I note the breach of copyright case which Enimen is taking against the National Party is scheduled for next month. Should the court decide in Enimens favour what are the potential penalties that the National Party could face? Does anyone know?
Printable View
I don't know and am not sure anyone could answer your question pending the court decision, but here is some case law where the respondent is heavily disguised, for downloading Eminem music. https://justice.govt.nz/assets/Docum...12-NZCOP-3.pdf
So in other words, a very small fine that National would have known about, beforehand.
Besides not obeying copyright laws, here's another area National isn't too good at - innovation for NZ's businesses.
https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/tax-in...y+7+April+2017
The resulting policies have been fine for larger businesses, but have starved SMEs of readily accessible subsidies and incentives.
And now, here we are, towards what is hopefully the end of National's term in office, and over the last five years this "business friendly" govt has achieved what? A 10% reduction in the number of exporting businesses over the last five years. That is without doubt, a terrible and damning statistic, when the population has been rising.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/busine...y-numbers-fall
No doubt about it eZ. We're all doomed.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/rating
S&P Moody's Fitch TERating
Albania B+ Stable B1 Stable 35
Andorra BBB- Stable BBB Positive 65
Angola B Negative B1 Negative B Negative 41
Argentina B Stable B3 Positive B Stable 15
Armenia B1 Stable B+ Stable 43
Aruba BBB+ Positive BBB- Stable 63
Australia AAA Negative Aaa Stable AAA Stable 97
Austria AA+ Stable Aa1 Negative AA+ Stable 96
Azerbaijan BB+ Negative Ba1 Negative BB+ Negative 55
Bahamas BB+ Stable Baa3 Stable 65
Bahrain BB- Stable Ba2 Negative BB+ Stable 60
Bangladesh BB- Stable Ba3 Stable BB- Stable 40
Barbados CCC+ Negative Caa3 Stable 53
Belarus B- Stable Caa1 Stable B- Stable 25
Belgium AA Stable Aa3 Stable AA- Stable 88
Belize B- Stable Caa2 Stable 25
Benin N/A N/A N/A N/A 30
Bermuda A+ Stable A2 Stable N/A N/A 91
Bolivia BB Stable Ba3 Negative BB- Stable 38
Bosnia and Herzegovina B Stable B3 Stable 28
Botswana A- Negative A2 Stable 73
Brazil BB Negative Ba2 Stable BB Negative 34
Bulgaria BB+ Stable Baa2 Stable BBB- Stable 53
Burkina Faso B- Positive 30
Cambodia N/A N/A B2 Stable 30
Cameroon B Stable B2 Stable B Stable 30
Canada AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 99
Cape Verde B Negative Watch B Stable 35
Cayman Islands Aa3 Stable 85
Chile AA- Negative Aa3 Stable A+ Negative 78
China AA- Negative Aa3 Negative A+ Stable 80
Colombia BBB Negative Baa2 Stable BBB Stable 52
Congo B- Negative B3 Stable 25
Costa Rica BB- Negative Ba2 Negative BB Stable 50
Croatia BB Stable Ba2 Stable BB Stable 45
Cuba Caa2 Positive 20
Cyprus BB+ Stable B1 Positive BB- Positive 36
Czech Republic AA- Stable A1 Stable A+ Stable 81
Denmark AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 100
Dominican Republic BB- Stable B1 Positive BB- Stable 36
Ecuador B Stable B3 Stable B Negative 29
Egypt B- Stable B3 Stable B Stable 28
El Salvador B- Negative B3 Negative B Negative 41
Estonia AA- Stable A1 Stable A+ Stable 81
Ethiopia B Stable B1 Stable B Stable 31
European Union AA Stable 99
Fiji B+ Stable B1 Positive 33
Finland AA+ Stable Aa1 Stable AA+ Stable 96
France AA Stable Aa2 Stable AA Stable 90
Gabon B Stable B1 Negative B+ Negative 40
Georgia BB- Stable Ba3 Stable BB- Stable 38
Germany AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 100
Ghana B- Stable B3 Stable B Negative 31
Greece B- Stable Caa3 Stable CCC N/A 10
Grenada SD Negative
Guatemala BB Negative Ba1 Stable BB Stable 49
Honduras B+ Positive B2 Positive 33
Hong Kong AAA Negative Aa1 Negative AA+ Stable 95
Hungary BBB- Stable Baa3 Stable BBB- Stable 47
Iceland A Stable A3 Stable BBB+ Positive 55
India BBB- Stable Baa3 Positive BBB- Stable 48
Indonesia BB+ Positive Baa3 Positive BBB- Positive 46
