now on will be scrutinised to within an inch it’s life instead of being accepted at face value.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. flash2846 (289 comments) says:

    ‘Headlines’ are all Labour are interested in because they know so many dumb-arses can’t or wont read past them.
    Clever really; but still dishonest.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    “As a parent he knows the first year of a baby’s life is the cheapest as they eat so little. Costs rise as they get older.”

    THIS, a thousand times this.

    Tooling up for the first baby before it arrives is where you are conscious of spending the most money – cot, chest of drawers, massive mountain buggy stroller, car seat, small folding stroller, clothes, clothes & more clothes, another chest of drawers, cloth nappies & covers for them.

    But during this stage, both parents are working and you are a two incomes, no kids couple with cash to spend, so it’s no problem, RIGHT?

    Once the baby arrives, it gets its all of its food for free from those two squishy sex ornaments on Mum’s chest. And it doesn’t cost much to wash cloth nappies every day, and it doesn’t cost much to rip up a few old sheets & towels to make re-usable bum wipes.

    Any subsequent babies will be wearing the same clothes and nappies that baby #1 wore, they grow so fast that none of that newborn stuff gets worn more than a handful of times before it’s outgrown.

    The BIG cost of having babies is losing mum’s income. Because before Mum took time off to have kids, she was WORKING, right? ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    AFAIK the current situation is that parents can receive a tax credit or paid parental leave but not both.

    The Right were bleating about the cost of Labour’s policy – they should be relieved it’s not as expensive as they first thought. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    @RRM, in my experience the biggest cost is when they’re 2. The early childcare subsidy drops massively and the 20 hours free doesn’t kick in until they turn 3.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. BeaB (2,142 comments) says:

    We now have the slogan for the election “Read the fine print”. What a stupid trap for Cunliffe to walk into.

    And this man is supposed to be so clever? I’d back Key against him any day for smarts.

    And now a Triple A credit rating for NZ. Let’s see the Lame Left try to talk this one down

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Auberon (873 comments) says:

    Ross69, it’s as expensive as Labour said it is, just for half the time than they suggested it was for! That’s doubly dishonest!! Or are you saying that now it’s clear they were fibbing the bill has come down too? Funny, I missed that announcement from Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Are those bleating about the $60 a week universality going to do so when National extends taxpayer funded parental leave at $500 plus a week to those who have partners continuing in highly paid jobs?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    John Key has scored his 2nd own goal in less than a week!

    It was quite clear that Labour’s policy didn’t kick in for those receiving paid parental leave.

    For families receiving Paid Parental Leave, entitlement to the Best Start Payment will commence at the end of the household’s time using Paid Parental Leave.

    This will be after 26 weeks in most cases, once the duration of Paid Parental Leave has also been extended as part of the Best Start package.

    In other cases, Best Start Payment will commence from the week of the child’s birth.

    All those on the Right getting into a lather, maybe you’d like to offer a sincere apology to the next Prime Minister. I won’t hold my breath.

    https://www.labour.org.nz/sites/default/files/issues/labour_best_start_-_best_start_payment_factsheet.pdf

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 28 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    Dear John Key, I’m sincerely sorry the left are such lying venal wankers.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. burt (8,301 comments) says:

    I find it disgraceful that the debate is about when all the different “entitlements” kick in and out…. whatever happened to self responsibility … You breed em – you feed em.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Does anyone know the percentage of babies born to couples who do get paid parental leave as opposed to the percentage of babies born to couples who don’t get paid parental leave?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Right Now, you are aware that the $60 a week payment is made during the first 3 years.

    While only universal in the first year, it will continue between ages 1 and 2, and 2 and 3.

    Labour is increasing the number of free hours ECE after 3 from 20 to 25.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    muggins, only 40% of families get parental leave.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. stephen2d (87 comments) says:

    This will be the downfall of Cunliffe: he lives by sound bites, will use heavily “fine-print”, combined with his arrogance and voila. Popcorn time :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    SPC, makes no difference to me now, so not enough to buy my vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    Won’t anyone think of the taxi drivers!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pete George (23,677 comments) says:

    There’s been a lot of debate about this on Twitter, with claims and counterclaims. It seems to have been clarified.

