PARLIAMENT | PARTY | GRASSROOTS

Red Alert

Archive for the ‘legislation’ Category

Key puts up ‘NZ For Sale’ sign

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 13th, 2011

It’s time for John Key’s government to stop being dictated to by multi-national corporations and start putting the best interests of New Zealanders ahead of corporate profits. News that SkyCity has decided to invest in a new International Convention Centre in Auckland is great news for the economy, locally and nationally. But that doesn’t mean we should rush out and change our laws and regulations to suit the interests of SkyCity’s shareholders.

When Warner Brothers held a gun to National’s head, John Key rolled over and changed our employment laws to suit their whims. Now we’re seeing him roll over and offer to change our gambling laws to suit SkyCity. That’s not good enough. The National government should be guided by what is in the best interests of all New Zealanders, not what’s in the best interests of corporate giants.

It’s ironic that National aren’t willing to back New Zealand companies like KiwiRail, preferring to see contracts for new trains and carriages shipped offshore, but when one of the private sector big corporates clicks their fingers it seems there isn’t anything John Key won’t do to please them.

Tags: , , , , ,
Filed under: Investment, democracy, legislation, privatisation
26 Comments

Uh oh – here it comes

Posted by Darien Fenton on June 8th, 2011

John Key told the Seafood Council today that if National is re-elected in November, further changes will be made to employment law. 

I’m guessing they won’t be good changes for workers, especially when he boasted “trade unions won’t like them.”

He claims a flexible labour market is good for employers and workers.  Does he mean the one in five women employed in the public sector who work overtime for no extra pay as reported today by the PSA?  Does he meant the contribution they make of an estimated 2.5 million hours of unpaid work a year, worth about $54.5 million and equivalent to 1360 full-time jobs?

What I’m hearing repeatedly from John Key’s National Government now is that working people make no contribution to the economy – they have no role in productivity, should have no say in the workplace and most of all, should not expect either to have rights or to know anything about them.

Although the government has made some pretty hideous changes to employment rights, I thought we’d got past the real ideological crap of the past. 

But it’s heading our way in force.  Cuts to workers rights, low pay, asset sales and welfare changes – to name just a few things. 

Sounds like a government with no plan to me.

Tags:
Filed under: Health and Safety, labour, legislation, low pay, workers rights
23 Comments

The truckies are stirring

Posted by Darien Fenton on April 15th, 2011

Three years ago, leading into the 2008 election campaign, truckies staged a national strike, blocking the roads in protest at the then Minister of Transport’s announcement of an increase in road user charges.

It was Road Transport Forum (RTF) driven and many trucking operators put their employee drivers on the road that day to boost the numbers, which is a bit like a union paying union members to strike. It was timed well, and had an effect.  Transport Minister Annette King set up a road user charges review group which reported back in 2009.

Now parliament is considering a Road User Charges Bill that has got the truckies up in arms again because it proposes to change the definition of licence weight from nominated gross weight to a definition based on the maximum permissible on-road weight. 

The truckies are saying that this could mean increases in RUC charges for around 70% of the industry, forcing unproductive changes that could have impacts on safety, on damage to our roads, and financial consequences for SMEs. Basically, the big trucks will get off lightly, while the smaller trucks will pay more. 

In a fascinating turn of events, truckies have told the government that they are organising to protest again and this time around they will be better organised than in 2008. One operator has set up a website which is worth a look.

There’s a split in the industry. Many are supportive of the New Zealand’s unique road user charging system, which is now attracting international interest as virtually every modern economy develops and trials technology to implement similar direct charging for heavy vehicles. 

There’s some really smart modern operators in New Zealand now taking up the opportunity new technology offers to buy road user charges on-line and maximise efficiency. 

Then you have the RTF, who continue to insist that road user charges should be paid through fuel excise and who appear to treat modern technology with suspicion. 

Never thought I would be so interested in trucks.

Filed under: Workers, legislation, protest, roads, transport
21 Comments

Hobbit revisited

Posted by Darien Fenton on April 12th, 2011

Apparently the Hobbit is going to be shot at 48 frames per second, which is twice the normal frame rate, which will make the film more “lifelike”.

