I am surprised they (Labour or National) supports both parents being away from work, that's insanity. 

networkn:

 

I am surprised they (Labour or National) supports both parents being away from work, that's insanity. 

 

 

 

We will see a lot more of this with gender issues being central to the agreements. 

Pumpedd:

 

networkn:

 

I am surprised they (Labour or National) supports both parents being away from work, that's insanity. 

 

 

 

 

We will see a lot more of this with gender issues being central to the agreements. 

 

If they keep going like this, we will be bankrupt, Australia will finally us buy out, merge us together and the free education thing will be a problem of the past :) 

tdgeek:

 

 

 

Re bold, my context is discussion or bashing. There is little discussion here

 

 

 

Re your two points which are discussion. Im luke warm over the free education. There should be a more favourable student loan arrangement, and if you leave the country to work it ALL gets paid back NOW

 

The PPL I don't like. I've had kids, and while some PPL is a really good thing, 6 months???? Thats half a year. Bill fully supports it, and also wants fathers included, so you have a child and an employer(s) has to cover one years salary effectively. I think 4 weeks is more than enough. Maybe another 4 at half pay, but one years salary to absorb for an employee having a baby?  In 10 years time maybe we will get PPL till kids go to school.  :-)

 

I don't think it is 26 weeks per parent. But 26 weeks with the ability for some of the time to be taken by the father. Certainly in those first few weeks it is ideal to have both parents at home with the young baby. It is vitally important bonding time for all. It also takes pressure off the mother to have the father home to assist with things while she is still physically recovering from the birth. This is a very basic family friendly policy. While you may not like taxpayers paying for it the reality is for many low-income families they can't afford to take time off work any other way. So this is why the Government steps in. Also international research has shown this leads to better long term outcomes for society with more stable home life for the child during this vital developmental stage.

Varkk:

 

tdgeek:

 

 

 

Re bold, my context is discussion or bashing. There is little discussion here

 

 

 

Re your two points which are discussion. Im luke warm over the free education. There should be a more favourable student loan arrangement, and if you leave the country to work it ALL gets paid back NOW

 

The PPL I don't like. I've had kids, and while some PPL is a really good thing, 6 months???? Thats half a year. Bill fully supports it, and also wants fathers included, so you have a child and an employer(s) has to cover one years salary effectively. I think 4 weeks is more than enough. Maybe another 4 at half pay, but one years salary to absorb for an employee having a baby?  In 10 years time maybe we will get PPL till kids go to school.  :-)

 

 

 

 

I don't think it is 26 weeks per parent. But 26 weeks with the ability for some of the time to be taken by the father. Certainly in those first few weeks it is ideal to have both parents at home with the young baby. It is vitally important bonding time for all. It also takes pressure off the mother to have the father home to assist with things while she is still physically recovering from the birth. This is a very basic family friendly policy. While you may not like taxpayers paying for it the reality is for many low-income families they can't afford to take time off work any other way. So this is why the Government steps in. Also international research has shown this leads to better long term outcomes for society with more stable home life for the child during this vital developmental stage.

 

As you say, first few weeks. Not half a year. You mention low income families, well lets means test it, the payments decrease as income increases.

tdgeek:

 

 

 

As you say, first few weeks. Not half a year. You mention low income families, well lets means test it, the payments decrease as income increases.

 

Yes, I agree. 26 weeks seems like a long time, so surely there's some research to back up why it needs to be that long? Or are we just making policy decisions, as per JA's statement, based on how long others in the OECD are providing?

wsnz:

 

tdgeek:

 

 

 

As you say, first few weeks. Not half a year. You mention low income families, well lets means test it, the payments decrease as income increases.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I agree. 26 weeks seems like a long time, so surely there's some research to back up why it needs to be that long? Or are we just making policy decisions, as per JA's statement, based on how long others in the OECD are providing?

 

 

 

No idea. I would have thought 4 weeks from birth, hubby can help out around the house. When baby is crawling, another 4 weeks for that formative time. I guess its a low cost, 6 months benefit for a small number.