    @patrickgowernz

    Labour dishonest on baby bonus. Blog:http://www.3news.co.nz/Opinion-Labour-dishonest-on-baby-bonus/tabid/1382/articleID/330156/Default.aspx#.UuguycjrLVw.twitter … Labour deliberately misled voters by omission of key details

    Keith Ng ‏@keith_ng
    Gower should’ve read the fact sheet. Cunliffe should’ve been clearer about all the exceptions. These facts are not contradictory.

    Tim Watkin ‏@Tim_Watkin
    But Gower did read the fact sheet and is now reporting a contradiction found therein.

    Keith Ng ‏@keith_ng
    Amendment: Gower should’ve read the fact sheet prior to filing the story. He had five goddamn hours.

    Claire Trevett ‏@CTrevettNZH
    the fact sheets handed out to reporters at the speech were not the fact sheets that contained the PPL bit.

    Keith Ng ‏@keith_ng
    Oh. Fuck. Withdrawn with apologies to @patrickgowernz then.

    It seems that fact sheets handed out at the speech had less facts than the fact sheet that could be found online.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. lilman (965 comments) says:

    Piss off all those who want me to pay for their kids.
    Ive got 4 and I raised them without CUNTLIFFE or Key.

    Less Piss and Less Weed and also stop bleating should make a bit of difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    Cunners doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny. I feel it’s like ‘let’s announce these great bribing policies and work out the details and costings later’.

    Warehouse pays less that 2% of its total revenue in tax using the David Clark method of calculating tax. I want to know if they are going to be threatened with being banned.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dime (10,089 comments) says:

    “Are those bleating about the $60 a week universality going to do so when National extends taxpayer funded parental leave at $500 plus a week to those who have partners continuing in highly paid jobs?”

    I love how we are “bleating”.

    If National introduced a flat tax of 20% for all incomes and you complained, would YOU be “bleating”?

    And imho taxpayer funded parental leave can get fucked to

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Right Now, quite, it only applies to new parents from April 2016, so this is no policy to win an election at it would only benefit future parents. Labour must realise that, so it is not intended as a bribe for electoral purposes. It is just one of those things they think they should do. Whether others agree is what the stuff of politics is all about.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. tvb (4,491 comments) says:

    It underscores Key’s comment that Cunliffe is very very tricky. They calculated that it would;d make a better headline to say $60/week for all mums not $60/week after paid parental leave is finished. They wanted the simple headline and calculated they could get away with qualifying the detail later.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Ross69

    Cunliffe said “I am announcing that for 59,000 families with new-born babies, they will all receive a Best Start payment of $60 per week, for the first year of their child’s life.”

    The truth was far different. You call this an own goal by Key? Key is clarifying Cunliffes announcements.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. dime (10,089 comments) says:

    Cunliffe is so tricky he announced this the day of the Grammys! When his target audience would be more concerned with who won than free money in a years time. Thats a life time away haha

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. CJPhoto (227 comments) says:

    How is he determining ‘Family Income’?

    Is it family scheme income as defined for WFF purposes. Would make sense. But this has fishhooks – it is determined on a annual basis (march year end) and incorporates other income such as non taxable PIE income and undistributed company profits.

    So if the spouse is running their own business and investing in growth, that income could put them over the $150k limit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Ashley Schaeffer (508 comments) says:

    Nothing about this new policy makes a lot of sense. I don’t know which is worse – that it’s policy-on-the-hoof or that some people in Labour put their heads together and this was the best that they could come up with.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    I was quite looking forward to a hard fought out election year but Cunliffe is showing himself to be incapable at the top and i cant stand being mislead.
    I am now enjoying everything that can be thrown at that charlatan

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    SPC: “Labour must realise that, so it is not intended as a bribe for electoral purposes.”

    Except that the detail wasn’t made clear, and they got their soundbite out there.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Rightnow
    And now they get the long payback pain for that. Journalists dont take being misinformed lightly

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. tas (640 comments) says:

    There are so many issues with this policy. The lack of targeting (which DPF is focusing on) is hardly the biggest problem.

    It’s a deeply unimaginative policy – even my lefty friends think it’s daft – it is literally throwing money at the problem. The policy should be compared to having the air force drop millions of $20 notes over the country.