I’m glad the Hobbit is being made in New Zealand. But given the events of last year, I doubt I will ever be able to bring myself to see the film, because the consequences of  the selling out of workers in the film and video production industry are not “lifelike” – they’re real. 

Today, CTU President Helen Kelly, who was pilloried for her involvement in the saga has released her story of how events unfolded.

As she says :

Fundamentally, this was simply a situation where a group of workers sought to have a say on the setting of their terms and conditions.  This was not just in relation to the Hobbit – but to all screen productions made in New Zealand.  This desire is independent of all the legal questions about employment status, status of the union and all other considerations – that is simply what it was, regardless of all the barriers that were subsequently put in their way.

There was no need to remove worker rights in the way the government did.  The dispute had already been settled. The boycott had been lifted.  Everyone knew, including the government, SPADA and Warner Bros.  

As Helen says :

It is clear that had it been known to the public that Warners and the Government already knew the industrial dispute had been settled and the “boycott” lifted, Warners’ trip to New Zealand would have been hard to justify and the subsequent promise of additional tax payer money and urgent law change would have been untenable.

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that New Zealanders were done like a dinner on the Hobbit drama.  And the government’s strategy for attracting investment of Kiwi workers working harder for cheaper wages adds to the picture.

Read it.

Tags:
Filed under: Contractors, legislation, workers rights
25 Comments

Bully state – let’s change this law too

Posted by Darien Fenton on October 28th, 2010

While everyone’s been obsessed with the Hobbit there’s another battle looming that could have the same end result – the government rushing off to change labour laws to prevent workers accessing rights.

Today, the Service & Food Workers Union is in the Court of Appeal defending the right of disability support workers to be paid the lawful minimum wage during periods they are required to remain on the employers premises on-call to the 4 -5 intellectually disabled residents they are supporting (known as a sleepover).

Last December, the Employment Court confirmed its decision that being required to stay on the employer’s premises during the night to support people with intellectual disabilities was “work” and should attract the minimum wage. The court described the responsibilities during sleepovers as ‘weighty’ and ‘critical to the business of the employer.’ 

IHC, the National Residential Intellectual Disability Providers, Business New Zealand and the Department of Labour put forward the argument that if the requirement to pay $12.50 an hour was averaged over a pay period employers could offset higher paid periods for those where rates below the minimum hourly rate were paid, but the Court disagreed. 

Now the government’s joined the appeal, with AG Christopher Finlayson appearing alongside the employer (IHC).  They will argue that it is possible to average the minimum wage across a pay period and thus it is possible to earn just $3.00 an hour for some hours worked.

The AG will be arguing that the Court’s decision to have these workers paid properly for sleepovers will be a catastrophe for the NZ economy because it will destroy the system of salaries, commission and piece work.

But just in case they lose, the government is currently working on an amendment to the Minimum Wage Act to overturn the Court judgement and allow “averaging” and legal rates of pay as low as $1.00 an hour.

What’s really behind it is that the government will have to stump up with a whole lot of extra cash for Disability Providers if the Court judgement stands. 

No problem bailing out SCF with $1.6 billion, but a big problem paying these workers properly.

So, easy.  Let’s change the law. After all, they’ve done it for the Hobbit, so why not?

Filed under: Attorney-General, community, legislation, minimum wage, value of work, workers rights
35 Comments

National/ACT make Quinn prisoner voting law even worse

Posted by Grant Robertson on September 19th, 2010

My good friend Andrew Geddis has delivered a devastating critique of the thoroughly misguided private members bill in the name of Paul Quinn to deny all prisoners a vote (as opposed to the current situation where those sentenced to three years or less can still vote). I have blogged about this before, and the bill was bad enough before it went to the Law and Order Select Committee. Now, amazingly the Bill has emerged from the Committee even worse than when it went in. I should note at the outset that Labour and the Greens are opposing the Bill, and have a minority report to that end.

Andrew is a level headed guy (and in the interests of fairness I should note he has expressed strong opposition to the earthquake legislation) who is not prone to hyperbole. So this paragraph should grab the attention

This proposal is downright wrong in its intent, outright stupid in its design and (if finally enacted) would be such an indelible stain on the parliamentary lawmaking process as to call into question that institution’s legitimacy to act as supreme lawmaker for our society.

As Andrew notes the Bill is against the advice of the Attorney General, and goes against decisions of the UN Human Rights Committee and courts in Canada, South Africa and Australia. It is a silly, hopeless piece of law that will do nothing to make New Zealand safer, and has the potential to make reintegration and rehabilitation more difficult.

But, amazingly, the National and ACT members of the Select Committee have combined to make the law worse. Andrew points out in his article that they are proposing to repeal the current legislative provisions regarding disqualification from voting and replace it with the following wording

“a person who is detained in a prison pursuant to a sentence of imprisonment imposed after the commencement of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced 15 Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010:”

The effect of the repeal and a new clause only dealing with those imprisoned after the new law comes into force would seem to be that someone who is currently serving a term in prison of longer than three years (say Graeme Burton) could register to vote. I am sure National will now change this, but it really does typify what is a ridiculous bill.

There must be some in the National caucus who oppose this nonsense. Perhaps they should allow themselves a conscience vote and join Labour and the Greens in voting down this silliness?

Tags: , ,
Filed under: democracy, law and order, legislation
32 Comments

Pansy on message (not)

Posted by Darien Fenton on September 9th, 2010

Pansy Wong was answering questions for the Minister of Labour today in the House. I hope Kate wasn’t listening because she will be tearing her hair out. Pansy confirmed that the government is considering changes to collective bargaining and refused to rule out either a move to contracting out of personal grievances or the reintroduction of a youth minimum wage. We haven’t even begun the select committee submission process on the current proposed law changes to the Employment Relations and Holidays Act – and now Pansy has let the cat out of the bag about the next round of draconian law change wage and salary earners can expect from the NACTs.

Tags:
Filed under: legislation, parliament, workers rights
28 Comments

Have your say at Select Committee – just kidding!

Posted by Darien Fenton on August 27th, 2010

The most significant changes to workers’ rights in two decades are coming our way via the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Holidays Amendment Bill, which had their first readings in parliament in the last few days.

So, you would think that the government would want New Zealanders (both for and against) to have their say.

Not so, it seems.

The two bills have been referred to the Transport & Industrial Relations Select Committee, who had, according to the Chair David Bennett, decided “informally” to call for submissions, even prior to the conclusion of the first readings in parliament.

(Disclosure :  I am a member of this Select Committee, where Labour and the Greens are in the minority, so I know what really happened, but I can’t say so publicly).

The timeframe for the submissions for these two bills is at best three weeks, with closing dates on the 13 September and 17 September respectively.

I would have thought the government would be keen to ensure all of support they claim to have had around the 90 day fire at will extension, the sickies get-to-the-doctor-or-else provision and the selling of holidays were able0 to be presented at Select Committee.

Or should I be more cynical?  Is the short timeframe really designed to make sure that unions and workers have as little time as possible to have their say?

If the government really believes there is support for these changes, they would have given more time for submissions.

But then there’s ACT calling the shots and National meekly following on behind.  I forgot that Minister Kate Wilkinson got rolled at Cabinet (again) over her recommendations.

Tags:
Filed under: 90 day trial period, Holidays, act party, democracy, labour, legislation, sick leave, workers rights, workforce
9 Comments

Meaning the opposite of what they say

Posted by Clare Curran on August 22nd, 2010

work rally august

Today Dunedin-ites hit the streets again to protest against the Government’s unfair, unreasonable work laws.

I don’t know how many people, around 500, turned out on a sunny day. It was a good march and rally. Working people talked about their workplaces and the ridiculous nature of these laws and the effect they’ll have. This issue will continue to grow in momentum.

Last week Minister Kate Wilkinson stood in the House at question time and described the Employment Relations Bill as fair and reasonable.

Every time this government says certain words, you know it means something else. The opposite. It’s called Orwellian language which means an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda,  misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past.

She says this Bill is not major, it’s only a little change. That means a big change. Just like Tony Ryall who talks constantly about change in health. Change, which equals cuts. Or Bill English who talks about change in the public sector and reprioritisation. Words that mean cuts. Cuts to peoples services and people’s jobs.