Iraq B- Stable B- Stable 25
Ireland A+ Stable A3 Positive A Stable 70
Isle of Man N/A N/A Aa1 Negative 98
Israel A+ Stable A1 Stable A+ Stable 76
Italy BBB- Stable Baa2 Negative BBB+ Negative 60
Ivory Coast Ba3 Stable B+ Stable 38
Jamaica B Stable B3 Stable B Stable 24
Japan A+ Stable A1 Stable A Negative 78
Jordan BB- Negative B1 Stable 45
Kazakhstan BBB- Negative Baa3 Negative BBB Stable 61
Kenya B+ Stable B1 Stable B+ Negative 20
Kuwait AA Stable Aa2 Negative AA Stable 90
Kyrgyzstan NR N/A B2 Stable 30
Latvia A- Stable A3 Stable A- Stable 69
Lebanon B- Stable B2 Negative B- Stable 31
Lesotho B+ Stable 40
Liechtenstein AAA Stable 100
Lithuania A- Stable A3 Stable A- Stable 69
Luxembourg AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 100
Macau Aa3 Negative AA- Stable 88
Macedonia BB- Stable BB Negative 48
Malaysia A- Stable A3 Stable A- Stable 66
Maldives B2 Stable
Malta A- Stable A3 Stable A Positive 74
Mauritius Baa1 Stable 65
Mexico BBB+ Negative A3 Negative BBB+ Stable 60
Moldova B3 Stable 25
Mongolia B- Stable Caa1 Stable B- Stable 36
Montenegro B+ Negative B1 Negative 40
Montserrat BBB- Stable 55
Morocco BBB- Stable Ba1 Positive BBB- Stable 54
Mozambique SD N/A Caa3 Negative CC N/A 30
Namibia Baa3 Negative BBB- Negative 55
Netherlands AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 100
New Zealand AA Stable Aaa Stable AA Stable 90
Nicaragua B+ Stable B2 Stable B+ Stable 33
Nigeria B Stable B1 Stable B+ Negative 28
Norway AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 99
Oman BBB- Negative Baa1 Stable 78
Pakistan B Stable B3 Stable B Stable 19
Panama BBB Stable Baa2 Stable BBB Stable 60
Papua New Guinea B+ Negative B2 Stable 35
Paraguay BB Stable Ba1 Stable BB Stable 41
Peru BBB+ Positive A3 Stable BBB+ Stable 60
Philippines BBB Stable Baa2 Stable BBB- Positive 53
Poland BBB+ Stable A2 Negative A- Stable 67
Portugal BB+ Stable Ba1 Stable BB+ Stable 44
Puerto Rico D Negative 0
Qatar AA Negative Aa2 Negative AA Stable 87
Republic of the Congo B- Stable B3 Negative CCC N/A 30
Romania BBB- Stable Baa3 Positive BBB- Stable 52
Russia BB+ Positive Ba1 Stable BBB- Stable 43
Rwanda B Stable B2 Stable B+ Stable 30
San Marino BBB Negative 65
Saudi Arabia A- Stable A1 Stable A+ Stable 86
Senegal B+ Stable B1 Positive 35
Serbia BB- Positive Ba3 Stable BB- Stable 36
Seychelles BB- Stable 30
Singapore AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 98
Slovakia A+ Stable A2 Stable A+ Stable 80
Slovenia A Positive Baa3 Positive A- Stable 61
Solomon Islands B3 Stable 25
South Africa BB+ Negative Baa2 Negative Watch BBB- Negative 49
South Korea AA Stable Aa2 Stable AA- Stable 84
Spain BBB+ Positive Baa2 Stable BBB+ Stable 62
Sri Lanka B+ Negative B1 Negative B+ Stable 38
St Vincent and the Grenadines B3 Stable 25
Suriname B+ Negative B1 Stable B- Negative 39
Sweden AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 99
Switzerland AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 100
Taiwan AA- Stable Aa3 Stable AA- Stable 82
Thailand BBB+ Stable Baa1 Stable BBB+ Stable 63
Trinidad and Tobago A- Negative Baa3 Negative 68
Tunisia BB- Negative Ba3 Negative B+ Stable 44
Turkey BB Negative Ba1 Negative BB+ Stable 44
Uganda B Stable B2 Stable B+ Stable 33
Ukraine B- Stable Caa3 Stable B- Stable 15
United Arab Emirates AA Stable Aa2 Negative AA Stable 90
United Kingdom AA Negative Aa1 Negative AA Negative 95
United States AA+ Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 97
Uruguay BBB Negative Baa2 Negative BBB- Stable 56
Venezuela CCC Negative Caa3 Negative CCC N/A 5
Vietnam BB- Stable B1 Stable BB- Stable 29
Zambia B Negative B3 Negative B Negative 34
Actually if you sift through that list and compare NZ to those countries with which we like to be compared, NZ is not doing so well. In fact only the UK has worse credit ratings. And with the UK, their government is in the process of tearing up all their existing trade relationships! In fact the unsolicited TER rating puts NZ even lower than Brexiting UK.
Australia AAA Negative Aaa Stable AAA Stable 97
Canada AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 99
Denmark AAA Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 100
United Kingdom AA Negative Aa1 Negative AA Negative 95
United States AA+ Stable Aaa Stable AAA Stable 97
New Zealand AA Stable Aaa Stable AA Stable 90
I would suggest that National has allowed the unaffordability of the residential property market to continue to run rampant - with truck loads of household debt putting a strain on NZ's credit standing.
New Zealand’s high household debt levels were of particular concern to the IMF officials
http://www.interest.co.nz/property/8...nz-should-have
Didn't I read somewhere yesterday that we are a billion dollars better off than expected? I know Labour would consider that a mere pittance - they could spend that in a week buying woolly socks for the homeless. A few less exporters? does that not mean that Jack and Jill and Willie and Joe decided to export through Michael and save on half empty containers and thus make a greater profit? I know numbers are hard for the left but they have plenty of time to learn arithmetic before they next come into power.
EZ - just perfect for you mate
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/List...121921&ed=true
Good on the tip for trying to resurrect her
Looks like eZ is not the only one wanting Bill to be impeached :p https://nz.news.yahoo.com/video/watc...za-gate/#page1
It's not the most flattering of portraits. My main beef is that why did someone take the painting/mural to the dump? It's not a great look for Labour in election year. Maybe one of the Labour electorates or wanna-be candidates will pay for the artwork and we'll see it in public. I see TV1 must have read your post, W69, it was on the news.
Craic, I'll wait to see if National can have several billion dollars of surpluses like Labour had, and start paying off the huge debt they've got the taxpayer into. I think that if you look harder at govt cashflow, you'll see they are still borrowing money to pay the higher interest on the crown debt. So it's not a real surplus, it's a paper or accountancy surplus. You'll have to try harder if you're going to be the last remaining cheerleader for National.
Hello, hello, no new postings since 7th April? Politics losing it's appeal in an election year?
The problem for EZ in his posting above is that the "several billion dollars of surpluses like Labour had" were Rogernomics policies surpluses which Labour ran down until the last Budget they presented had a deficit.
I'm happy to accept what Treasury says knowing that the Auditor General hasn't objected....:-)
I seem to remember Cullen saying that the surplus was not a real surplus when tax cuts were suggested.
National amnesia? Stop any five Labour supporter on the street and ask them to name their last four leaders in order. Two will include Muldoon and one will include Savage and the others will ask what a leader is..
I concur with your observation about 3 year terms. Personally I favor a 4 year term with fixed election dates. I would also like to see a return to a bicarmel legislature which we had until 1950 when the Legislative Council was abolished. The Irish Sinead is a good model. Not that any of this is likely to occur
Here's the thing. It seems like JK had NZ in this steady as she goes make no massive changes, it's all good sort of thing going on. The problem is that when you do have some one that smiles and waves at everything; something that should have really been nipped in the bud in 2013, such as an introduction to LTV and debt to income bank loan lending for residential home loans at the "that's enough now stage" has by 2017 turned in to liability.
We could look at housing. Two facts still jump out - 51% of the population now rents (according to Shamubeel Eaqub's good report to the town planners last week) and NZ has a massive short fall of social housing and affordable housing that's not going to do well in the up coming credit crunch that looks like it's on the cards. ( I need not explain about how NZ's banks are the offspring of the big 4 banks in Australia and in turn rely on funding from the US)
NZ still has the most expensive housing market in the world and the Nats have played silly buggers with various immigration schemes which I won't go in to because I just can't say how much of that was good solid growth and skills migration vs some nasty stories about exploitation in gas stations, kitchen hand work and low end fast food.
We could also start to look at who is exactly benefited here it seems that the primary agriculture has gotten many a free pass on environmental issues, and cheap labor hire, not much has been done to really stimulate sustainable growth and jobs that don't require someone to be a relative to work there.
The poor of course have gone backwards. Paula Bennett has not really instituted any credible working schemes to help grow the economy and any IR laws to help with that.
The Nats have been in for what 8 years now? Why haven't they fixed this. I'm gonna be a contrarian (surprise surprise) and say its going to be a swing to Labor/Greens and independents with a question over Winston Peters. I could be horribly wrong - but I think what ever mechanism that removed JK, has not finished, and the last two by-elections in Mt Roskill and Mt Albert, have gone to labor candidates on solid margins.
I think National has got away with it, and will continue to do so because Labour still needs a convincing or good leader....
However the same forces behind Trump and Brexit - social and economic disaffection and the related backlash against immigration - will continue to grow in NZ in the absence of major policy shifts.
Good post, Blackrose, looks like you've been watching the situation carefully. That's pretty much how I read it too, immigration has gone unchecked too long, they've just cruised and backed off on any tough decisions. Except asset selloffs and other short-term rubbish. If National are so good at helping businesses, and here I'm talking all businesses, why do we have 11% fewer that are exporting, compared to five years ago?
We're going backwards, that's why. It's such a waste of our collective potential.
I'm looking forward to a Labour-Green govt at last, like you.
Good news in the Hagaman verdict.
Cheers El Zorro, Bjack -
I do think Bjack is right though, voter frustration and the same old same old isn't cutting the mustard for a bunch of middle NZ. That is indeed what drove Brexit and the inexplicable rise of Donald Trump. Still defamation cases are notoriously hard to win and what ever this means for Little in the run up to the election it's still not a good look.
Whilst the housing market wobbles, and the rise of the Winston Peter's whine on immigration is nothing new, it's the next round of property development failures that will hurt more in the long run.
OK so here it comes. A $1,000 bet that Little WILL NOT be the Prime Minister after the next election. A golden opportunity for you elZorro, to demonstrate your confidence in the left.
You took your time Craic..I'm not so sure about the wording. What if Little is rolled before the election, as your lot is so keen on seeing? Labour could still win (much more unlikely though). You'd need to hope there won't be any sign of a property valuation collapse by September.
Still, it's a great offer, I could send the cash to my chosen charity, they're always needing it. Can I get back to you sir?
You have to be a bit worried for the homeless in Auckland. Just observing a close relative with their first rental's choice of tenant, she had a choice including a solo mum who was desperately keen, and a working couple. She made the hard-headed decision of course.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/nation...send-them'
Cunliffe's leaving parliament presents a unique situation for a departing MP. Not one Labour member will be sorry to see him go, while every National MP will be deeply disappointed.
I am astounded that you could allow yourself to utter the suggestion "What if Little is rolled before the Election"[ in considering my proposed wager. For me it's a a win-win situation. If he is rolled it would be a sign of desperation, if he isn't , then its a clear surrender.
QUOTE=elZorro;662696]You took your time Craic..I'm not so sure about the wording. What if Little is rolled before the election, as your lot is so keen on seeing? Labour could still win (much more unlikely though). You'd need to hope there won't be any sign of a property valuation collapse by September.
Still, it's a great offer, I could send the cash to my chosen charity, they're always needing it. Can I get back to you sir?
You have to be a bit worried for the homeless in Auckland. Just observing a close relative with their first rental's choice of tenant, she had a choice including a solo mum who was desperately keen, and a working couple. She made the hard-headed decision of course.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/nation...send-them'[/QUOTE]
Now there is a policy proposal from Mr Little to replace a number of our senior Meteorologists after the election on the grounds that they are not controlling the weather properly and causing expensive floods and the like. The final cull will be left to the Greens as they are seen to have the greatest insight into the will of God.
They may well be, but the assumption that whoever replaces them will be materially 'better' is fundamentally flawed. There is such a gap between our politicians policy/law making actions and the resulting outcomes that for the general population it probably doesn't matter who is in government, so long as they don't do anything really stupid. I mean how else would Winston Peters still be a player in an election outcome?
I despair sometimes, but luckily I can refer to what is happening in the US and UK and see that maybe it isn't so bad after all.
Friends of mine (a couple) went to listen to Little and Ardern here in Nelson last week. They are both left voters and wanted to see Labour's new leadership team. They came away very much underwhelmed. They said Little did not come across confidently and got into silly arguments with some attendees that questioned what he was saying rather than ignoring them or confidently making his argument. Ardern, they're words were " unimpressive". They are going to listen to the Greens next week. Desperately searching for somewhere to put their vote but don't see Labour worthy of it with this Leader. With reports like that, not so sure about your claim EZ that National is on the way out. Winston may well still prefer English over a Little/Shaw combination
But does that all really matter, iceman? Very few voters ever get anywhere near a political meeting and most form their preferences on a combination of promises, "policies" and journalists' presentations. And of course, on a perception of the effect on one's hip pocket! Good photos help, too!
;)
Confession: Attended my last political meeting sometime in the 1960's.
Yes I think it does macduffy. The fact that he comes across unconvincingly in person at meetingsand in the media does not bode well for him come the election
Hi guys.
Umm - I'd be ok with that grand bet that Labor/green coalition will romp home to be honest. But I want to leave the $$ out of it, If I had a grand I would spend that on a trip to Raratonga and a new tan. Have a look at this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aQNrcMILcM
This is Little holding up the dirty nappy of the National party right here. As opposed to lining the pockets of shonky motel owners that house the homeless for a week or two, with endless cash outs from Paula Bennett's nonsense, a state house spending spree would be a return to sensible solid "giving a **** about people" that has been sorely lacking from the Nats for a while. People are pissed at the rat race around the whole rental- housing bull****. People in opposition can smell it a mile off.
Those with shares in MPG, FBI, and anything to do with construction injection could do quite well. The end of the Nats is not quite a forgone conclusion but a lot of their forced austerity is. Even the Greens have more nuanced conversations with economists of late it's not all hippies and organic bull**** anymore. The conversation has turned to inequality and actually looking at economic growth, **** that's been missing for a looooooong time. We might actually get that focus on the ****ing economy that is not about aging farms and ongoing payouts and might actually look at sustainable stuff that may indeed be productive. We might even see the return of scientific evidence based policy...
Haven't heard Little in person, but from his in house performance I can't imagine anything inspiring from him. Heard English several times when he has addressed university students at Otago. He is certainly impressive, perhaps not overly inspiring in the way Key was, but his intellect shines with his logic, his knowledge, the facts and figures at his fingertips and his answers to questions. He's good.
Watched some programme on the homeless and the hopeless in England last night and this place is paradise by comparison. Remember, the vast majority of residents of this country have work, a home to go to and none of the problems that the left see as a blight on the nation. MW&I catch a bus to Napier every Saturday morning and as we arrive, we are always surprised at the crowd, cafes are full, all footpath table are taken and the smiles on the shopkeepers faces can be seen yards away. MW often remarks "where is all the poverty?" I simply point out that they are all in Auckland.
But they are all pretty hard up these poor people craic as you see here http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9078...p-off-taxpayer
With a bigger population and greater population density, it is more difficult to avoid being exposed to poverty in England. In addition, the BBC does not need to keep advertisers sweet so does not back away from producing more gritty programs and investigative journalism. When both the left and right criticise Aunty BBC, she must be doing an acceptable job! In the UK the commercial broadcasters have some decent investigative journalism too.
"But he has some sharp criticisms too. At one point Moore turns the questions on me, in his typically cryptic and profound way. He's started watching Country Calendar again. "How many of those people on Country Calendar do you think vote Labour now?" I choose the diplomatic route. What do you think the answer is? "None." Why? "Because we're not seen to be on the side of those who are strivers," he says. "I do think we've got trouble." "
Good stuff for EZ to read, and reflect on.
From an interview with Mike Moore http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11837273. Y'know Mike Moore is the only Labour man I've fully admired all the way through!
I watched that interview a couple of days ago. Even though he is quite bitter and obviously some issues were never solved within Labour, it is well worth watching and reflecting on. I found it particularly interesting when he said the current rules for selecting the Leader can not work. Guyon Espiner is doing a great job interviewing all our ex PMs
I'll watch the whole thing sometime. But I think the whole thing about 'striving' not being associated with Labour, is a construct that has been developed by National and their C-T advisors for many years, until people in pubs etc, think it's the truth. If it's that black and white, it can't be right. If it was the case, why are policies like KiwiBuild on offer from Labour? That sounds like a lot of work to me.
In the olden days, people like Norman Kirk physically built their own house with their own hands. Can you imagine anyone from Labour doing that these days unless they were a builder/tradie? The disappearance of striving except by National Party voting rural people...
That was then, major. Personally, I can't imagine anyone, Labour-inclined or otherwise, doing that now. In our day - 1960's - we did all our own painting, including priming weatherboards, dug the trenching for the drains and water supply - on a back section - and helped a plumber mate put the roof on the house. But a lot of people did that - and we didn't vote Labour.
It is now almost impossible to buy a vacant section, and build your own house in any of the major cities. Sub divisions are controlled by developers who can make far more profit by providing turnkey options of readybuilt, landscaped, and fenced houses. Included is multi page list of covenants to restrict any possible lowering of “standards” which may lower the tone of the neighbourhood.
Local Bodies have assisted by imposing restrictive rules and regulations.
As most of the buyers are now so heavily mortgaged. Politicians are terrified of any sudden rise in interest rates and the consequent social upheaval this would cause.
National with it’s open immigration policies, and let the market take care of problems approach, has done nothing to remedy the problems.
As in the past at some stage Labour or a coalition Government will need to take action because under present policies the number of people without adequate housing will continue to rise with a consequent increase in social problems.
westerly
Sections are dirt cheap - as long as you don't want to live in the same spot as thousands of others. That applies world wide and no govt. can ever do anything about it without lowering demand. E.g. shooting every second citizen would have a price lowering effect.
And if your job is in the city? Start driving in from the outskirts at 5.30am? Some Auckland commuters might as well be milking cows if they have to be on the job that early. David Slack has a ranging comment over the weekend. Very perceptive.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...-ways-with-him
A good result for aged care workers, and E Tu Union backed their members, lobbying like Federated Farmers do. The wage rises are being ramped up over five years though, but the new training aspect sounds good. It looks to me more like a grudging move towards a liveable wage.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...+19+April+2017
With regard to our "housing unaffordability". I met with a couple of professors from universities in Scandinavia a couple of weeks ago. They were here to study our fishing quota system and how it affects the communities. They have studied many other countries as well, including Greenland, Iceland, Norway, USA (Alaska), Namibia and more. Needless to say they were surprised how little effect on communities is considered in NZ. They were aghast that we are talking about housing crisis yet we only build houses on large sections. Hardly any apartment blocks. Their view is that we will never solve the "housing crisis" in a city like Auckland without building large scale apartment blocks housing tens of thousands of people. When I told them it is not the "kiwi way", they laughed and said we should stop complaining about a housing crisis then.
I think they have a point !
We have just had residents objecting to Ngati Paoa's plan to build 300 new homes at Point England in East Auckland after they received their treaty settlement. They wanted to buy 12 of the 45 hectares reserve from the Government. And of course silly Labour jumps on the bandwagon and opposes it. Dumb. How are we ever going to solve the housing issues in NZ with these sort of attitudes ?
That's exactly it! The only way to meet demand in Auckland (read any major city) is to 'stack 'em in', and NZers don't want that. Much easier to pretend an opposition party can magically solve things, and of course parties play on it, knowing full well they are spouting tripe.
If you do the day tour of Singapore and you get a guide as good as ours was, you will learn how well this system works there. Virtually everyone lives in these blocks. Anyone sleeping rough is homed immediately, given a job, however trivial and paid a wage or benefit. Mortgages are simply arranged and folk buy their apartment. The only people who go bankrupt in Singapore are lawnmower salesmen.
elZ, I hope your passport is up to date. You are going to need it to attend the funeral of the UK Labour Party early in June.
True, but New Zealanders have in addition to that a unique habit making the situation still worse: Most of them want to live in their own house on a quarter of an acre of land but still close to work, school and shops. Other people accept that living in high-rise apartment blocks might be a good compromise to square this particular circle. Just imagine how expensive property would be in London or New York (and how large these cities would be), if these people would apply the same habit ...
"May called snap election 'because of fears Corbyn would resign'
Rather than later risk facing Labour under a new and potentially more popular leader, the Prime Minister decided to call the impromptu vote, say sources"
The Independent, UK.
Maybe this is why Key called the election before Andrew Little could resign?
Bill English did all that, Iceman? I heard that the Govt sent in the Ombudsman at the appeal stage to argue the case for the Crown as an interested party, against the fairer pay. Then the appeal court ruled in favour of the original plaintiff, that there was a valid argument for fairer pay. After that, the court advised that if the situation wasn't sorted, they'd set the rules, and it might have included backpay for the workers in the three female-dominated career areas.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...t-on-equal-pay
So if National hadn't organised a compromise situation with staggered pay increases, the court could have imposed something more expensive. This deal does look like taking the place of Bill's tax cuts, though.
Very insightful, you are almost certainly correct. Fortunately National saw the opportunity prior to election, to ramp up the low-rate pay scales, put in place an inflationary cycle that will benefit all beleaguered wage earners, including middle income earners, and set the course for economic growth.
I very much doubt that. As you will have seen, the government has much deeper pockets than they let on. One disaster after other disaster and the government miraculously steps in with the handouts. Bill will almost certainly have a fighting fund stashed away that will be used to deliver the promises of higher earnings and lower taxes.
Bill is not stupid, far from it. He can't and won't promise largess and not deliver in an election year. The poor Labour voter will be torn between the austerity policies (rhetoric) of the Labour party, or riding the pigs back. What a conundrum.
I just reported someone else's research, but I'd have bet money that it wasn't National's original idea to do the right thing.
There is another option for voters, they could vote for Labour, and watch the economy grow for real, just like it did last time they were in.
Certainly wasn't - they wanted control rather than let the courts make policy.
They have been back footing this sort of thing since forever really. They certainly didn't want to noise during the election if it wasn't resolved.
Now watch the others get their fairer deal on the back of this.
I was in the same boat, likely looking at the TOP party now (dislike the tepid Labour/Green Alliance). I look at TOP policies and haven't found a single thing I disagree with. In a world that seems to be governed more and more by populists, why don't we get a party in who is interested in governing by FACTS. TOP tend to use evidence based reasoning, not political leaning to make their policies - something I can't agree more on.
I also agree the election cycle is shocking - 3 years means: 1 year of trying to fulfil your election year bribes, 1 year of actual governing, 1 year of preparing election year bribes...
Rob Muldoon was always happy with a three year election cycle. He reasoned that if you were any good you would get another term. If you were hopeless you would be tossed out before you could do too much damage.
63 million people voted for Donald Trump
True - and 66 odd million voted against him. And there is as well the silent majority of 190 million Americans who did not vote at all (some because they are not allowed to and others because they did not bother). What about all these 256 million people who did not vote for Trump? Poor bastards.
You were obviously wrong in your predictions about that election and Trump won. Now you can enjoy the fantasy of believing that the next round, in four years will justify your position. But it may not - Trump may be re-elected. Just look at whats happening with Brexit.
Democracy is a bitch Huh
Muldoon was a master of personal attacks and I think his campaigning was often based on these and the identification of bogeymen (eg dancing Red Cossacks) - perhaps in similar vein as Trump. It is of course arguable that his losing opponents would have wrought as much damage as Muldoon did. The electorate makes a constitutionally democratic decision based largely on the most effective campaign plus most appealing policy presentations. The winning Party may or may not have the best policies. Whether damage is done by the resulting government to the country depends on the point of view of the reviewer mixed with hindsight.
Labour's latest policy announcement about reducing net annual immigration to a more normal figure for NZ, about 25,000. Not 70,000.
Knowing the direct causal effect on house prices in Auckland and other major centres, already demonstrated, this will have an immediate effect of halting and maybe cooling house price rises, which have become ridiculous. It should also mop up plenty of unemployed in NZ, and maybe employers will just have to pay a bit more per hour. About time.
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politi...+21+April+2017
Looks like Labour is wrong again on this one as per this opinion with data https://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/immigr...-part-solution
I don't have access to that item, but if the article implies net immigration has nothing to do with Auckland house prices, then it is 98% likely to be wrong.
Housing affordability? We'll know all about it after the elections.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9174...bility-measure
Just for you EZ, in case you missed it !! http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=11842682
Well I had missed it, maybe because of the name on the top of the article. Audrey tends to side with National, no matter what.
Here's a more balanced part of a Herald release:
Here's a link to the painfully slow process of the court case.Quote:
DAMNING INQUIRYToday's historic pay equity agreement can partly be traced to a damning inquiry five years ago which involved a senior public servant going undercover in a rest home.
The author of that report, former Equal Opportunities Commissioner Judy McGregor, said today she was celebrating a deal that would greatly benefit 55,000 low-paid workers.
Ms McGregor famously posed as a care worker in a retirement home for a week in January 2012 as part of her year-long Caring Counts inquiry. Her report concluded that aged care was a form of "modern-day slavery". It also generated momentum for a legal challenge against the Government, which effectively sets the pay rates through its subsidies to aged care providers.
Speaking to the New Zealand Herald today, Ms McGregor was reluctant to take any credit for the settlement. "I am proud to have been part of the catalyst, but I think the equal pay movement has been around for a long time."
Ms McGregor, now the head of public policy at AUT, said going undercover helped to get public attention for workers who had until then been invisible. She said the settlement would send a strong message to the public that their work was hugely valuable.
"One of things that was quite remarkable when we did our human rights report was the degree to which the public felt embarrassed that carers looking after their elderly were paid so little for the job they knew they couldn't do. When I worked in the sector, I was physically unable to lift people and hoist them and toilet them. This will now show the public that the job has value."
Opposition parties have criticised the National-led Government for resisting change and fighting Kristine Bartlett all the way to the Supreme Court.
But Ms McGregor gave some credit to the Government, saying it had now settled on two of the major recommendations in her report; pay equity for carers and compensation for carers' travel between clients.
"I think it is fantastic news that women have finally got equal pay, or at least something towards equal pay," she said. "Whether I agree that that's the true value of an hour of caring work is another matter."
- NZ Herald and NZME
https://nzaca.org.nz/policy/equal-pay-case/
From The Standard, details on the govt's opposition to the equal pay case:
On 20th April, National released the draft of a new bill to restrict any chance of this court case result being used more widely. It's a big document, they've been working on this in the meantime.Quote:
Terranova (Bartlett's employer) sought leave to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal and this leave was granted.
Note that the Attorney-General took part in the Appeal case as an “intervener”. This means that he was granted leave to appear because even though the Crown was not an original party to the litigation it had a significant interest in the case, given its role in funding the industry. His position basically was that the Employment Tribunal got it wrong, that the EPA did not mandate the decision that had been reached. If the Attorney General’s argument succeeded then the whole case would have failed and the Government would have been off the hook, at least for now.
Thankfully the Court of Appeal saw it differently and ruled that the EPA should allow a Court to look at different industries and rule that workers in one industry are being underpaid and therefore discriminated against.
http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-service...draft-bill.pdf
I put it to you, Iceman, does this look like the actions of a government that is fully behind equal pay and all of the ramifications of that? They can dress it up all they like, it could have been settled years ago, there could have been backpay, and it's only $500mill a year for the next four years. They're gritting their teeth and making a PR job of it, that's all.
Two people were sent into the appeal court on behalf of the Attorney General, J C Holden and C Fleming.
Here is what the Appeal Court said about their input (on behalf of the govt as an interested party):
Quote:
[79] The Attorney-General’s position is that evidence of what employers pay male employees in comparable roles in other sectors is unlikely to be relevant but in the abstract, as a matter of law, it is impossible to say it could never berelevant. Systemic undervaluation is in a different category however. It isclearly outside the scope of the Act and accordingly evidence about it can never be relevant. In effect, it was a step too far.
This particular rest home had some male carers who were paid at the same low rates as female carers. It's the second part of the last answer that is important. It relates to "systemic undervaluation". The Attorney General (National Govt) was hoping that systemic undervaluation could be ruled out of the Act. The courts said no, the appeal court said no as well, the ruling had to stand.Quote:
[80] The position of the Attorney-General, therefore, is that the Employment Court’s answer to Question1 was wrong but the answer to Question 6 can stand.
SCHEDULE
Questions answered by theEmployment Court
Question 1
In determining whether there is an element of differentiation in the rate of remuneration paid to a femaleemployee for her work, based on her sex, do the criteria identified in s3(1)(b) of the Equal Pay Act require the Court to:
(a)Identify the rate of remuneration that would be paid if the work were not workexclusively or predominantly performed by females, by comparing the actual ratepaid with a notional rate that would be paid were it not for that fact; or
(b)Identify the rate that her employer would pay a male employee if it employedone to perform the work?
Answer: Section 3(1)(b) requires that equal pay for women forwork predominantly or exclusively performed by women, is to be determined by reference to what men would be paid to do the same work abstracting from skills, responsibility, conditions and degrees of effort as well as from any systemic undervaluation of the work derived from current or historical or structural gender discrimination.
I wonder why he Labour Government didn't sort it out when they were in power? Their mantra appears to be that they will solve all the countries problems "When we are in power"
No, I don't need to, others will, more likely. I think the point I'm making is that we have to look behind the TV items and pro-National commentators to see what this government is really up to. They're keen on immigration, for several reasons, like its ability to keep wages down, and they're a big employer. It boosts property values, and most of their MPs have a piece of that. It makes the economy look good, and because the Crown has property, it boosts their asset values and make the govt look like they have a better set of books.
But it's causing havoc with Auckland house prices, and therefore wages will have to go up to meet rent costs, and more will rent. Their motorways are full to bursting at regular times of the day, with ever more cars on the road. This wastes human time.
Far better that we look at Labour's policy of capping net immigration at around the historical 25,000 per year, unless there is a very good reason to change that. We need to more fully employ the people we have here now. Preferably in the regions.
You must have a short attention span, FP. I've only written a few sentences. Have a look at the appeal court case transcript, that's wordy all right.
I've just taken on a new employee, who was commuting to Auckland for work every day. It added an extra three and a half hours to his day at least, and he hated that. Now he just has to cut across town to work, and I think the work here is more interesting and better paid. His efforts are now being spent manufacturing export goods, not on stuff that would sell to local investors, like new houses.
He must be a Labour supporter - a National voter would have had the nous to get a job in Hamilton in the first place - or move to Hawkes Bay where the sun always shines on the worthy.
The job was only available because we'd bucked a nationwide trend and invested more than normal in R&D over a few years prior. Now we have reasonable export orders for niche products that have no useful competitors. I want to see a govt in place that understands what is required to get more businesses doing the same. It's relevant.
You might be here a bit harsh on EZ. I think what he wants to tell us is that his company flourishes thanks to the outstanding economic conditions created by the current government. His and many other companies are doing that well that they are able to employ additional people, further improving the economy.
He is basically asking us to help him to keep this great government in place to make sure that he is able to employ still more people under the next National government :t_up:.