    Moreover, the govt should not be paying people (who can’t afford them) to have kids – a “breeder bonus”. Most people resent having to pay taxes to support beneficiaries having 8 kids when they limit themselves to a responsible 2 or 3. As far as I can tell, Labour’s policy has no limit on the number of children the payment goes to.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Thanks SPC
    So if I understand it correctly 60% of women having babies will get a weekly baby bonus for the first year and 40% of woman having babies will get a weekly baby bonus for half of the first year if ,say , Labour were to become the government and increase the parental leave entitlement to 26 weeks.
    I have always thought it was a bit unfair that working mothers are able to receive a parental leave entitlement when non-working mothers are not.
    However it is obvious that when Cunliffe announced the baby bonus policy he should have made it clear that those people already getting paid parental leave would not be allowed to have two bites at cherry. He could give those people an option. If you want to have a weekly baby bonus for a full year then don’t apply for a parental leave entitlement.
    Of course going back to the 1950’s everyone with children got the family benefit until each child turned 16 or started work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Viking2 (11,547 comments) says:

    Misleading maths as well. He will soon have the budget in surplus.

    23000 x3120 = 71760000
    I remember that he quoted 150 million for the policy so he has made another fabulous saving of $78 mil.

    What a fucking magician he is. :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “Any subsequent babies will be wearing the same clothes and nappies that baby”

    @RRM

    Are you suggesting beneficiaries be expected to wash and reuse cloth nappies?

    I wonder if anyone has asked the Green what they think of such an idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/family-welfare/page-4
    The family benefit was a godsend back in the fifties and sixties and so were those 3% State Advances Corporation loans.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Viking2 (11,547 comments) says:

    Tooling up for the first baby before it arrives is where you are conscious of spending the most money – cot, chest of drawers, massive mountain buggy stroller, car seat, small folding stroller, clothes, clothes & more clothes, another chest of drawers, cloth nappies & covers for them.

    ========================
    Here is where we make a substantial contribution to the Chinese. Cunnlife wants to increase our oversea’s aid.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Viking2 (11,547 comments) says:

    And it goes on: Labour’s Sue Moroney has just explained to me that there are 60,000 births in New Zealand each year, 59,000 of those families earn under $150,000, 26,000 are eligible for paid parental leave, meaning 23,000 will get the $60 for the full twelve months.

    That means Cunliffe should have said 23,000 people will get the baby bonus for a year, which is not “most” of the 60,000 familes that have babies each year – it’s actually under half.

    ==========================================

    Forgot to put this above.

    Viking2 (10,385 comments) says:
    January 29th, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    Misleading maths as well. He will soon have the budget in surplus.

    23000 x3120 = 71760000
    I remember that he quoted 150 million for the policy so he has made another fabulous saving of $78 mil.

    What a fucking magician he is. :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    My biggest concern is encouraging people on benefits to have more babies when it is a fact that the children from these families have a far higher likelihood of being a drag on the state than those from two parent working families.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. dime (10,089 comments) says:

    I heard some lefty on the radio this morning saying this was bad policy.

    She wanted more money for community programs etc – i guess thats where her bread is buttered haha

    Love infighting on the left

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Gower should’ve read the fact sheet prior to filing the story. He had five goddamn hours

    Quite right. I find it amusing that Kiwiblog thinks Patrick Power is a source of reliable info.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Ross69
    Cunliffe said “I am announcing that for 59,000 families with new-born babies, they will all receive a Best Start payment of $60 per week, for the first year of their child’s life.”

    That statement is 100% correct. Which part of it don’t you understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    tas, there is an upper limit, it is only paid while the child is under 3. So the upper limit is the number of children that can be supported over the age of 3 without the $60 a week payment.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    @ross69, I find it amusing, and very telling, that you are quoting a statement as being “quite right”, when the very smart chap who said it, Keith Ng, shortly thereafter retracted it:

    Keith Ng ‏@keith_ng
    Oh. Fuck. Withdrawn with apologies to @patrickgowernz then

    This is all quoted above in this thread. It is rather dishonest of you, ross69, to quote it as being right when the guy who said it has withdrawn and apologised.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    That statement is 100% correct. Which part of it don’t you understand?

    I think there’s a bit missing from the statement.