And the icing on the cake is when the government talks about its policies being aspirational. Which means “we don’t really mean it”. They are now aspirational about closing the wage gap between NZ and Australia (despite promising to do so before the last election). They are no doubt aspirational about creating 170,000 jobs. And there are countless other things they are “aspirational” about.

Unfortunately they are not aspirational about this Bill. They really mean it. But it’s not, as Kate Wilkinson describes, a small change that is fair and reasonable. It’s a major shift towards fundamentally affecting the reltationship between employers and employees in our NZ workplaces.

It’s taking us backwards as a country. It will affect the morale and productivity of employees. Hard working NZers, people who earn wages and salaries. People who arent liars and slackers.

It will make workplaces harder to be. It entrenches unfairness in our employment relations system. It won’t do anything to address the fact that we don’t have enough jobs in this country, we don’t have an economic plan.

And then I heard yesterday that Paula Bennett plans to force people on  sickness benefits to get jobs, or they’ll be cut in half (and that’s for starters). Leaving aside the issue of whether people who shouldn’t be working will be forced to try to find work, just where are these jobs going to come from? And watch the messaging she uses. Code for people on sickness benefits being bludgers. Just like those on the DPB.

In the meantime there’s higher unemployment. And we’re about to have a GST rise.

Tags: ,
Filed under: Employers, inequality, jobs, legislation, protest, workforce
29 Comments

Environmental Reporting Bill

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 5th, 2010

This morning I’ve introduced a new Environmental Reporting Bill into the ballot. The Bill does two things. It requires the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to produce a comprehensive report on the state of the environment at least every 5 years. It also gives the Commissioner the power to establish a standardised set of indicators to assess the state of the environment on a regular basis.

A recent report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment found that the quality of data currently available on the state of our environment is patchy at best. Establising a standardised set of indicators will help to remedy this problem. It will also improve the quality of the 5-yearly report the Commissioner will produce.

Improving the quality of information available on the state of our environment has never been more important. We now place a much greater focus on the impact of our actions on the environment. Assessing the effectiveness of our policy responses to issues like climate change will rely on the availability of quality, objective information.

Giving responsibility for establishing what data is to be collected to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment brings some independence to that process. I think it’s really important that the public can have confidence that the data presented has been selected and collected free from any form of political interference and manipulation.

There are still some logistical and resourcing issues to sort out. The Commissioner currently doesn’t have the resources to do this job effectively, so no doubt that will be the topic of some discussion should the Bill make it as far as a Select Committee. Should it be drawn from the ballot I’m hopefully my parliamentary colleagues will at least support the First Reading so that we can have that debate.

Tags: ,
Filed under: climate change, environment, legislation
5 Comments

Nacts are Rats

Posted by Darien Fenton on July 18th, 2010

P7180102

It wasn’t me who said it, but it sounds about right.

Tags:
Filed under: labour, legislation, protest, union, workforce
19 Comments

Should I explain John Key’s policy to him?

Posted by Darien Fenton on July 17th, 2010

As workers gear up to fight against the government’s moves on employment law, it’s clear that Prime Minister John Key doesn’t understand what he’s about to announce tomorrow.

He said on TVNZ last night : “you can’t just sack someone (under the 90 day trial period) – you have to go through a formal process, but what the process avoids is a personal grievance just for the sake of things.”

Well, he’s wrong.  Under the 90 day trial period, an employer can just sack someone. They don’t even have to tell them why. They can just say “Don’t come Monday.”

And a personal grievance just for the sake of things?  Please.  He has no idea what an effort taking a personal grievance is and why would he think someone would do it “just for the sake of things”.  The number of grievances that proceed to mediation or beyond are tiny in comparison to New Zealand’s 2 million workforce.

Key went on to describe the law as “probationary periods”.  We already had those in the law prior to the 90 day Act last year, and still have them for all workers.

John Key needs to study up on his policies. I’m happy to help.

Tags: ,
Filed under: Employers, legislation, policy, workforce
35 Comments

Holidays (Football World Cup) Amendment Bill

Posted by Trevor Mallard on June 23rd, 2010

After a bit of discussion overnight here is the (3rd) draft of the Holidays (Football World Cup) Amendment Bill. I’ve circulated it a bit but won’t attempt to introduce for about 24 hours so happy to get feedback.

