As much as left Govt. critics are essentially snookered by the demonstrable “lesser of two evils” scenario, and the 30 year old major party neo liberal consensus–militate for change we must.
Benefit (Job Seeker Allowance) 13 week stand down period for Forest industry workers displaced by International virus blowback is not going to be shifted according to Mr Robertson.
Floods or droughts see millions in largesse for the farming community, but working class people living week to week get no consideration under Labour’s hard neo liberal approach to welfare–dating back to Helen Clark’s punitive “Jobs Jolt”.
“Work will set you free” is still WINZ/MSD sadistic approach. Even though the nature of 21st Century work has totally changed since the 1964 Social Security Act and there is little non precarious, viable work! Yes, I have seen the Labour “Future of Work” talk fest documents and they are full of it. We need UBI now. In the interim no stand downs or sanctions or abatements for any beneficiary. Carmel Sepuloni is another apologist that should hang her head in shame.
When Labour comes knocking very shortly for votes they should think about growing the working class vote rather appeasing middle class welfare recipients such as neo rentiers.
Who does Robertson think he is impressing really? The answer I guess has been known for years.
Not advocating welfare be ended with introduction of some form of UBI.
Do support making Govt. payments/tax adjustments unique to holder regardless of relationships, and dropping the abatement rate poverty traps. And it would be nice to see the top echelons of WINZ/MSD reapply for their jobs, and sent packing.
The problem is that all the NZ UBI models are based around no welfare or haven't solved the welfare issue, and when people start talking about UBI it tends to get left out of the conversation.
Agreed that so many things are wrong with how MSD/WINZ are doing welfare, lots needs sorting out there.
Fair enough point. There is no universally agreed UBI definition (no pun etc.) for what people mean by the term. Welfare absolutely should be retained–but benefit stigma and appalling treating of disabled and long term ill in particular should cease.
A difficult problem to solve while private landlords run riot and utility costs rise. Fare free public transport and free Wi-fi nationwide and a massive public housing build would provide a better setting for a discussion on UBI/Welfare/Superannuation! But what Govt. would go there just yet.
I've got a post on UBI nearly ready to go up. I don't go into the housing crisis, but it's definitely the thing that's makes all other problems very hard to solve.
The 13 weeks is a maximum applying to people that have recently been in work and have left for reasons that do not satisfy WINZ/MSD. But, if you are taking a personal grievance etc. for say claimed unjustified dismissal, stand downs may be waived.
I based my comment on the The Forest Industry Contractors Assn call on the Minister.
Dealing with WINZ/MSD is a fraught process for most that encounter it. Because something is in the legislation does not mean it will necessarily applied to individuals.
I am pointing to the difference between automatic verbal assurances for Farmers in weather events and the the recalcitrance here. Robertson just has to say–“no one out of work due to Covid 19 related reasons will be stood down or denied a benefit” there, not so hard is it?
The 13 week period came from the mouth of Shane Jones. I bet it is not 13 weeks, and these people are now getting a taste of reality for many – officious asshats who act like you are a criminal for having needs. These mongrels are still thick on the ground in WINZ despite the call for kindness. Maybe these workers do need an advocate, as they've thrown their toys out of the cot at round one. Got the media involved, Shane’s there… I see no reason to make blanket reassurances we have no idea of the length and scope of the virus epidemiology yet.
i had a very abusive boss once in NZ, the guy got taken weekly to the employment court and i am not joking here. when i went to winz to ask what would happen if i would quit my employment with this person i was told that i would be stood down for 12 weeks as a boss who is a known bully – inclusive sexual and racist abuse – was no reason for anyone to quit a job.
So yes, this it not something Shane Jones makes up (even if it might fit the narrative that all the fuck ups ofthe kinder gentler bullshit goverment currently running the show is the fault of NZ First), this is something that everyone who loses their employment or wants to quit for reasons not acceptable by our Tory leader ship (again, blue, green, red, nary a difference) needs to keep in mind.
