Another bill passed
Well for a party that Labour claimed had no policy, National certainly seems to be implementing a lot of it.
Parliament has now passed the following laws:
-
Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill – Tax Cuts on 1 April 2009
-
Employment Relations Amendment Bill – the probation period bill
-
Bail Amendment Bill – reversing Labour’s law change that made it easier for offenders to get bail
-
Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill – increases maximum fines for parents of truants and allows for setting of, and reporting against national literacy and numeracy standards
They are now debating the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill, that will direct the Courts to take into account additional aggravating factors when sentencing for violent offences against children aged under 14.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: National, Parliament
December 13th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Now we just need to repeal the Emmission Trading Scheme and the Electoral Finance Act.
(who was the idiot that named the emmissions thing? I mean puhrlease, ‘scheme’? Is this the 1980′s?)
December 13th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
The real interesting thing is what policies Labour was planning to implement they DIDN’T tell us about.
Let us remember that billion dollar black hole in the ACC budget. And using our memories further that Labour was planning to have a mini-budget in December after it won the election (i’m sooooooooooooooo incredibly glad they didn’t win). And remember that promise of tax cuts in the budget of 2005 (by coincidence an election year) that were cancelled in 2007 budget.
Whats the odds that the tax cuts Dr Cullen outlined in this years budget (again, an election year) would be cancelled in the mini-budget (obviously the ones already implemented in october would stay, but the future threshold adjustment plans scrapped).
And this from a party that campaigned on trust, and hidden agendas.
There is a party I place a lot of trust in, and trust it has no secret agendas. And that party is not Labour.
December 13th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
ACC was bein spruced up for higher charges, I received all sorts of glossy shit from them about 3 months before the election outlining the fantastic new cover and payment options available for the self employed yada yada yada
1) cheating electioneering
2) softening everyone up for a two tier ACC where ‘basic’ cover ie fuck all provided at cost A with ‘super cover’ provided at cost B – ooops! we’ve had a massive blow out sorry youve paid A and B but we have to put everything up by heaps% fuck you very much!
And mini budget in December, yes, I can only imagine:
Comrade Kullen, (sips steaming russian caravan tea) at Pravda in Wellington, leans over the table to Hulun (dipping her BYO Choysa tea bag in the cup of free hot water).
MC: “Helen, the books are a mess, we are haemoraging off balance sheet liabilities, we have funding black holes halfway to Patagonia”.
HC: “Shhh! Keep your voice down Michael, there are plebs in here. Look, heres what we’ll do, keep it all quiet, make sure no-one reports anything for PREFU and we’ll have a ‘minibudget’ in December once we’ve won the election, cancel tax cuts, put up the higherrate, increase company tax by 1.5% and raise GST to 15%”.
MC: “Won the election, yeah, yeah (looks slightly sideways). OK boss.
HC: “Waitress, do you have some milk and sugar for my hot water?”
December 13th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I have some qualms about the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. My five well loved kids were (in my own modest assessment) well brought up in an environment that valued education. The first four stayed at school (apart from the odd escapade that many youngsters get up to from time to time) and two of them went on to obtain good tertiary qualifications. The next two got professional qualifications in their respective areas of work. My youngest daughter (known to DPF) just didn’t fit at secondary school, and went through a period of total Goth-style rebellion. We involved CYFS, psychiatrists, and every other agency we could think of. Nothing we could say or do could get her to stay in class, and eventually we sought and obtained an exemption when she was 15.
You could say that our failure to keep her in school was due to bad parenting, but I disagree. Some kids just march to a different drum. Her rebellion would have bankrupted us under the penalties to be imposed under this legislation. I know plenty of other good parents who have had at least one intractable rebel which is not due to any culpable act or omission on their part.
Happily, my daughter who is STILL well loved, found her way and is now married, and a productive citizen.
December 13th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I agree… it’s great to see some action in terms of our government getting stuck into what they promised. I too eagerly await the repeal of the EFA – NZ’s most anti-democratic legislation, introduced by a corrupt administration hell-bent on self preservation.
expat – Don’t start me on ACC. It’s simply a stealth tax regime and should be simply included in our headline taxation (after opening up workplace insurance to competition)
December 13th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
We are all experts in education, in that we have all been to school.
