Paid parental leave bill drawn again

Sue Moroney has been twice lucky with her Paid Parental leave Bill being drawn from yesterday’s Member’s Bill ballot.

A similar bill was drawn, debated and voted on last term as well – it also sought six months paid parental leave. The Government opposed it and put forward a watered down version, with incremental increases from fourteen to sixteen weeks, and a further increase to eighteen weeks is due next year.

Last term’s bill extended into this term and was finally voted down this February by National and Act. Since then National have lost a vote due to their loss in Northland, so unless there are further changes to MPs this bill could go against their wishes.

NZ Herald reports: Labour’s paid parental leave bill back on the agenda

Ms Moroney said she did believe she had enough support.

Her bill would lift leave to 26 weeks and allow them to work for up to 156 hours during that period without losing leave payments.

Last term, Finance Minister Bill English said the Government would use its financial veto to overrule any such measure if it passed because of the cost to the Government. On July 1 the Government increased paid parental leave from 14 to 16 weeks. A further lift to 18 weeks is due next year.

So the Government could threat to veto again if the bill passes this term. Financial conditions may be a factor in justification.

Per haps the Government will respond by incrementing it up another few weeks.

Leave a comment

8 Comments

  1. What a complete waste of parliamentary time. National will veto implementation due to the bills impact on budgets, as they did last time

    As much as I think it is important for new borns and parents to bond in the first year of life, i don’t think it is for taxpayers to foot the bill any further than they already do. You want kids, well plan your financials so you can raise them in the manner you wish. Nothing peeves me more than seeing friends on maternity leave subsidised by the taxpayer posting pictures of themselves on holiday

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  24th July 2015

      How on earth is a small business going to fund staff members’ six month paid holidays? Planet Labour never had to work to fund anything.

      Reply
    • kittycatkin

       /  26th July 2015

      Sue Moroney had the brilliant idea (and I’m not making this up) that the temporary workers would pay a much higher tax rate to help with the cost. I wrote to the paper suggesting that they be charged 100% tax so that it wouldn’t cost the employer or taxpayer anything.

      Who on earth would willingly work for less so as to subsidise the person on leave ? Nobody’s that generous.

      How about people who take the leave and the money and then don’t come back ?

      A friend who owns a large business said that he wouldn’t be able to employ anyone with working ovaries !

      Then there’s the issue of training the temp workers-and finding them, Sue M seems not to have thought of that. Some unlucky workers would be doing extra to cover for the absent one-that’s unlikely not to cause illwill.

      Reply
      • Sue Moroney… I stopped when you wrote that. Not the sharpest tool in the knife block

        Reply
        • kittycatkin

           /  27th July 2015

          Please read what I wrote. It’s something that should be read by as many people as possible-I still find it hard to believe that she thought that this would be acceptable. Read it…pleeeeaaaaase !

          Reply
    • kittycatkin

       /  26th July 2015

      I find it incredibly irritating when people think that it’s their right because they’re doing the rest of us a huge favour by generously having these ‘great children’ (they are usually ‘great’) to be future citizens-and smugly or whiningly or both say so. Who has children for that reason ? They have them because THEY want them, not to give the country a present of new people. Or maybe all the people I know who have had children aren’t as patriotic as these others.

      Then there are the ones who moan about how expensive it is, so they are entitled to be subsidised by the rest of us. They want free childcare (how dare anyone charge them for this) and see this as a right. The employer (and taxpayer) are morally obliged to pay for it.

      I heard a story from someone who was high up in the Human Rights Commission. Because it’s a right to have the baby at work so that it can be fed by its mother, one young woman did this. She spent so much time with it that everyone else had to do much/most of her work for her. They soon tired of this, and said so. The result ? I’m not making this up, either.

      HRC had to hire a temp to do her work so that she could mind the baby and feed it. At work. On full pay. While everyone else did what they were paid to do. I bet that she was popular.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  27th July 2015

        If small businesses didn’t have to support that kind of insufferable nonsense via their taxes there would be a lot of ordinary workers better off.

        Reply
  2. Obviously the ‘ballot gods’ think its worth another look… LOL

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s