So you might want to consider what you are betting on.
They may use 'may', but generally speaking do not quit your job unless you have enough resources to last 15 weeks, no matter how abusive your work place, how dangerous, how fucked up. Because you.will.be.stood.down. And the current lot Red/Green/Black has done absolutly nothing to change that. Kinder, gentler, bullshit.
Did the forestry workers quit their jobs? Big difference to being laid off or put on hold. Shane pulled the largest 13 week figure out from the documentation, I still see no evidence this is the actual case.
Sorry about your nasty boss. most of us have worked for a mongrel or three. You need unions involved with bad bosses or you're on your own, unfortunately.
I watched Robinson say the other day that they would try repurpose (my word but that was th general drift) forestry workers who have been stood down . And I I thought fuck you . Your a fucking labour party . How about forcing the forestry industry to gaurentee workers wages for 52 weeks of the year you gutless cunt.
Atleast national are honest we know they hate the working man.
To me this strongly depends on the implementation Robertson is thinking about. The govts tree planting program could use some capable labour.
Ultimately I don't think that any business can guarantee work for all its employees full time. There will be periods when available work is insufficient for all who want to be employed. To resolve this the govt should implement a job guarantee. We already implement a similar buffer stock policy actually through treasury and RBNZ unemployment rate targets but instead of maintaining the work skills of those who endup without work we let their willing contributions go to waste.
You show me another fulltime employment industry where the bosses can just shut the gates and send you home with your last paycheck while expecting you to come back as soon as things pick up .
I agree with everything you're saying about benefits and a UBI but saw an opportunity to say something about the draconian, unfair, but legal 13-week stand down.
There's no automatic 13-week stand down for forestry workers or anyone else affected by job-loss caused by coronavirus. The 13-week stand down only applies if the person, any person applying for the equivalent of the unemployment benefit (whatever it’s called right now) leaves their job without good and sufficient reason or is sacked for misconduct. This is what the Act says, but I accept the practice is different.
Good and sufficient reason must take account of the person's circumstances, such as child care responsibilities, transport difficulties, whether the employment relationship breaks down and the person resigns: anything that affects the person's ability to continue in the employment. Good and sufficient isn't about the subjective views of the decision-maker, which unfortunately too many decisions are based on.
Similarly, misconduct means gross misconduct. It doesn't simply mean being sacked because an employer wants to do that, or thinks the reason for the dismissal is justified. In other words, it's not the opinion of the employer that's relevant to whether a stand down is imposed. And contrary to popular belief, a PG does not have to be taken in order for a benefit to be paid in instances where the person has lost their job because of misconduct, despite MSD staff often insisting that it must.
Stand-downs are a bit like current benefit levels: frittering around the edges makes life better for some people, but really we need to lock minimum benefit levels to a fair proportion of median income and get rid of stand-downs altogether.
t's important to remember that bad implementations of UBI are possible, and in fact more likely than good ones under current conditions. It is a tool not an end in itself. Oops, answer to weka at 2.1
Any UBI implementation provides more income to those who are in work as well as those on welfare. But if the intention is to bolster the income of people on welfare then just improving the welfare rates and associated regressive policies seems to be better targeted.
A job guarantee is a technically better policy, as it helps with some of the difficulties caused to people finding a job without a solid employment history.
Its also worth acknowledging that the unemployment rate is always an artifact of official govt policy.
Any UBI implementation provides more income to those who are in work as well as those on welfare.
Not if you adjust PAYE tax rates to balance things out at the same time. I agree with AB that bad implementations are perfectly possible, indeed in general it's way easier to fuck things up than get them right, but the principle of universality is a good one worth aiming for.
At the moment we still treat welfare as something you have to 'deserve', and then intrusively impose bureaucratic judgements that most people find debilitating and destructive in the long run. It's fundamentally counterproductive.
In pragmatic terms I'm open to the idea of introducing a UBI very incrementally. There is no reason why it could be be initially set at quite a low number like $5kpa as a sort of 'tax free income threshold' while retaining much of the existing system. Then over a period of a decade or so we could annually move the UBI up and slowly adapt the existing systems to incorporate it, until eventually we reduced targeted benefits to the minimum judged necessary. It would be a process, not an event.
This would allow the economy time to rebalance, discover any bugs, and create the opportunity to mitigate any issues that arose.
When I mentioned that a UBI helps those in work and out I was indicating those on low income vs existing welfare. Creating a more steep income step between welfare and work seems problematic to me.
And the intro of a tax free threshold doesn't help anybody with no income. All the UBI proposals I have seen discussed are talking about replacing benefit regimes (so to make them universal and unregressive) here but it seems that concept should be discarded as a part now?
As far as i can see its obvious how to resolve the issues with welfare regimes, but not so for any UBI proposals.
Creating a more steep income step between welfare and work seems problematic to me.
One of the great virtues of a UBI is it can eliminate that 'step' altogether. Ideally you want the settings to work so that everyone has access to the base UBI, and any income earned above this is taxed at a smooth and reasonable rate.
One of the big intractable issues with targeted welfare is that inevitably as a person earns even a small amount, it's necessary to claw back their benefit at very high marginal tax rates. This creates a huge disincentive.
And the intro of a tax free threshold doesn't help anybody with no income.
Well as I explicitly said, a low UBI of say $5kpa is only 'sort of' like a tax free income band, but with the added bonus that it helps everyone regardless of whether they have an income or not.
All the UBI proposals I have seen discussed are talking about replacing benefit regimes (so to make them universal and unregressive) here but it seems that concept should be discarded as a part now?
While most UBI advocates argue for a technically clean system for the sake of argument, reality is messy and it's probably not desirable to impose purity for just ideological reasons. I'm open to keeping a targeted benefit system during an extended transition period, and hopefully finishing up with the best of both approaches in the long run.
Why would you want to eliminate that step?
I guess this is one of the major differences between left and right. The right always are going to believe that paid work should be significantly better paid than welfare. Not just in respect of the costs of work (travel, food, etc) but also to show the work is more beneficial to both society and the individual.
If the only benefit is pay, then the work isn't beneficial to people. The money is.
The right think that people need to be bullied into work, so people not in work should live in hardship.
The left know that if there is work in a good team with a competent boss who treats them with respect, people will want to do it.
Additionally, when the economy is structured around maintaining a level of unemployment to avoid inflation, unemployed people are victims of that structural feature.
Apologies … I expressed that too cryptically and I think you misunderstood.
The problem I was referring to was the well known poverty trap that occurs when a beneficiary starts to move back into paid work, often part time or casual.
Their new income isn't enough to live on, so they still need some state support. Typically what happens though is that support is taxed at very high marginal rates, otherwise you would finish up in the inequitable position that someone working full time alongside them might easily finish up on a lower net income.
Then you get the impact of stand-down periods if the new job doesn't work out for some reason. Or you have to shift for family reasons. And the very low partner qualifying income in this country also works against families.
The overall problem is that while benefits are damned miserable in this country, the median wage isn't much better. And this makes transitioning from one to the other problematic. You can easily find yourself working 20 or 30 hours a week, and by the time you take the costs and lost opportunity into account, you aren't much better off. This is the disincentive I was mentioning.
Essentially a decently designed UBI eliminates issues at root.
The mythical incentive gap is completely beside the point Wayne. Due to errors (inefficiencies if you like) in the Govts economic policy handling there are just not regularly enough of the kinds of jobs such that everyone is employed. Only govt policy could possibly reliably solve that but instead we leave it to the market with occasional nudges to monetary and fiscal policy (for better or sometimes worse).
The policy which maintains this is a blight. Its also the single biggest source of waste in the economy.
I agree workers should be compensated and not so insignificantly they're comparable to benefits. But also, benefits are meant to bridge a gap in employment not drive people into poverty. So both minimum wage and benefits need to be increased.