I am a strong National supporter but believe the standards part of the bill is an absolute waste of time and a sham.
A lot of the bill has been borrowed from the “No Child Left Behind” bill in the USA.
We have a ticking time bomb in literacy in New Zealand. It appals me to hear the number of people who say they read nothing other than a very quick look at the paper. Libraries are struggling along with constant efforts by stupid council idiots trying to cut back libraries.
These are the same people who say standards have dropped, that their own children can’t read as well(Mainly because there are no role models at home) and that you teach anyone to read.
Then we have the ethnic crisis in South Aucklkand where you have Pacifica people living, with no history of reading back in the Islands. The consequences of bad policies in immigration and work practices in the 60-70′s are coming home to roost.
In the end, the idiot yokels will blame the teachers for not teaching their little darlings to read when there isn’t a book in the house other than Best Bets.
You can take a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. This bill will not work, our literacy problems will continue to increase.
December 13th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
The poor socialists they must be spitting blood, nine glorious years of dictatorial rule and bullshitting socialism been pulled apart. I do hope these sort of law changes where what Dear Loser spoke of and was in great fear of when she threw the towel in, as far as I’m concerned long may they continue.
December 13th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
OMFG. You really have to see what the anti family watermelon party is running on their blog FFS
“More anti-family legislation from the Nats”
“Saturday December 13th, 2008 @ 12:28 pm by Russel”
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/12/13/more-anti-family-legislation-from-the-nats/
LMFAO. This is the pot calling the fridge black
December 13th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
expat,
At least our emissions ‘scheme’ is labelled more accurately than that of the western islands i.e. the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”.
Carbon is pollution ? wait a minute.
December 14th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Neil makes a valid point. While I agree with the Standards bill as an “ambulance at the bottom of the cliff” necessity, at the end of the day we are dealing with two major problems that the bill does not address. We have a culture that does not value traditional knowledge, reading and learning, and we have a the problem of a school system dominated by Marxist union filth. This is one of those times when I agree with the hard right. Education must be radically decentralized, and real diversity, competition, and choice introduced.
It is great to see Pita Sharples addressing those very points. As to homo-activist Chris Carters attack on the bill, someone too stupid to understand how their genitals are supposed to work is not someone I take seriously on ANY issue, let alone education.
December 14th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Lee: Chris Carter, The Ministryof Education, ERO and some schools have to face serious allegations of cover-ups in the failure to implement the Code of Conduct for International Students.
4 December the Private Secretary (Education) wrote that Hon Anne Tolley was considering the matter.
December 14th, 2008 at 7:30 am
The Sentencing Amendment Act and the Bail Amendment Act make bugger all changes. The Education Amendment Act does but for all the wrong reasons. Bringing in a US “no child left behind” policy when it is clear that that policy has not worked makes no sense. The fire at will Act also makes reasonably important changes. It is hard to understand why because there already was a probationary provision in the ERA, just check out section 67.
This new found enthusiasm for being a group of action men is all very good but the democratic process has been totally usurped. Bills like this should go a parliamentary select committee unless there is a justifiable reason not to. The bills ought to be scrutinised and our right to make submissions and representations should not be taken away.
Labour was criticised for the EFA and the ETS and the way they were “rushed through” into law. Well this is the mother of all rushes.
National has blown its honeymoon period. The Labour MPs this week performed really well in Parliament and are raring to go. Roll on 2011.
December 14th, 2008 at 7:34 am
ms: >The Labour MPs this week performed really well in Parliament and are raring to go. Roll on 2011.
Yeah, shame you guys STILL don’t realise that NZ did vote for change, an end to marxist filth running our lives.
December 14th, 2008 at 8:11 am
I thought the claim was that it was a party that had policy but wouldn’t tell anyone (a secret agenda, if you will). And given they wouldn’t release the bills to the opposition, let alone the public…
Or, changing one phrase to another phrase the Courts have already said have identical meanings, but go with your one, if you like.
Which they already had to take into account anyway. Can you (or anyone) point out a single case where the courts felt unable to impose a just sentence because something like this wasn’t in the law? The amendment makes it longer, but the law is still the same.
Let’s look forward to the next smacking prosecution, anyway
December 14th, 2008 at 8:15 am
All round good news, and a very pleasing result from the National coalition so far. The direction of the nation has been turned.
Bharmer, don’t know what you’re fishing for here with publishing family details. Do you want someone to tell you you’re a bad parent so you can get all self righteous?
Maybe if your child knew they were going to cost you $3000 they’d have cleaned their act up, maybe not. Maybe they had a big beef with you, maybe not. Maybe they were mentally ill, maybe not. You aren’t going to tell all in the tiny space of this forum, so what do you want?
I agree that fining parents will not stop some truancy, but it will stop some – much like the gross effect of all our laws. What are you saying – it wouldn’t have helped you so it’s not going to change anything for anyone? This is legislation we’re talking about, not specific individually taretted parenting programs and intimate conselling sessions. It will always be a blunt instrument!
There are many different existing and effective ways to catch a child’s attention and get them into some kind of education. National’s truancy changes gets the parents attention and that’s not a bad thing. It’s a pointless exercise having the state raise the children of people who thought kids were like the figurines from a happy meal.
(and I read Chris Kahui is a Father again – the game begins again, but hopefully under different rules now.)
December 14th, 2008 at 8:27 am
I certainly am looking forward to 2011. I wonder who will be the opposition after that election- Labour or the Greens? National is now higher in the opinion polls than it was at the election: get stuff done/vote National.
December 14th, 2008 at 9:18 am
I sort of agree with those who feel the urgency was a bit on the nose, but completely disagree with the detractors to this legislative change.
It is simple scare mongering. What small business has the resources to sustain high staff turnover. The recruiting costs and lower productivity achieved through the training period of a new employee are tough enough in this climate. Why would an employer want to go through this process every three months. I think it is a common sense check and balance.
I know if I ran a business I would want to know that if I had taken on a new worker and they were bad for business I could terminate the relationship, if I could not manage to turn their performance around.
I would also like to see the transfer of ownership provisions reviewed. If you buy a business should you be forced to keep all employees. If bad ones were part of the reason it was for sale. Should you not have the right to cull dead wood.
December 14th, 2008 at 9:59 am
On her spot on the Paul Holmes show Wendyl Nissan kept telling Paul and the Newstalk listeners there was no need “to ram this bill through under urgency.”
Has she not heard about the recession and about the threatened and actual job losses and business closures?
Maybe not given her awareness of most economic issues.
The New Year is when many of these layoffs and closures take effect. On the other hand many people do their hiring at this time of year.
So both the timing and the reality of the recession make passing this Bill an urgent matter.
(Of course Ms Nissan sits on a few cushy jobs and is not worried about her immediate prospects so has little empathy for others.)
But imagine you are in a small town and have worked in a timber mill all your life and it closes for lack of construction work and you are out of work.
Your employer was the only sawmill in town – and indeed the only “manufacturer” in town.
So you respond to an advertisement seeking workers in the Dairy factory in the town just down the road.
Of course you have never worked in a Dairy factory in your life, and the employer is reluctant to take on someone without experience.
But now you can say “GIve me three months to show you I am a quick learner. We had many changes in plant and technology over my time in the mill and I can learn to use your machinery and computers just as a learned to use the machinery and computers in the mill!”
At least you have a chance.
That is why this Bill MUST go through before Xmas.
But where are John Key’s PR people? I have not heard anyone make this point!
I would be prepared to have a go for ninety days!
December 14th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Owen McShane
Making it easier to fire a new employee will somehow make the jobs of existing employees more secure?
The Act is windowdressing. There already was power to have a probationary period.
There are lots of iffs in your statement and no evidence of current need. That is why the bill should have gone to a select committee. That could have been done relatively quickly, it is conceivable the bill still could have been passed in the 100 day period.
Ramming it through has shown this Government to have no respect for democratic rights or the rights of workers. It has achieved very little “gain” for a huge amount of damage to its reputation. And I thought that John Key was going to be a Helen lite?