Tags:
Filed under: Holidays, events, legislation, sport, urgency
51 Comments

A bit of a stretch

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 17th, 2010

I sat through all of the hearings on Gerry Brownlee’s Electricity Industry Bill. A lot of submitters questioned his plan to take Tekapo A and B power stations off Meridian Energy and give them to Genesis Energy (both state-owned SOEs). The Institute of Professional Engineers argued that it could lead to less efficient use of water as competing generators tried to maximise their competitive positions against each other. The Treasury argued in a written submission to the Minister that there wasn’t a robust business case / analysis. Unfortunately the National MPs chose to block Treasury from appearing before the Select Committee to explain their concerns.

This morning Gerry Brownlee appeared before the Commerce Select Committee to discuss the estimates for Vote Energy. I took the opportunity to ask him what his basis was for concluding that the asset swap was a good idea. He claimed that because there had been several dry years in the past decade there was evidence that Meridian hadn’t been managing the Waitaki water catchment efficiently. Basically he tried to blame the lack of rain in the South Island on Meridian. I know they are the biggest generator, but I don’t think their market power extends to controlling the weather.

State Owned Enterprises aren’t toys. They’re multi-million dollar enterprises. Any changes the government makes need to be based on robust business cases and rigorous analysis. Gerry Brownlee hasn’t done that. Former National Party Minister Max Bradford made a real hash of his power sector reforms of the 1990s – which led to huge increases in prices. Sadly for price-wary Kiwis, Gerry Brownlee and National appear to have learned nothing from their past mistakes.

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: Energy, infrastructure, legislation, privatisation, water
20 Comments

This week’s lottery 3 prizes with winners

Posted by Trevor Mallard on June 17th, 2010

The winners are:

Douglas, Hon Sir Roger, Education (Board of Trustee Freedom) Amendment Bill
Bakshi, Kanwaljit Singh, Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill
Sepuloni, Carmel, Employment Relations (Probationary Period Repeal) Amendment Bill

Bills in the Ballot

1. Ardern, Jacinda – Conservation (Requirement for Special Approval for Changes to Schedule 4) Amendment Bill
2. Bakshi, Kanwaljit Singh – Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill
3. Barker, Hon Rick – Sentencing Act (Reparation) Amendment Bill
4. Beaumont, Carol – Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill
5. Bennett, David – Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill
6. Boscawen, John – Climate Change Response (Cancellation of Emissions Trading Scheme) Amendment Bill
7. Burns, Brendon – Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill
8. Calder, Dr Cam – Imprisonment for Debt Limitation Repeal Bill
9. Choudhary, Dr Ashraf – Ethnic Broadcasting Commission Bill
10. Clendon, David – Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill
11. Cosgrove, Hon Clayton – Christchurch International Airport Protection Bill
12. Dalziel, Hon Lianne – Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill
13. Delahunty, Catherine – Human Rights (Disability Commissioner) Amendment Bill
14. Douglas, Hon Sir Roger – Education (Board of Trustee Freedom) Amendment Bill
15. Fenton, Darien – Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill
16. Flavell, Te Ururoa – Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill
17. Garrett, David – Victims’ Rights (Victim Impact Statements) Amendment Bill
18. Gilmore, Aaron – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Break Fees Disclosure) Amendment Bill
19. Goodhew, Jo – Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill
20. Graham, Dr Kennedy – Public Finance (Sustainable Development Indicators) Amendment Bill
21. Hague, Kevin – Fisheries (Precautionary Approach) Amendment Bill
22. Harawira, Hone – Parliamentary Commissioner for the Treaty of Waitangi Bill
23. Hughes, Gareth – Land Transport (Give way to Buses) Bill
24. Katene, Rahui – Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (1080 Poison Prohibition) Amendment Bill
25. Kedgley, Sue – Consumer’s Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill
26. King, Colin – Forests (Milling and Exporting Indigenous Wood Chips for Food Smoking) Amendment Bill
27. Lees-Galloway, Iain – Smoke-free Environments (Removing Tobacco Displays) Amendment Bill
28. Locke, Keith – Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill
29. Mallard, Hon Trevor – Minimum Wage Amendment Bill
30. Moroney, Sue – Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months Paid Leave) Amendment Bill
31. Norman, Dr Russel – Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill
32. Pillay, Lynne – Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Bill
33. Prasad, Dr Rajen – Children’s Commissioner (Reporting on Legislation) Amendment Bill
34. Ririnui, Hon Mita – Electoral (Entrenchment of M?ori Representation) Amendment Bill
35. Robertson, HV Ross – Members of Parliament (Code of Ethical Conduct) Bill
36. Sepuloni, Carmel – Employment Relations (Probationary Period Repeal) Amendment Bill
37. Turei, Metiria – Income Tax (Universalisation of In-Work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill
38. Twyford, Phil – Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill

Tags: , ,
Filed under: legislation, parliament
25 Comments

Aspiration needs more than lip service

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 9th, 2010

Gerry Brownlee is quoted in this week’s Listener saying that the government remains committed to an ‘aspirational goal’ of having 90% of New Zealand’s electricity generated from renewable sources by 2025. He states “What people don’t get is that this is a 15-year target and why would you be anything other than aspirational if you’re looking out 15 years?”

Unfortunately, this approach has become quite typical within the National government. Their approach seems to be: Identify a goal you think most people will agree with and then adopt an ‘aspirational’ target to be met at some very distant point in the future, by which time you’ll be long gone and nobody will be able to hold you to account for it. Then just continue on as you were before, or in Brownlee’s case, push policies that actually go in the other direction.

It’s hard to square Brownlee’s commitment to renewable energy with his passion for hydrocarbons. He seems to have made it his personal mission to find every ounce of coal, gas and oil in and around New Zealand and ensure that it’s extracted. In the case of gas at least, which is difficult to transport, that becomes economically more attractive to explorers when they know they have a growing domestic market – in other words, more gas-fired power plants.

I agree that we should be aiming for at least 90% of our electricity to come from renewable sources, but I think we need to do more than mumble ‘aspirational’ platitudes. My Electricity (Renewable Preference) Bill would prevent further non-renewable power plants unless they were essential for security of supply. That’s a firm step in the right direction. The next step is to look at how we promote the up-take of renewable, particularly on a more localised, smaller scale.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Filed under: Energy, climate change, legislation
9 Comments

This issue won’t go away

Posted by Darien Fenton on May 6th, 2010

As expected, the NActs voted the Redundancy Protection Bill down yesterday.  It was an ugly spectacle listening to the likes of National MP David Bennett, who claimed that the bill was to make everyone union members!  Is that the best he could do?

Yes, the bill was defeated, but that’s only part of the campaign to push for minimum redundancy notice and pay for workers who have no protection in their employment agreements.  There’s still a parliamentary petition circulating, which will come back to the House in due course. 

Labour’s committed to this and the campaign will continue right through to election year, because this is an issue of basic fairness.

Filed under: legislation, redundancy, workforce
29 Comments

Once in a generation change needed

Posted by Raymond Huo on May 4th, 2010

Queenstown is the showpiece of New Zealand’s 100% Pure global advertising campaign, but I wonder how many tourists are shocked by the out of control drinking that takes place in New Zealand’s adventure capital every day?

Two people are employed every morning to clean the vomit from the streets in Queenstown – which has the most liberal drinking laws of any ski-resort town in the world. I wonder why these scenes aren’t played out with images of the Remarkables and Lake Wakatipu on the successful television advertisements?

I am sure people who love Queenstown and New Zealand’s many other iconic tourist attractions (like I do) feel obliged to protect and enhance New Zealand’s green, pure image.

New Zealanders spend over $85million a week on alcohol. The damage that is being done to communities is untold.

The Law Commission Report, Alcohol in our Lives, Curbing the Harm addresses all the factors that are contributing to the alcohol problem in our society and as Law Commission President Sir Geoffrey Palmer has advised, should not be cherry-picked.

A clear link has been made between higher crime and violence rates in areas with a larger density and proliferation of liquor outlets. The report states that limiting the availability of alcohol and increasing the price will see a reduction in crime.