The right always are going to believe that paid work should be significantly better paid than welfare. Not just in respect of the costs of work (travel, food, etc) but also to show the work is more beneficial to both society and the individual.
True. In a similar vein, what is the rationale for returns on capital being better rewarded than paid work?
I don't think we are quite discussing the income step in equivalent terms. I am suggesting there are 3 regimes being discussed, 1) welfare & work (present) 2) UBI & work and 3) UBI & welfare & work. Of these 2 can be problematic because those out of work will be on the UBI only and that will be too low to live on by itself. 3 will be less problematic but relative to 1 the difference between welfare and work will be whatever income is shifted out of welfare to the universal UBI payments. This seems to be making people in welfare significantly worse off from a bad starting point. This is also the nature of the UBI proposals I have seen. Simply making the benefit regime universally available to the unemployed would get that solved relatively simply on the other hand.
Sadly the fact remains that ALL the solutions are long term and the patience (within the electorate) is not there….we have created a substantial pool of individuals who are not only not productive but will be negatively productive for some considerable period…..a UBI will not turn that around, especially one at any sort of affordable level….when one considers what determines our purchasing power internationally.
Not consigning this group to perpetual poverty would be a good start
The two main UBI advocates, that I know of, are Gareth Morgan and Keith Rankin. Both advocate coupling it wit a flat tax rate – Morgan, 30%, and Rankin, 35%. Morgan suggested a UBI of $11,000 pa, while Rankin suggested $200 pw. The main difference between the two was Morgan saw a UBI as largely replacing welfare, while Rankin would keep the welfare system intact.
Taking Morgans suggestions one sees that someone on an income of $50,000 pa would pay $15,000 in tax but would be receiving $11,000 UBI from the government; so his net payment to the government would be $4,000 which, on an income of $50,000, is equivalent to a tax rate of 8%. On the other hand someone on $20,000 would pay $6,000 in tax and receive $11,000 by way of UBI. Therefore he/she is receiving a net payment from the government of $5,000 – he is, in effect, benefiting from the equivalent of a negative income tax.
Similar calculations at other income levels would show that a UBI coupled with a flat tax is equivalent to a progressive tax system.
We have a UBI now for old people. It's called NZS and plenty of them choose to work or not and we pull some of that money back through the tax system due to the higher earnings they earn on top of their super. They have absolute freedom to choose to work or not.
We could start by reducing the NZS age back to 60 and lifting the top tax rate a little to help pay for it.
The miracle of metamorphosis from whence a bludger is reborn as a deserved and revered taxpayer that currently exists at 65 could be even more useful at 60 – especially for those – often Maori – who don't reach 65.
The removal of cheap labour through a UBI would also mean more investment in high quality jobs, robotics, etc. to increase New Zealand's productivity.
We don't need more low paid jobs e.g. cafes and restaurants, picking fruit, shop assistants, tourism, etc.
The biggest emerging factor is in my view the inherent racism in the labour market. New Zealand has an older declining European workforce and an increasing young Maori workforce.
If we want to be successful in the future we have to be investing in young Maori. No ifs, no buts.
To do that we have to address the poverty issue and quickly.
To do that we should at least put benefit rates back to the same rate as NZS- immediately and without any fuss. Get rid of the youth rate as well.
For those who don't believe the rates were the same here's the rates from 1976.
UB 18+ unmarried $28-75
NZS unmarried person $28-75
Today it is
UB 18+ single at home $145-98
UB 18 – 24 single not at home $182-47
UB 25+ single at home $218-98
NZS single living alone $411-15
NZS sharing $379-52
It is completely disgusting that we have gone from 100% equivalence to having such a wide disparity in the way we treat our most vulnerable.
Wayne's notion of keeping a gap between benefits and wages in order to encourage people to work reinforces how much of a lie it was that giving tax cuts to employers would mean they would be able to pay workers more. One of the many big economic lies. If they had passed those tax cuts onto workers then benefits would not need to have been kept so low.
It as big a lie as increased productivity leads to more work/jobs. Increased productivity can only lead to less jobs – if you had 10 people making widgets and they increased their output then you wouldn't need 10 people. Increased productivity will make you more efficient and competitive and be able to produce things at a lower cost but this is all in vain if you can't actually sell more product. It like orchardists planting heaps more apple trees and having no markets to sell them in.
Companies that stay around and are big innovate – not just rely on low wages to make the bottom line look better.
There is no rational reason to keep benefit rates low really. It actually stifles productivity and innovation and maintains rubbish employers.
do the numbers….there are roughly 4 million kiwis over the age of 18. If you are not going to reduce the income of super annuitants then you have a gross annual out going of around 85 billion pa for a UBI…current total tax take is around 93 billion
Umm I was suggesting only four things. Increasing benefit rates to the NZS rates, dropping NZS down to 60 again and increasing the tax rate at the top to get more of the NZS back for those for whom NZS+work equals a high income.
Didn't suggest a UBI for everyone.
Tell me why do most NZS recipients work – because A they have to or B – because they want to.
The "most" referred to of those that work why do most do so, rather than suggesting that the majority of all NZS recipients work.
While looking around you isn’t a good way of measuring things nearly all the people I know on super working don’t have to. The ones that do are generally raising their grandchildren and in general are Maori.
I'd like to know how long the family had been there and when the present owners bought the property.
It matters because by the look of it that is a troubled family requiring significant support. If they had been living in that property for many years with the previous owner and the Tuffleys bought it and kicked them out immediately that suggests an absence of duty of care. People with high needs like that can’t just up-sticks and go find another rental.
We hear from landlords all the time what a kind, caring social service they provide the country's poorest but if the situation I have described above is true then that doesn't fit.
The Tuffleys look like developers to me rather than landlords (the clue is in the company name) and the 'no cause' legislation is designed to make sure landlords and developers do follow a duty of care to their vulnerable tenants which has not been the case for decades now.
Time for landlords to show themselves to be what they claim they are.
We have a similar (although not quite as bad) tenant for the past 10 years. The property manager routinely asks that we invoke the 90 day eviction, and we probably should have. The place is going to cost us a bomb to fix when the day of reckoning arrives. Probably several years worth of rent.
We also had a similar case where one tenant is a block of three began disturbing the other two neighbours. We lost three good tenants before we were able to finally get her to move on, again a costly and frustrating exercise. And all this was before the proposed legislation that will make the process even harder.
While it's all very well and good to stand up for the rights of the weak and dysfunctional, but very often their failures have consequences for everyone else around them that cannot be ignored.
In this case the Tuffleys are planning to demolish the existing end of life building and replace it with four new townhouses … and increasing the supply of homes in the area. But instead of being supported in this, they're somehow made into the villans.
As for the existing tenants; I've always been 100% crystal clear on this … around 10-15% of the population simply need social housing. Period.
The Tuffleys in that article are not being made into villains, they are clearly pictured as the victims.
Not arguing against knocking down that house and building townhouses – that is a good thing.
But, the difficulty in this case seems to be a failure in the court and tribunal system rather than the legislation itself. If you are going to be a developer you can't cry about not being able to afford a lawyer to action existing pro-landlord rules! That seems weird to me.
As far as I can see the new legislation would require three instances of adverse behaviour to be lodged then the 90 day order can be applied. Pretty simple I would have thought.
As is stands now no proof of adverse behaviour is required – no reason at all.
The other thing I hope the new law will do is for landlords who are kicking their tenants out for whatever reason to explore their duty of care.
Finally, in your first example you say it’s going to cost several years worth of rent to fix the house. National median rent for 1-2 bedrooms is $390/week so “several years” (3.5 to be generous) is $70,000.
If you are going to be a developer you can't cry about not being able to afford a lawyer to action existing pro-landlord rules!
Not all developers are wealthy people and are by definition almost always short of cash; especially on your first few projects.Good lawyers are very expensive; $10,000 can get gobbled up without blinking.
There is no doubt in my mind these tenants have totally abused the property, they have abused the process and no-one, not even the taxpayer, can be blamed for not wanting give them have a house they will almost certainly wreck. High needs or not, they pretty much have themselves to blame for the mess they're literally in.
As far as I can see the new legislation would require three instances of adverse behaviour to be lodged then the 90 day order can be applied.
That is almost exactly the process we went through with the paranoid tenant I mentioned above. We gave her multiple chances over the period of two years, but each time she backslid and caused another tenant to leave.
We are not social workers, and we have no capacity to determine a person's state of mind, and gathering evidence of adverse behaviour, when often it's covert and the perpetrator denies it vehemently, is also fraught. Most people want nothing to do with this kind of crap and just move on as soon as they can. You get a verbal complaint from them, but getting them to write something down and sign it is much harder. They don’t want to get involved because.
In the end it took us over two years from the first doubts, through multiple attempts at exercising our 'duty of care', to finally evicting her. We absolutely did not enjoy the process as we also had considerable empathy for her position; yet in the end we could not tolerate her persistent interference with other tenants. Issuing a 90 day notice without reason was our last resort, but necessary. Imagining any of this is 'easy' is only possible if you haven't been in this position.
(Incidentally here in Australia as tenants ourselves we were on the receiving end of a similarly paranoid neighbour who caused my partner a lot of stress. By contrast to NZ we had recourse to a very efficient Court process that allowed us to make a formal complaint about the behaviour without dumping the problem onto the landlord. It worked very well I have to say.)
Let me clear. Of the roughly 50 tenants who have rented our homes in the past 20 years, exactly 5 of them … ie 10% … have created significant problems. This is about industry average over that period. Ultimately this is why property owners are increasingly turning to professional managers who dispassionate and efficient in dealing with these issues. It's also partly why your rent keeps going up.
No I am not. It has been my own choice to be transparent about my personal interest and stake in this debate over many years now … but what you say about your position is entirely up to you.
Yes I can see this new rule could be a problem especially where there is a block of 3 flats joined and the middle tenant likes wild parties and has unsavoury people turning up at all hours. The front and back tenants are more likely to just move on ASAP than get involved in having to make complaints etc to landlord and the landlord will likely lose two good tenants (and have trouble replacing them).
Well yes. Landlords do have an obligation to ensure the tenant has 'quiet enjoyment' of their home. But how to handle this when other tenants compromise this? It can rapidly become very messy.
Of the 50 odd tenants in our experience, we have used the 90 day order on one of them, and will eventually need to on another. That's 4% of all our tenants and similar to the 3% of all tenants who are issued eviction notices annually. It's reasonable to think a majority of evictions are done for good and proper reasons.
No reasonable person enjoys being on either end of the process, but one of the hard lessons we've been slow to learn is that when the landlord/tenant relationship goes south for whatever reason, it's usually best to get to a clean break earlier rather than later.
There is no doubt in my mind these tenants have totally abused the property.
Perhaps, but my original point was did the Tuffleys know this when they bought the property. Reading between the lines it looks like they are recent purchasers, while that family has been there some time. They would have known what they bought.
Afraid I just don't buy the 'we were going to move in there before they wrecked it' line which has been fed the writer of the article and to us, the public. They are "Tuffley Developments" after all.
Afraid I just don't buy the 'we were going to move in there before they wrecked it'
I can easily imagine just this happening. For a period of five years we lived in the worst of our units while we were doing up the other three in the group (and while I worked a more than full-time job).
Developing is not just a matter of clearing the land and plonking up some houses. It typically takes around 18 – 36 months of planning, permitting, funding and organising before so much as a spade gets looked at. It's entirely plausible the Tuffley's were intending to live in the old house to minimise their cash flow until they could start building. It's what I'd likely do.