December 14th, 2008 at 11:12 am
John PR people? Gone the way of dinosaurs we would hope. The new ones will have a 90 day trial. Now that will be fun.
Only need PR people when you don’t know your subject and have to have someone fill in the blank spaces for you. That’s why the liabours had so many. Simply didn’t have the mental capacity to know their subjects.
December 14th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Owen McShane,
I know of no dairy factory with less than 20 employees, so the distressed former timber worker would be out of luck.
I understand the 90 day Bill only applies to employers with less than 20 employees.
December 14th, 2008 at 11:36 am
My last comment was a joke of course.
But the issue of our labour law is NO joke. I deal with large numbers of small business people and where possible they say they will not hire staff because of the risks involved. Those who have to to have experienced the classic firing costs where you pay up $5,000 because it is cheaper than going to court etc.
My own PA is self employed by her own company. This is the norm in rural areas.
And another reason some colleagues will no longer hire is because they are sent by WINZ to fulfill their job seeking obligations and as soon as they received their first pay packet they just disappear and are never heard of again.
We have a situation where people believe they have a right to a job whereas it is a privilege to have a job because you have to demonstrate that you deserve to be paid. I do not understand why the left which is so hostile to property rights generally has been happy to generate a new and unique right in property (a job) which is unique in that you somehow acquire the right at someone else’s expense.
December 14th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
So much evil and stupidity of the last 9 years reversed in just a few days ! Keep it up.
December 14th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
mickeysavage,
“Ramming it through has shown this Government to have no respect for democratic rights or the rights of workers.”
Nonsense for two reasons. First, National campaigned openly that it would introduce such a policy. The public voted overwhelmingly for a Nation/Act government knowing full well that this was its policy. Therefore “democratic rights” have not been infringed in any way whatsoever. Quite the opposite. Putting this bill through a select committee would be utterly pointless and only provide a platform for Labour and the Greens to whine about it for months. With a major economic crisis gathering steam National should put the country first and get such legislation passed as quickly as possible. The fact that you and the left want to drag this out for infantile partisan reasons only proves my view that when it comes to the crunch Labour and the Greens are more concerned with their political careers that in the good of the nation.
Second, “workers rights” is a Marxist notion that has no inherent objective meaning. ANYONE who goes to a job and works is a worker, regardless of whether they are employees, employers or the CEO of a company.
Marxist/Union notions of “workers rights” are just about protecting unionists, not workers in general. I know many people at the low income/welfare end of the spectrum who have been dealing with personal problems (like addiction and mental health) and who do not have good looking CV’s or consistent work records. These people will benefit from the freedom employers will have to take a risk on someone who they otherwise might not.
“It has achieved very little “gain” for a huge amount of damage to its reputation.”
Absolute rubbish. National is higher in the polls now than at the election. Provide some actual proof of this mythical “damage”. And no, whining from the political Left and Unions is not “damage”, just hot air.
December 15th, 2008 at 9:55 am
goodgod (809) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating2 Says:
December 14th, 2008 at 8:15 am
“Bharmer, don’t know what you’re fishing for here with publishing family details. Do you want someone to tell you you’re a bad parent so you can get all self righteous?”
Fishing? Bollocks! I was simply making the point that not all truancy is within the control of parents, and that blanket penalties will not necessarily achieve their intended outcome.
“Maybe if your child knew they were going to cost you $3000 they’d have cleaned their act up, maybe not. Maybe they had a big beef with you, maybe not. Maybe they were mentally ill, maybe not. You aren’t going to tell all in the tiny space of this forum, so what do you want?”
Given the extent of her rebellion at that time, I doubt it would have made any difference. What I want is a bit more discretion on the part of the authorities who manage the new legislation. At present it is “Every person who … commits an offence and is liable …” In short, Those who administer the act need to take into account the many possibilities that lead to truancy.
[DPF: There will I am sure be discretion to prosecute. Brian makes a valuable point that there are some very good parents out there who do have kids go off the rails. And even better, who come back on eventually]
December 15th, 2008 at 10:53 am
I was referring to a Dairy Industry Factory – such as the Cheese factory my niece worked in for many years which employed about ten people.
On the other hand you have given a good reason to remove the staff number limit.