    “I am announcing that over some years beginning 2016, but not in one single year, for 59,000 families with new-born babies, they will all receive a Best Start payment of $60 per week, for the first year of their child’s life.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Viking2, it’s 33,000 of the c 60,000 who get it for the full year (over half sort of but not quite most).

    It’s those on parental leave payments (less than half) who only get it for the rest of the year.

    ross 69, everyone (under $150,000) gets it “during” the first year, but not all “for” the entire first year.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. KevinH (1,236 comments) says:

    According to Curia blogs latest figures Labour are polling 34.6%. When that figure is deducted from the 59000 who will benefit from this policy, Labour would receive 20414 votes nationwide. With a total proposed spend of $184 million p.a. this policy doesn’t stack up fiscally. The best option is to stick with a tax credit that will leave money in the pay packets of families where either or both parents are working.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Kevin H, the main support to families would remain WFF, the reason for this policy is the same as for parental leave, it is to provide some stability to incomes when there are new born and either loss of income (with a choice to provide family home care to young children) or child care costs. These diminish with primary school at age 5.

    The ECE going from 20 to 25 hours assists those going back to part-time work when the child is 3. Thus this covers the first 3 years, the second two of these more means tested.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Jman (84 comments) says:

    there are 60,000 births in New Zealand each year, 59,000 of those families earn under $150,000, 26,000 are eligible for paid parental leave, meaning 23,000 will get the $60 for the full twelve months.

    That means Cunliffe should have said 23,000 people will get the baby bonus for a year, which is not “most” of the 60,000 familes that have babies each year – it’s actually under half.

    Some basic maths illiteracy going on here. 59000-26000=33000 , NOT 23000. So 33000 are eligible for the baby bonus which IS more than half or “most”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Manolo (14,024 comments) says:

    The best option is to cut taxes across the board, starting with the abolition of the ETS.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Sofia (862 comments) says:

    The Best Start Payment provides desperately needed support to the estimated 50,000 children under three who are currently living in poverty.
    The Best Start Payment will benefit all New Zealand children born after 1 April 2016.
    https://www.labour.org.nz/beststart

    Labour has costed the package at $147 million in 2015-16 rising to $566m a year by 2020.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9652164/Labour-promises-60-a-week-for-new-babies

    Why will it cost $147 million 2015-16, when it doesn’t start until 1 April 2016?
    Why doesn’t it start before1 April 2016?

    This does absolutely nothing for the estimated “50,000 children under three who are currently living in poverty” now, with the top group then being five and starting school before 1 April 2016, presumably still without shoes.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Sofia, the Best Start programme includes extension of parental leave to 26 weeks and the increase in ECE funding from 20 to 25 hours per week.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Sofia (862 comments) says:

    SPC – Right

    So in fact since the Best Start Payment will benefit all New Zealand children born after 1 April 2016, when there is the 26 weeks leave, THEN payments of $60 a week start – that being from about 1 September 2016.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Paulus (2,656 comments) says:

    The Media will never admit that Cunliffe screwed them with wrong and incomplete information.
    They are above such things.
    How could Labour possibly tell lies to the media supporters.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (894 comments) says:

    Cunliffe and Labour are winners with this policy. That is all. Moving on.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    @Sir Cullen’s Sidekick, ross69 is doing the parody so much better. Sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Sofia, the $60 weekly payments begin in April 2016 for the 33,000 parents who had not been working when the child was born (and in October for those parents who were on Parental Leave from April).

    The budget year for 2015/2016 ends in June 2016.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. itstricky (1,880 comments) says:

    Baby bribe details not made clear

    Still waiting for National’s Baby Bribe policy, that it looks like they’ve “stolen” from Labour. When will you have a post on that DPF?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Bob (497 comments) says:

    It is silly for Labour to make misleading promises so early in election year. There is a good 9 months for the media and commentators to pull it to pieces. It is better and shrewder to give hints of good things to come and fill in the details later. It keeps their opponents guessing.

    In my opinion Key has got Labour rattled. They are clutching at straws to undermine him. Just like Clark before him Cunliffe is trying to bribe his way into power.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. OneTrack (3,213 comments) says:

    “In my opinion Key has got Labour rattled. ”

    No way. Key is on the ropes. The messiah with the brain the size of a planet (I read it on his CV) will lead us to the promised land. Ross69 is already going to vote for him. It’s only a matter of time before everybody else follows suit.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote