Home Blog Page 1985

Former Green MP Denise Roche selected to contest Waitematā Local Board by-election

The Daily Blog
-
1

City Vision is pleased to announce that former Green MP Denise Roche has been selected as their candidate for the by-election for the Waitematā Local Board.  Voting packs will be delivered from Friday 26 January 2018 with voting closing at noon on Saturday 17 February 2018.

 

Robert Gallagher, Chair of City Vision says that Denise will make an excellent addition to the community-focused successful City Vision-led Local Board.

 

“It’s really great to have Denise standing for us. It was a tough selection; we had nine excellent candidates from a wide range of backgrounds however we’re pleased with the final outcome as Denise has local government experience, is very familiar with Waitematā issues and brings a recent parliamentary overview to the position.”

 

Before entering parliament in 2011 Denise Roche had been an Auckland City Councillor and a Waiheke Local Board member and she says she is keen to join the City Vision team on the Waitematā Local Board because she is passionate about Auckland.

 

“I’ve lived and worked in and around the area for nearly 30 years and our city streets and spaces are part of who I am. Our city is a great place to live and work and play, but there’s also some huge issues we have to deal with. If I am elected, I want to help our board – and our council – address homelessness, deal with our infrastructure problems, protect our built and natural environment, support our local businesses and communities and carry on the excellent work done to improve walking and cycling and public transport options. “

 

Denise’s campaigning experience will be an advantage in the by-election. “Denise will be up and running as our candidate from today. She’s stood in the Auckland Central electorate for the Greens for the last four general elections, has recent door-knocking experience in the area and has heard first-hand about the issues that the Waitematā community care about. Our team has a great group of volunteers helping Denise who are campaign-ready for this important by-election” says Mr Gallagher

 

City Vision is a political grouping of Labour, the Greens and community independents who share common values and policies and run as a ticket for local government elections in the old Auckland City Council area.

The Liberal Agenda – Peter and the Wolf – 5 stars

Martyn Bradbury
-
0

 

I have to be 100% honest with you, I didn’t have any great expectations for this.

Puppetry is slightly above mime but just below musical comedy in the theatre hierarchy, and my thoughts of how this could possibly work in a space as dull and uncomfortable as the Herald Theatre were all pretty bleak.

How. Wrong. Could. I. Have. Ever. Been?

This was and is a total joy and gem of a show. The incredible musicians are perfectly timed to the live action, the puppetry was dazzling and the videography used alongside pre-created sets was magical.

They swap narrators out each show, and we were lucky enough to have Chloe Swarbrick (my daughter was thrilled to see her), and at the end the entire crowd were on their feet cheering.

My daughter( being a native of K rd) was ecstatic that so many of the sets were based on and around K rd so if you actually live in the inner city and have kids – you really need to go to this.

Worth ever cent.

Where:Herald Theatre, Aotea Centre, 50 Mayoral Dr, CBD, Auckland

Restrictions:All Ages

Ticket Information:
Child: $20.00
Under 30s: $30.00
Group 6+: $39.00
Concession: $39.00
Adult A Reserve: $42.00
Adult Best Seats: $49.00

Political Caption Competition

The Daily Blog
-
1

Judgmental Map of Auckland

The Daily Blog Open Mic – Monday 20th November 2017

The Daily Blog
-
2

Announce protest actions, general chit chat or give your opinion on issues we haven’t covered for the day.

Moderation rules are more lenient for this section, but try and play nicely.

EDITORS NOTE: – By the way, here’s a list of shit that will get your comment dumped. Sexist language, homophobic language, racist language, anti-muslim hate, transphobic language, Chemtrails, 9/11 truthers, climate deniers, anti-fluoride fanatics, anti-vaxxer lunatics and ANYONE that links to fucking infowar.  

RNZ believed Manus Island Staff – but why should we?

Martyn Bradbury
-
12

An odd bit of state propaganda popped up on Radio NZ last week. They interviewed a ‘guard’ from Manus Island who warned us that if we took in refugees we would be asking for trouble…

A New Zealand man who worked at the Manus Island refugee detention facility is warning the government against taking any refugees, saying the ones still at the centre are dangerous men.  

…this follows a direct threat from Australia that if we negotiate with PNG directly to help these desperate refugees, then there would be ‘consequences’…

Australian Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has opened the door to a potential refugee resettlement deal between New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, acknowledging it is a decision for the two sovereign states that Australia could not block.

But he warned any arrangement would be against Australia’s wishes and would run the risk of souring both countries’ diplomatic relationships with Australia – making it unlikely without Canberra’s blessing.

…let’s put aside the outrageous and direct threat to us from Australia and ask why would any NZer believe what a guard from Manus Island has to say about the refugees being detained there?

Report after report after report have surfaced that show the Guards have a long history of beating, torturing and sexually abusing the refugees…

Disturbing allegations of regular beatings, racist slurs and unwanted sexual advances by G4S guards on Manus Island have been made by a former Salvation Army worker.

Nicole Judge, a worker on the island, said she was “shocked and distressed” at the conditions on Manus Island when she arrived in September last year to work in a general support role.

…so what Radio NZ are asking us to believe is that member of staff from a group with a long history of abusing refugees should be listened to when they warn us we shouldn’t take any.

It’s like taking vacation advice from the Captain of the Titanic.

 

Not Quite An Act Of War: Analysing Australia’s Push-Back Against Jacinda’s Manus Island Outreach

Chris Trotter
-
19

YOU HAVE TO GO BACK A LONG WAY to find anything remotely resembling Australia’s current treatment of New Zealand. For a supposedly friendly government to deliberately inject inflammatory disinformation into the political bloodstream of its supposedly closest neighbour is an extraordinarily provocative act. Not quite an act of war, but the sort of intervention that can all-too-easily provoke a catastrophic loss of trust.

It’s the sort of thing that the Soviets and the Americans used to do to one another all the time during the Cold War. Except, of course, those two superpowers were ideological and geopolitical rivals of the first order. It takes a real effort to re-cast the relationship between New Zealand and Australia in similar terms. Nevertheless, it’s an effort we are now obliged to make.

So, what is it that Australia has done? Essentially, its national security apparatus (presumably at the instigation of their political leaders) has released, mostly through media surrogates, a number of related stories calculated to inflame the prejudices of a certain type of New Zealander.

Like Australia, New Zealand harbours a frighteningly large number of racists. Politically-speaking, such people are easily aroused and have few qualms about setting-off ugly, racially-charged, debates on talkback radio, in the letters columns of the daily newspapers and across social media. These individuals are trouble enough when all they have to fight with are their own stereotypes and prejudices. Arm them with the carefully assembled disinformation of “fake news” and they instantly become quite dangerous.

And yet, this is exactly what the Australian authorities have done. Planting stories in their own press (knowing they will be picked up almost immediately by our own) about at least four boatloads of illegal immigrants that have set out for New Zealand only to be intercepted and turned back by the ever-vigilant officers of the Royal Australian Navy and their Coast Guard comrades. The purpose of this story (unsourced and lacking in detail, making it, almost certainly, fake news) was to paint New Zealand’s prime minister as an ill-informed and ungrateful diplomatic naïf: an inexperienced young idealist who doesn’t know which way is up when it comes to dealing with real-world problems.

This, alone, was an extraordinary intervention. To gauge how extraordinary, just turn it around. Imagine the reaction in Australia if some unnamed person in New Zealand’s national security apparatus leaked a memo to one of this country’s daily newspapers in which the negative diplomatic and economic consequences of being tainted by association with Australia’s flouting of international law is set forth in clinical detail. If the memo also contained a collection of highly critical assessments of Turnbull’s cabinet colleagues, allegedly passed-on by a number of unnamed western diplomats, then so much the better!

Canberra would not be impressed!

If the Australians had left it at just one intervention, then perhaps New Zealanders could simply have shrugged it off as yet another case of bad behaviour from the land of the under-arm bowlers. But when have the Aussies ever left it at “just one”?

The next intervention came in the form of “Ian” – formerly a guard (or so he said) at both the Nauru and Manus Island detention centres. For reasons it has yet to adequately explain, RNZ’s Checkpoint programme provided “Ian” with nearly ten, largely uninterrupted, minutes of air-time during which he poured-forth a stream of accusations and characterisations which, to put it mildly, painted the protesters occupying the decommissioned Manus Island facility in the most lurid and disquieting colours. The detainees were criminals, drug-dealers – paedophiles even! Not at all the sort of people New Zealanders would want in their country.

“Ian”, it turns out, is a “witness” well-known to the many Australian NGOs that have taken up the cause of the detainees on Manus and Nauru. They have noted the curious similarities between “Ian’s” supposedly personal observations and experiences, and the inflammatory talking-points constantly reiterated by Australia’s hard-line Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton. A cynic might describe the grim “testimony” of “Ian” and Dutton as mutually reinforcing.

No matter. New Zealand’s racist, Islamophobic and militantly anti-immigrant community had been supplied with yet another truckload of Australian-manufactured ammunition.

Enough? Not hardly! Only this morning (17/11/17) New Zealanders were fed the shocking “news” that the protesting Manus Island detainees are harbouring within their ranks an unspecified number of men guilty of having debauched and prostituted local girls as young as 10 and 13!

Too much? Over the top? Redolent of the very worst instances of the murderous racial-incitement for which the Deep South of the United States was so rightly infamous? It sure is! Which is why we must hope that the Internet does not operate on Manus Island. Because, if the local inhabitants were to read on-line that the detainees were responsible for prostituting their daughters, what might they NOT do?

One almost feels that the Australian spooks behind this extraordinary disinformation campaign would actually be delighted if the locals burned down the Manus Island detention centre with the protesting detainees inside it.

“This is what comes of 37-year-old Kiwi prime ministers meddling in matters they know nothing about!” That would be the consistent theme of the right-wing Australian media. It would not take long for the same line to be picked up here: first on social media, and then by more mainstream media outlets. Right-wing outrage, mixed with a gleeful “we told you so!”, could not, however, be contained within the news media for very long. Inevitably, the more outré inhabitants of the Opposition’s back bench would take possession of the controversy, from there it would cascade down rapidly to Opposition politicians nearer the front.

Before her enemies could say: “It’s all your fault!”, Jacinda would find herself under withering political fire from both sides of the Tasman. Canberra would register her increasingly fragile government’s distress with grim satisfaction.

As the men and women responsible for organising “Operation Stardust” deleted its final folder, and fed the last incriminating document into the paper-shredder, one or two of them might even have voiced a judiciously muted “Mission Accomplished!”

 

Wendy’s must give workers 5 years worth of alternative holidays

Mike Treen
-
6
The right of workers to an alternative holiday when working on a public holiday has been strongly affirmed in an Employment Relations Authority decision against Wendco (NZ) Limited, the company that operates the Wendy’s stores in New Zealand.

Wendy’s had been using an interpretation of the law that effectively prevented most of their employees from accessing their lawful entitlement. In Wendy’s case, this was using a rule that an employee had to have worked the previous three Mondays if they wanted to claim an alternative holiday for working a public holiday on a Monday.

It was easy for managers to roster workers off one of those Mondays to stop them getting the entitlement.

Similar systems have actually been in operation at most fast food companies and in almost all industries with variable work patterns. The employer could just deny the entitlement and claim it wasn’t the workers “normal” working day and for most workers that was the end of it because they lacked the confidence to challenge it.

The Authority decision has clarified that such restrictive interpretations are not acceptable and given guidelines as to what must be considered.

Wendco has been ordered to recalculate entitlements for all employees back to July 1, 2012, and ensure every effort is made to contact previous employees who will be owed money.

There are 11 public holidays each year and Wendy’s would have at least 300 of their 500 staff working on those days. Nearly all of those workers have missed getting alternative holidays. The company must go back five years and recalculate entitlement. My guestimate is that the bill for Wendy’s will be around 16,500 days or $1.6 million worth of leave.

Unite will be making sure we contact every one of our former members to register their claims.

But I believe the decision will have far-reaching implications for workers in other industries.

It makes clear that the judgment on whether a day “would be an otherwise working day” must be done on an individual basis for each worker “and that each assessment must be genuine and made in good faith.”

No single formula will cover all workers in all situations – especially when there is a variable work roster.

However, the Authority says there should be four key things that need to be considered for a company like Wendy’s:

  1. The employment agreement
  2. The rosters, here available
  3. The availability provisions, where available
  4. The actual work patterns.

The authority member also said that in some cases the work patterns may be the most decisive factor in determining whether the public holiday was otherwise a working day. However, when using this factor “a minimum of three months, up to a maximum of six months, is a reasonable consideration of each employees work pattern.”

This is a very important part of the ruling because up to now it has been very difficult to get employers to use a longer period which generally produces a fairer result and isn’t easy to manipulate.

Elsewhere in the decision the authority member makes clear that whilst she cannot make a one-size fits all determination of the percentage of days worked, of for example Mondays, to get an entitlement. For “some employees the answer may be that it is clear if they worked more than 50% of the same day of the week in the preceding three to six months and so should be entitled to an alternative holiday.”

“More than 50%” is an improvement on what we have been able to get many employers to agree to in the past.

The judgement also gives a useful explanation of why the more than 50% formula is not always applicable, though should be the starting point.

The Authority member writes: “However, I will use an example to illustrate why more than 50% assessment does not always produce the correct answer. For my example, I will use a public holiday that falls on a Monday and an employee who has worked at least a six-month period prior to that public holiday. This employee has not worked the majority of the preceding 25 or 26 Mondays. However, they have worked on the preceding eight Mondays. In that case it is likely that the employee had a reasonable expectation that they would work on the 9th Monday that happens to be the public holiday. In that case, it is likely that for that employee, whether they were originally rostered for that day or not, the public holiday Monday on which they work was otherwise a working dar them.”

“Wendco cannot apply a blanket approach to crew members on variable rosters because that is not an individually applied approach for each employee. An individual employee approach is simply part of the price Wendco pays for the benefit of the convenience it gains by using variable rosters.”

There will be other exceptions when, for example, someone has worked less than three months. In that case their entire work period should be considered.

It is with great joy that I am going to quote the entire final section with the “orders” from the Authority to Wendco. This is justice for Wendy’s workers that is long overdue. Special thanks should also go to Rose Williams, the Unite Union delegate at Wendy’s in Hornby, Christchurch, who first raised the issue with the Labour Inspector over two and a half years ago!

Orders

[79] Under s 223E of the Employment Relations Act 2000 I detemine that Wendco (NZ) Limited:

(i) has failed and is failing to comply with s 56 of the Holidays Act 2003 because it has not provided all employees with an alternative holiday when they have worked on a public holiday that would otherwise be a working day.

(ii) has failed and is failing to comply with s 60 of the Holidays Act 2003 because it has not paid all employees for any alternative holidays they became entitled to during their employment but had not taken when their employment ended.

(iii) must conduct a review of the public holidays worked by all past and current employees of the Hornby9 and Dunedin restaurants since they opened. For the other restaurants throughout New Zealand conduct a review of all public holidays worked by all current and past employees that have occurred since 1 July 2012.

(iv) must determine where any employee has worked on a public holiday, if that public holiday would otherwise have been a working day for that employee taking into account all the relevant factors in s 12 of the Holidays Act 2003, bearing in mind this determination.

(v) must, for each of the employees, record the reasoning used to decide if the public holiday would otherwise have been a working day.

(vi) credit each employee with an alternative holiday if the public holiday was found to be otherwise a working day for that employee. If the employee is no longer employed Wendco must make payment for the alternative day to that employee instead, under s 60 of the Holidays Act 2003.

(vii) must keep evidence of attempts to contact past employees for the purpose of making such payments, if it has not been possible to make payment to them.

(viii) provide evidence of the above steps, including copies of the reviews with the reasoning for every decision, copies of holiday and leave records for current employees showing amended leave balances and evidence of payments made to former employees or attempts to contact them for the purpose of making payments, to Ms Baldwin by a date to be agreed between Ms Baldwin and Wendco, or set by the Authority after hearing from both parties

Unite believes that this decision also has implications for other companies, like McDonald’s and Restaurant Brands, which have operated a more restrictive interpretation of the law than this decision has said is lawful.

This story has much further to run!

Reflections on racial exclusion in an EziBuy catalogue

Christine Rose
-
23

This week an unsolicited EziBuy brochure turned up in my mail box. It was unnecessarily wrapped in plastic, and unappealing in its styles, utopian in its settings, unrealistic in its prices. But there was a more insidious underlying issue that took a while to become apparent. Of the 117 pages, including front and back, there were only about five that contained any images of dark skinned women.

When I observed on that great stewing cauldron of opinion, Facebook, that there were virtually no ‘women of colour’ in EziBuy pages, I was told I was homogenising women. (Sorry to every one of you!). I was told the descriptor ‘of colour’ was an ‘Americanism’; I should have referred to Indian, African-American, Maori, Pacifica…. While labels matter, racism itself is of broader concern.

The absence in EziBuy of pictures of Maori, Asian, Pacific, Middle Eastern women of all ethnicities and nations, and other women who make up the diversity of New Zealand life, meant that women different from a ‘white’ homogenous ‘standard’ were made subject to ‘symbolic annihilation’. They were made invisible, denormalised, diminished. And given the role the media of all types plays in shaping views of ourselves and the world, EziBuy failed to reflect, speak to, or even acknowledge the beautiful diversity of New Zealand women. That every woman in the catalogue met a rare and unrealistic standard of ‘perfect’ teeth, hair and height, was a bad enough signal to real women everywhere, but the absence of real, diverse New Zealand women, said only white women (of certain Aryan characteristics) are and can be, beautiful and suitable for wearing EziBuy clothes.

In the long Facebook discussion that followed, I was told that ‘we should just get over it and stop whining and making politics out of everything’. “We should all be one people”. Someone I’m fond of said I should just face up to the fact that we are white New Zealand.
I double checked New Zealand’s demographic figures, which confirmed we are definitely not ‘white NZ’, but are 14+% Maori, 11% Asian, 7+% Pacifica, plus other ethnicities, and just 72% are ‘European New Zealanders’. Certainly when I walk down an Auckland street it looks a lot like a mixed modern city to me. And all the richer for it. Though no wonder attitudes of European entitlement and privilege prevail. It was only in the 1970s that New Zealand stopped selecting immigrants just based on their European descent, and instead accepted them on more equal basis of skills, financial capacity and family links. We’re dealing with a culture that’s still striving to retain its dominion.

The recognition and denigration of others based on physical characteristics is said to stem from unity of tribal group bonds and fear of those who are different. Racist stereotypes have long been used in this country to justify a settler society and colonisation. Claims that we should have ‘one (white) law for all’, and be ‘one’ New Zealand, assume a systematic Euro-centric superiority, dishonour the Treaty, insult bi-culturalism and thwart opportunities for recognition and celebration of indigeneity, and diversity.

Diversity and different skin colour and dress in our communities is an obvious sign of social change, and those with established privilege or status, even if they can’t see it themselves, will feel threatened by change and by a society they perceive as filled with others. There’s casual racism and every day bias against Indian shopkeepers and bus drivers, women in headscarves, Maori, ‘Asian homeowners’. Fourth generation kiwis of Chinese descent get told to go back where they came from. A whole range of derogatory terms are used to describe good, hard working kiwis who, if they had the same skin colour as the dominant paradigm and its narratives, wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. In many cases, prejudice works against people just because of the colour of their skin not because of the fact that they’re foreigners though – there’s less bias against immigrants from England, Australia or Europe, than there is against indigenous Maori and Pacific Islanders, or people of ‘different’ colour.

That’s because colour is a proxy for political inequality – power imbalance. Who needs a brand or a label to highlight the target of your opposition when simple pigment will do. Racism is, according to sociologists, ‘a political construct, primarily a manifestation of unequal power between groups’. It’s the machinery of an ‘ethnocentric paradigm’ which maintains those unequal power relations.

The absence of ethnically diverse women in fashion magazines as part of media bias, ‘defines the contours of society’, shapes our understanding of the world, how we see ourselves, how we are seen, and helps create ‘social identities and realities’. It’s a form of ‘racial framing’.

So while some said ‘it’s just a magazine selling clothes, don’t read too much into it’, the racism problem goes further than just in magazines. There’s evidence from the Human Rights Commission that racism is getting worse though most victims of racism ‘suffer in silence’ according to Commissioner Susan Devoy. And racism works on all fronts, there’s internal, interpersonal, institutional, and societal racism affecting individual’s health, wellbeing, experiences and life chances in the workplace, public sector and in the provision of goods and services. It’s been seen in popular culture from ‘My Kitchen Rules’, to the NZ Music Awards. It’s expressed in differential access to health care, education, rental accommodation, and in unequal treatment through the criminal justice system.

It was pointed out that EziBuy is an Australian owned company, as if that explains the homogenous white women filling their pages. It certainly doesn’t excuse it. But given New Zealand and Australia are richly ethnically diverse and are both target audiences for the magazine and the company’s clothes, it would be wholly appropriate to include images that represent the real women of those countries. In fact, EziBuy started as a New Zealand company, before it was bought by Coles and then Woolworths, so it has had quite an opportunity to reflect the make-up of its country of origin. Their head office is in Parnell.

There were no pictures of models with t-shirts saying ‘I’m racist on the inside’ in the EziBuy magazine, to adopt an angle from the Human Rights Commission’s ‘Give nothing to racism’ campaign fronted by Taika Waititi. And even when we think we’re (one) colour blind, we’re seeing the world from a particular lens. The concerning thing about the EziBuy catalogue was that it presented a (series of) false realities as if they were ideals. Though there was no ‘I’m racist on the inside’ label on the cover, its pictures spoke a thousand words, if only you read between the lines.

Political Caption Competition

The Daily Blog
-
4

The Daily Blog Open Mic – Saturday 18th November 2017

The Daily Blog
-
1

Announce protest actions, general chit chat or give your opinion on issues we haven’t covered for the day.

Moderation rules are more lenient for this section, but try and play nicely.

EDITORS NOTE: – By the way, here’s a list of shit that will get your comment dumped. Sexist language, homophobic language, racist language, anti-muslim hate, transphobic language, Chemtrails, 9/11 truthers, climate deniers, anti-fluoride fanatics, anti-vaxxer lunatics and ANYONE that links to fucking infowar.  

Political Caption Competition

The Daily Blog
-
5

Privilege never looked so WASP

The Daily Blog Open Mic – Friday 17th November 2017

The Daily Blog
-
0

Announce protest actions, general chit chat or give your opinion on issues we haven’t covered for the day.

Moderation rules are more lenient for this section, but try and play nicely.

EDITORS NOTE: – By the way, here’s a list of shit that will get your comment dumped. Sexist language, homophobic language, racist language, anti-muslim hate, transphobic language, Chemtrails, 9/11 truthers, climate deniers, anti-fluoride fanatics, anti-vaxxer lunatics and ANYONE that links to fucking infowar.  

How ill prepared are the Greens for Government? This ill prepared…

Martyn Bradbury
-
42

“Well, I tried to start a revolution, but didn’t print enough pamphlets so hardly anyone turned up. Except for my mum and her boyfriend, who I hate. As punishment, I was forced to be in here and become a gladiator. Bit of a promotional disaster that one, but I’m actually organizing another revolution. I don’t know if you’d be interested in something like that? Do you reckon you’d be interested?” 

Korg – Thor: Ragnarok

I like the Greens, I  support the majority of their policy and I’ve voted Green most of my life.

But.

They are chequers players trying to play chess and the leak today of an internal strategy paper is so woeful and concerning, it’s like catching your Surgeon checking on how to do your operation on wikipedia.

Let’s break down the Green Party strategy and consider if they have actually comprehended what they are saying and doing here…

The Green Party is considering opposing NZ First’s “Waka Jumping” bill – a deal struck in coalition talks – unless Labour gives it a national “Parihaka Day”.

Green Party justice spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman, in an internal email obtained by Stuff, suggested some horse trading with Labour to acknowledge the fact the party has long opposed waka jumping legislation.

…firstly – what the fuck are the Greens doing having this kind of discussion on an unsecured email and how the Christ did it get into the hands of the Media?

In the email Ghahraman said Little had “unlawfully” shown her a “ministerial advice paper” about proposed waka jumping legislation but not the full text of the bill.

…secondly, it’s not ‘unlawfully’ but why the fuck drop Andrew Little in the shit even if it was? So what the Greens are saying is they will nark on you if you share them information?

This isn’t so much burning bridges as napalming them.

The response from the Greens is even more eye rolling…

“It’s not surprising that Labour Party and Green Party MPs are having these kinds of constructive conversations and working together; in fact, that’s what New Zealanders expect of government parties.

“It’s commonplace for ministers and MPs to have these kind of conversations – that will continue,” the spokesperson said. 

…yes. that’s right, MPs do have these discussions, and the public expects that. What the public don’t expect is having that dialogue described as ‘unlawful’ or using that information for Party self-aggrandisement!

It continues…

A “Waka Jumping Bill” first arose in 2001 to stop MPs defecting to another party – as happened after the 1996 National-NZ First coalition government collapsed.

The Green Party is aware of the “political tensions” its opposition to the bill could cause.

In a caucus briefing note obtained by Stuff it was outlined that a “strong communications plan” would be needed by the Greens regardless of whether the party chose to support or oppose the bill.

“We will need a strong communications plan to either explain a changed position, or to front foot any political tension or risk of being seen as an unstable part of Government, if opposition went public.

“If we supported the bill we would also need an internal plan to communicate the decision to members and supporters,” the briefing note stated.

The bill’s aim is to preserve the proportionality of Parliament by making an MP who entered Parliament via a party list resign from Parliament rather than switching allegiances.

Labour has included a clause in the bill that means two-thirds of a party caucus would have to agree with a party leader’s decision to get rid of an MP from caucus.

The Greens have asked Little to amend the bill in respect of the way a party leader could trigger the ousting of an MP. That is, a leader would have to show an MP had acted inconsistently on party policy or ethic on a persistent basis or substantial level – “not just a one-off vote or a minor issue”.

The caucus briefing noted Little was “open to further suggestions”.

“Given the timeframes and that Labour will want to know our position before a bill is introduced to the House, we will probably need to inform them of an initial position on the issue without having seen the legislation,” the briefing note stated.

“The Government won’t have the numbers to pass the legislation without us, and if we decided to oppose it then they would need to consider other options such as approaching the National Party, who opposed the 2005 bill.”

“Opposing the bill would cause political tensions given the inclusion of the bill in the Labour-NZ First coalition agreement and the apparent importance the Government is placing on it.

“However the nature of this Government requires all parties considering issues on a case-by-case basis and this is an area we have had a different position to that of Labour and NZ First, and our Confidence and Supply Agreement gives us the independence to choose to vote against it,” the briefing note stated.

“Supporting the bill would be seen as changing and weakening a long standing and public Party position. It would risk criticism from our core supporters and commentators.”

…let’s just pause here and understand and appreciate what the Greens are doing and what they seem to have missed utterly and what they are prepared to ‘horse trade’ all of this for.

Let’s start by asking a simple question shall we?

Why does Winston want this waka jumping legislation in place?

He wants it in place because he knows there is one hell of a global economic correction coming and he knows the first thing the right wing do when a crisis of that magnitude threatens their wealth is they buy who they need to protect that wealth.

Winston is inoculating his own Party from having MPs who can be bought by National when the economy hits the skids, that’s why he included it in the negotiations with Labour. With that law in place he knows he can hold his Party together when the worst hits. This is a stability measure that holds the new Government together, what the internal memo shows is that the Greens seems to have no fucking clue as to why Winston wants this law, and they don’t understand that passing it strengthens the stability of the Government they themselves are part of!

This law would actually strengthen their own position!

They are trying to gain leverage over a law that itself strengthens their own Government’s longevity.

It’s like trying to bet on the Titanic sinking while you are still on the bloody Titanic!

What they should be saying is ‘we understand how important this is for the Government and we are prepared to support that for the strength and unity of this new Government. In return, we would like a fair hearing on an issue that is important to us’.

Because they have no idea why Winston wants the law change or see how it’s actually beneficial for them long term, they merely see it as an opportunity to extort the Government!

And what is it they want to extort the Government for?

Parihaka Day?!?

Parihaka Day?!?

WHAT TE FUCK?

Look, let me first state I am in 100% favour of a National Day for Parihaka, I am. The outrageous injustice committed at Parihaka against peaceful resistance is a shameful and empowering moment from our history that demands and deserves respect.

No qualms there.

But are you fucking seriously telling me that of all the issues the Greens could be getting serious consideration on in return for their agreement with waka jumping legislation (which ultimately ensures they get a full 3 year term) is Parihaka Day?!?

What about climate change in every school curriculum?

What about a real lift in benefits for beneficiaries?

What about a binding referendum on Cannabis?

What about Free Public Transport for students?

What about dumping all punitive measures used against the poor?

Of all the issues they wish to progress, they are prepared to sabre rattle over a law that secures their 3 years for Parihaka Day?

They want  to blackmail the Government into supporting an idea that stands on its own two feet? Wouldn’t that in fact dishonour the very values Parihaka Day is supposed to espouse?

Are they listening to what they are saying for Gods sake?

This leak means the idea is utterly dead. There’s no way Labour or NZ First could look like they have been blackmailed into supporting Parihaka Day when they would have likely supported it anyway.

I’ve had my concerns about the Greens for some time, this leak has been a cringeworthy exercise in seeing how right those concerns were.

The Greens really have to lift their game dramatically if they want to be part of a functioning Government.

New Zealand recommended to move on a floor price for alcohol – Alcohol Healthwatch

The Daily Blog
-
2

New Zealand recommended to move on a floor price for alcohol as Scots defeat European Big Booze

Alcohol Healthwatch, Hapai Te Hauora media release, 16 November 2017

Public health groups are thrilled that the five-year legal battle to set a floor price for alcohol in Scotland has finally reached its conclusion. On Wednesday, the UK Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Scottish Government to allow implementation of its Minimum Unit Pricing legislation of 50 pence per standard drink to save lives and reduce crime.

Executive Director of Alcohol Healthwatch, Dr Nicki Jackson, said that “public health evidence has finally won over free-trade arguments made by the powerful alcohol industry. It is unjust how hundreds of lives have been lost from alcohol, and many more hospitalised, whilst this battle has ensued.”

Anthony Hawke of Maori Public Health provider Hapai Te Hauora agrees.

“Cheap alcohol costs lives and significantly harms our communities. There is consistent international evidence showing that harmful drinkers, and particularly those living in poverty, benefit the most when a floor price for alcohol is introduced. These are the groups that tend to purchase low-cost alcohol and suffer high levels of alcohol-related harm. Meanwhile, this policy will have minimal impact on low-risk drinkers.”

In 2014, the Ministry of Justice examined the effects of a minimum unit pricing policy in New Zealand. The report found that approximately 72% of all spirits and 39% of all wine sold from off-licences costs less than $1.20 per standard drink. Cask wine can often be sold for as little as 74 cents per standard drink.

Dr Jackson notes that “New Zealanders buy around 75% of the alcohol they consume from off-licences. If a floor price was set at $1.20 per standard drink (roughly equivalent to the 50p level in Scotland), the lowest a 750ml bottle of wine (13% alcohol) could be sold for is $9.23. It is simply absurd that you can currently buy a 1L bottle of spirits (with 29 standard drinks) for less than $27. Most drinks purchased in a bar are above the minimum cut-off price, so would not be affected.”

“Minimum unit pricing is currently on the policy agenda of governments in Wales, Ireland and Western Australia. In our own country, it is estimated that this evidence-based policy could result in savings of $624 million over ten years, through increased productivity and reduced crime and healthcare costs. If we want to curb our increasing trends of hazardous drinking and reduce the huge cost of alcohol to society, we must take effective action.”

Striking workers receive overwhelming public support – Unions Wellington

The Daily Blog
-
3

Striking Rail & Maritime Transport Union workers receive overwhelming public support

Since news of strike action on Wellington’s trains went public last night, there has been an outpouring of support for rail workers from commuters.

The local union affiliates council, Unions Wellington, put out an appeal for solidarity last night at 6:30pm. The response was electric. Over $500 has been donated, dozens of messages of support have been sent in, and the Facebook post has been shared more than 130 times.

See Facebook here https://www.facebook.com/UnionsWellington

“The response has been amazing,” says Unions Wellington Convenor Ben Peterson.

“Transdev and the Regional Council are trying to play commuters off against railway staff, but it clearly isn’t working. Wellingtonians are making financial donations and sending moral support to the striking workers because they understand this is a brave decision taken as a last resort.”

Despite the Greater Wellington Regional Council’s attempt to distance itself from the dispute, Mr Peterson notes that they are ultimately responsible for the actions of their contractors.

“We urge anyone inconvenienced by Thursday’s strike to call the regional council, and insist they pressure Transdev to offer a fair deal to staff members. Ultimately, the buck stops with the Regional Council.”

Unions Wellington activists are preparing for a strong campaign in defence of workers’ rights in the days ahead.

“This is just our initial response,” says Mr Peterson.

“If this becomes a prolonged dispute we will take further steps.”

UCG “volunteer” model “completely unacceptable” – E tū

The Daily Blog
-
1

UCG “volunteer” model for Chorus fibre optics build “completely unacceptable”

E tū says the so-called “volunteer” scheme run by Chorus fibre optics contractor, Universal Communications Group is a clear case of migrant exploitation.

E tū’s Communications Industry Coordinator, Joe Gallagher says the union recently learned of the scheme through a UCG document advising its subcontractors of the rules around recruiting these “volunteers”.

“With what’s happened in Nelson, it’s obvious now that this was about exploiting migrants who were contracted to work for free. That’s disgraceful and unacceptable,” says Joe.

Joe says Chorus had no choice but to instruct UCG to scrap the scheme once someone blew the whistle.

However, he says the scheme is the inevitable outcome of Chorus’s determination to drive down the cost of its fibre optic installation programme.

“Chorus has driven the cost so low that experienced contractors like Downer have quit. Skilled workers have been forced out and they’ve been replaced by inexperienced people, including migrants, who will work for less or in this case, nothing at all.”

Joe is urging the Government to investigate the true state of the workforce rolling out this critical infrastructure.

“This is government money so there should be transparency. We shouldn’t be seeing this type of exploitation of workers in New Zealand,” he says.

1...1,9841,9851,986...2,428Page 1,985 of 2,428
© Newspaper WordPress Theme by TagDiv