Jacinda has flip-flopped over on trans-tasman tertiary fees. 

Tough talk on the campaign trail turned to water when in office.

Aussie students will get a year free here.  Meanwhile NZ students in Australia pay full fees.

Labour are showing how long its been since they were in power, are looking pretty disorganized. Reports from Parliment make them look pretty amateurish.

Trevor Mallard sitting in the speaker's seat makes me both ill and wildly uncomfortable. I am not sure how they could have picked a worse person.

networkn:

 

Labour are showing how long its been since they were in power, are looking pretty disorganized. Reports from Parliment make them look pretty amateurish.

 

Trevor Mallard sitting in the speaker's seat makes me both ill and wildly uncomfortable. I am not sure how they could have picked a worse person.

 

You haven't said why?

What I read was that its just opening of Parliament or swearing in MP's. A couple are away at APEC, so they could not vote in Mallard as Speaker as Bridges raised that. National blocked it, then they cut a deal. Stupid stuff. First Bill said he had no issues with Mallard, and the article I read stated that they will do this even knowing there is no gain. Now, if it was a law, and one crossed the bench and Nats can block it, do it, thats democracy, but as stated, this is just a stunt. If sending two MP's to APEC is disorganised, then maybe they should forget APEC and vote in Mallard. IMO a bit amateurish from National.  They have a large Opposition that's no secret, and this is how they will use it? Use it for real life not a swearing in ceremony

tdgeek:

 

networkn:

 

Labour are showing how long its been since they were in power, are looking pretty disorganized. Reports from Parliment make them look pretty amateurish.

 

Trevor Mallard sitting in the speaker's seat makes me both ill and wildly uncomfortable. I am not sure how they could have picked a worse person.

 

 

You haven't said why?

 

What I read was that its just opening of Parliament or swearing in MP's. A couple are away at APEC, so they could not vote in Mallard as Speaker as Bridges raised that. National blocked it, then they cut a deal. Stupid stuff. First Bill said he had no issues with Mallard, and the article I read stated that they will do this even knowing there is no gain. Now, if it was a law, and one crossed the bench and Nats can block it, do it, thats democracy, but as stated, this is just a stunt. If sending two MP's to APEC is disorganised, then maybe they should forget APEC and vote in Mallard. IMO a bit amateurish from National.  They have a large Opposition that's no secret, and this is how they will use it? Use it for real life not a swearing in ceremony

 

 

 

I think you need to check the story again. Labour had the numbers and didn't know they did. 

networkn:

 

tdgeek:

 

networkn:

 

Labour are showing how long its been since they were in power, are looking pretty disorganized. Reports from Parliment make them look pretty amateurish.

 

Trevor Mallard sitting in the speaker's seat makes me both ill and wildly uncomfortable. I am not sure how they could have picked a worse person.

 

 

You haven't said why?

 

What I read was that its just opening of Parliament or swearing in MP's. A couple are away at APEC, so they could not vote in Mallard as Speaker as Bridges raised that. National blocked it, then they cut a deal. Stupid stuff. First Bill said he had no issues with Mallard, and the article I read stated that they will do this even knowing there is no gain. Now, if it was a law, and one crossed the bench and Nats can block it, do it, thats democracy, but as stated, this is just a stunt. If sending two MP's to APEC is disorganised, then maybe they should forget APEC and vote in Mallard. IMO a bit amateurish from National.  They have a large Opposition that's no secret, and this is how they will use it? Use it for real life not a swearing in ceremony

 

 

 

 

I think you need to check the story again. Labour had the numbers and didn't know they did. 

 

I actually watched it...was a joke. Labours front bench had to do urgent plea's with Nats to get speaker elected. Good to see Nats seing mature about it. Pathetic start.

I see Winston is throwing all his toys out of the cot now. Suing everyone. You'd think he had some actual to do. 

networkn:

 

I see Winston is throwing all his toys out of the cot now. Suing everyone. You'd think he had some actual to do. 

 

 

 

Wasnt in parliament today...guess suing is more to his liking.

You two sure are having a field day. I am reminded of the two old gents commenting on the Muppets.