However high-flying Justice Minister Simon Power has already ruled out a rise in excise tax.

Another major issue will be the recommendation to raise the alcohol purchase age back up to 20.

Whether this goes down to a conscience vote will be interesting. The evidence shows that since the drinking age was dropped to 18 in 1999, the onset of drinking has begun at a younger age so the debate on this one will be intense.

The feedback from the ethnic community is that they have serious doubts whether the government will act on the reports recommendations. The National-ACT government have been shambolic. Policies like “three strikes” and “boot camps” have let down a voting-public who genuinely believed what National and ACT campaigned for in 2008.

The feeling is that these policies are designed to position the National government to be seen as doing something meaningful, but in reality, they are delivering nothing.

Problem drinking affects all New Zealanders in some shape or form and if enacted properly this report will save the lives (alcohol contributes to 2.8 deaths a day in New Zealand) and improve the wellbeing of thousands of New Zealanders.

Tags: ,
Filed under: Tax, asian, legislation, national
31 Comments

Maori Party votes against workers rights

Posted by Darien Fenton on April 29th, 2010

The Maori Party just voted with National and Act on gutting the meals and restbreaks legislation that Labour brought in in 2008. 

I don’t get it.   The Maori Party says it stands up for the vulnerable and the powerless.  They make fine speeches about it all the time.   During the debate on the get the sack in 90 days bill, Pita Sharples said :

 Our policy for workers is to support, uphold and extend their rights – particularly to make workplaces and work legislation more worker and whanau friendly,” said Co-leader Dr Pita Sharples.

Well, this bill actually takes away the rights of workers to a break at work, unless the employer agrees and even then, the break could be one minute long.   It makes the workplace less worker and whanau friendly, and it makes the workplace less safe.

The day after we remembered the 6000 New Zealand workers who have been killed or injured on the job, a bill that will ensure that health and safety is compromised has been supported by the Maori Party. 

This will particularly affect the vulnerable and the powerless – the non-unionised, small workplaces, the low-paid and the marginalised.

I’m confused, but I’m also disappointed.  When it comes to workers’ rights, I’m happy to have allies wherever we can find them in this parliament, but I’m left guessing about the Maori Party.

Tags:
Filed under: M?ori, Meals and Rest Breals, legislation, workforce
9 Comments

ECan and the Demise of Democracy

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on April 15th, 2010

An impromptu meeting took place last night on the steps of the Our City O-Tautahi building where the Green Party had called a meeting to discuss the sacking of ECan and the new process that has been  imposed on Water Conservation Orders as they apply to Canterbury’s rivers.  I arrived at 7.30pm along with nearly 100 others who couldn’t get into the meeting room as it was already full.  So we had our own meeting outside – I took on the role of MC and set the scene for the debate drawing on the issues I had raised in a perspective piece published in the Press last week.  I then handed over to the soon to be erstwhile ECan Councillor, Rik Tindall, who talked about how he had stood on a Save our Water platform and here he was being sacked on the very issue that had seen him elected.  He talked about the water interests and conservation values that are threatened by this overwhelming drive for intensive development of dairying on the Canterbury Plains. Cr Yani Johanson from the CCC then spoke about how positions were being adopted without going through the democratically elected Council first; he spoke of the closed nature of the Mayoral Forum; and he talked about his frustrations at having to obtain information under the Official Information Act – it arrived 2 hours after the announcement was made.  He was followed by the other soon to be erstwhile ECan Councillor who was elected on a platform of Save Our Water, David Sutherland, who spoke of the undemocractic actions that had occurred. 

There was a lively debate about the actions of the Mayors, especially Christchurch’s Mayor, and a motion of no confidence was carried unanimously given his role in producing the letter that sparked the Creech review.  I reminded people that not one National MP denied in Parliament that the Ministers had indirectly asked for that letter to be produced.  Yani Johanson reminded us that this was a breach of the ‘no surprises’ aspect of the Triennial Agreement signed by all the Mayors with ECan and had not been consulted with the Councils. (more…)

Filed under: Uncategorized, democracy, environment, justice, legislation, local government, protest
37 Comments

« Older Entries