What is actually the problem with saying "We can't afford it now - we'll have another look when we have more money"?????

English jumped in with all guns blazing and yelled 'veto' he felt strong,in control,he was he was acting PM, meanwhile in a place far,far away the real PM put his head in his hands and quietly said to himself 'you bl---y idiot,what have you done? now my followers wont like me and we will loose votes' so the PM decides to go on the offensive and with a 'see no evil,hear no evil' says 'it's ok we will look at it later' hoping that this will settle the indians in the tepe. However now everyone is looking at 'lefty and righty' and scratching their lil ol heads.

Incompetent fools. This proves beyond doubt that the Bill and Crunchy show has no idea what they're doing. Either it's un-affordable or it isn't. The jury is out on the benefits of parenting for society, therefore the only question is affordability. But Bill thinks one thing and Crunchy thinks another; they are hopeless, hopeless fools.

The government will veto this bill. But, because the veto doesn't come in until 3rd reading, there will be debate over the issue in public and in parliament before it is killed dead. Even English said there were merits in paid parental leave, but it is unaffordable right now.

At the same time, John Key is right to say that it is something that can be increased later when we can afford it. And if you look at the poll on this site, so does a large chunk of the public. I don't see any change in the position between Key and English - as you said they don't want to borrow to pay for it. But they don't mind paying for it when there's a surplus. Which is a pretty logical proposition, you'd have to say.

@MikeC you are correct there is no issue with saying that. Yes it is a good idea to increase it but the country cant afford it in these financial times.

It is stupid to say it will be vetoed because it is expensive as the bill is set for a slow introduction over a number of years. It uses the governments own figures to avoid borrowing. At best Bill English should have said it is possible but we need to look at timings to ensure it doesn't impact on our scheduled surplus. Now John is changing Bills tune and looking rather pathetic doing it. For a party so in tune with OECD figures you would think it was an easy win to pass this one with dates set well into the future to minimise the impact.

Sorry, what is your point here?

My understanding is they're vetoing it now because the country can't afford it (English's comments), but may look at doing it post 2015 when the country returns to surplus (Key and English have both said this).

I'm struggling to see where the inconsitency is?

I agree with Joel (very good point) and others but not JohnD. John-it is not affordable now, it may be in the future. It's called budgetting. Leave aside your prejudices for a few seconds, and tell me how that is incompetent.

What don't you get Andrea? It's obvious the country cannot afford it for the next few years and I personaly do not agree with it anyway! If a women chooses to have a child she is well aware of the law as it stands, I'm sick and tired of propping up people. Would love you to have your own business which only employs women and see if you could sustain the expense!

No inconsitency here both are saying exactly the same thing. Oh well better this rubbish than no article for people to read, lets just try to creat something. Please justify your employment with something of revelance or with some substance vice trying to create some news out of nothing.