Business NZ slammed for parental leave bill submission

Print

Paid parental leave 'human capital depreciation'

3News NZ

Labour says Business NZ's submission on paid parental leave appeared to be written by Alasdair Thompson (photo: file)

Labour says Business NZ's submission on paid parental leave appeared to be written by Alasdair Thompson (photo: file)

By Brook Sabin

Business New Zealand has been slammed for referencing a former controversial UK based MP, who thinks women should make better efforts to clean behind the fridge.

The Government Administration Select Committee is today hearing submissions on a Bill which would effectively double the amount of paid parental leave available to parents, from three months to six.

Paul Mackay from Business New Zealand gave evidence this morning, citing research supported by a UK-based politician, that extending paid parental leave leads to what is called "human capital depreciation".

When pressed by 3 News outside the select committee about what he meant, Mr Mackey explained there is research that suggests people lose skills when they take extended time off work.  

“Take the example of a rugby player, who takes an extended break. They need time to get their skills back, get their training back, before they're back in the number one position,” he says. 

The Bill’s sponsor, Labour MP Sue Moroney, says research suggesting workers lose skills by taking extended time off work, is held up by a UK Member of Parliament who caused an uproar in 2004 when he suggested "women just don't clean behind the fridge enough”.

She says Business New Zealand’s written submission appeared as if Alasdair Thompson had helped author it.

Thompson, the former boss of the Employers’ and Manufacturers’ Association, was the subject of a storm of controversy after making a number of comments regarding the female workforce.

His comments included that “monthly sick problems” are a reason women should not be paid as much as men.

The Government has indicated it will use its power of financial veto to block the passage of the Bill.

3 News

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

3/11/2012 10:14:54 a.m.

Daniel Lang wrote:

This is about the rights of mothers to have an adequate amount of time with their newborns. 14 weeks is just too short in my opinion and I think 26 weeks is better. I think parents do have the right priorities when they want to spend a decent amount of time with their children. If they are working two jobs, then they won;t have time to spend with their children and will miss the opportunity to bring them up decently and correctly.

1/11/2012 11:15:51 a.m.

Carlos wrote:

I know heaps of people, especially from when I was growing up Lang, who made sacrifices, had two or more jobs, grew their own vegies and did'nt go to the pub etc every other night, smoking and playing the pokies, so they could bring up their kids decently and correctly. There is a culture of "the State owes me" happening in all western countries. The pots are dry, and its time now to scrap the dole, and rediscover the "pioneer spirit". I would scrap all personal income tax, and instead introduce a GST rate of 35% on all goods. People would soon find their true life priorities !

31/10/2012 8:55:26 p.m.

Daniel Lang wrote:

Wages are too low for people to solely rely on their own finances to bring up their children. And I think the year is relevant, because it signals progress from past eras. If we do what you want, then only the rich or well off will be able to have children. A lot of people already forgo having children because they can't afford them or because they don't want to raise their children on benefits. It's just that this fact is not stated often in the media because it's hard to calculate.

31/10/2012 10:44:18 a.m.

Carlos wrote:

The year in time is irrelevant daniel lang. It is a moral and decency issue. I and the rest of NZ, are not/never responsible for your off-spring. You and your partner are responsible for your off-spring. And to vicki, I respect women who take responsibility for their actions, and who can do it without whining like you.

28/10/2012 4:20:48 p.m.

Daniel Lang wrote:

Carlos, it is in fact the responsibility of the employers and the government to have a suitable amount of time available for mothers to have paid parental leave and fourteen weeks is not nearly enough. Fourteen weeks would have been suitable in Edwardian times, but not in 2012. This proposal of 26 weeks of paid parental leave is long overdue.

25/10/2012 6:31:58 p.m.

Vicki wrote:

@Carlos, your lack of respect for woman and children is frankly unacceptable in the year 2012, the 'children' of this world will one day be looking after you, working to provide for your retirement or do you plan to opt out of society completely? Woman give up a lot to have a child, it is community thing, we are all in this world together mate.

25/10/2012 3:21:00 p.m.

Carlos wrote:

People should save and plan for families, not expect the state or employers to give them free money they have not earned, to support their 'unplanned off-spring'.

24/10/2012 10:58:43 p.m.

Cris Fulton wrote:

Wages are pitiful in NZ and most people work all their god-given hours to take care of families. In a country which has the third worst child poverty record in the world, you'd think the politicians would cut us some major slack! Extend paid parental leave for the sake of the sanity of the nation.

24/10/2012 10:39:25 p.m.

Daniel Lang wrote:

Six months paid parental leave is reasonable. Who wants to go back to work when their baby is only three months old? It's negligent. And yet mothers have been made to do this. I would opine that it would be good for this to be enforced across the board, in effect compulsory, because otherwise some mothers in management positions, or for other reasons, will still feel that they have to return to work sooner.

24/10/2012 2:57:20 p.m.

Kathy wrote:

Sounds like alot of posts that I see from Right Wing managers who spend their days posting online instead of providing oversight to their staff or doing actual work. Then when something goes wrong they scapegoat their staff, the gutless wonders. Without us there would be no next generation, no future workers, no future politicians, no doctors, no lawyers etc. New Zealand managers are weak in comparison to others I have seen overseas, in places like Japan if something goes wrong then the person at top shoulders the responsibility, takes the blame. Because as "managers" its their job to make sure things run properly and efficiently. Would love to see how well a man dealt with menstration.