And it's my reading of the story that while it was a definitely a mess before they bought it, the tenants made an extra effort to trash the place after the eviction process started. That's always the big reason why landlords often don't evict when unless they really have to … the frequency of vengeful tenants taking it out on the property while not especially high, is not zero either.
There is no reasonable expectation the tenant has a right to live in an end of life house indefinitely. It was time to demolish it and replace it with something better.
The tenants made an extra effort to trash the place after the eviction process started.
Which line in the article leads you to believe this? Is it this from Leanne Tuffley:
She said damage to the house had reduced it to below land value.
Umm. Anyone looking at those pictures will not believe that 'an effort to trash the place' dragged the value of the house down anymore than it was already.
Also, how do these statements match up? From the writer of the article:
They bought the four-bedroom house with the intention to demolish it and build townhouses.
and from Adrian Tuffley:
Adrian Tuffley said they had planned to move in but could not do so.
And here is Leanne again:
It (is) clear to the couple why people would not want to be residential landlords.
But they weren't being residential landlords in this case, they were being developers who kicked high needs, long term tenants out on the street. And they bought the house with full knowledge of the state of it.
Look at the pictures, that didn't happen since October 2019.
The article is just horror-tenant-porn for consumption by the land-owning class. Not saying Susan Edmunds doesn’t about bad landlords, she does, but this one is pure sneering at vulnerable people.
I would guess the old owner had decided that the house was end of life and no longer economic to bring up to current standards and decided to sell.
The new owners clearly never intended to rent it out; but because the sale came with the tenants in-place they were forced into the role as landlords, at least temporarily, while the 90 day order was implemented. This is a novice mistake, no experienced developer would make because of exactly this kind of hazard. And the sort of problem real landlords like myself do have to confront. The idea that it's some kind of made up horror-tenant-porn is bullshit.
And I'm not quibbling with you about this family being 'high needs'. That is what social housing is for. The real question has to be, why didn't HNZ assist them as soon as the 90 day notice came up?
It's what I hope the new legislation will do. Help encourage landlords to take more of an interest in their tenants' affairs rather than serving up 42 or 90 day notices when they feel like it.
Perhaps this could take the form of them involving HNZ early and helping make the transition for a high needs family less traumatic.
As I said before we do hear a lot about the social service NZ amateur landlord provide for renting Kiwis. I think they need to show it a bit more.
You said before it’s not the job of a landlord to be social worker. Perhaps not but they should show more of an interest than the Tuffleys did.
Edit: Newshub say Tuffley Developments Ltd bought the property in December 2018.
Edit again:
Removed the link to the Newshub article. They have plastered the Tribunal decision at the top of the article. Wankers.
Help encourage landlords to take more of an interest in their tenants' affairs
I hear you; it's a temptation we've fallen into a number of times now and sadly I have to report that it has bitten us firmly on the arse every single damned time. It is very, very difficult to help people until they are willing to take responsibility for their problems.
rather than serving up 42 or 90 day notices when they feel like it.
And while I can only speak directly for myself, I think most landlords are reasonable people and only resort to eviction notices with good reason. If the tenant is paying the rent, looking after the place and there is no adverse behaviour causing problems … then why would you? Far better to keep good people you know in place than taking on new tenants who are an unknown risk. There is simply no sane motivation to do it on an arbitrary or whimsical basis.
Edit: In this case the reason is clear; the house was no longer capable of economically meeting the new rental standards and it was going to be demolished to make way for four new units. That seems reasonable to me.
The flipping of properties is one big reason why they issue eviction notices. Nothing to do with perfectly good tenants and it happens a lot although I assume less so recently with bright line tests and the Asian money out of the market.
This behaviour damages the stability of local communities.
The flipping of properties is one big reason why they issue eviction notices.
Yes I can accept this is a factor, but exactly how to deal with it? I've always maintained there is a real difference between landlords who buy, build or rennovate and hold long term, and investors who I agree are prone to 'flipping'. But determining the difference isn't easy.
How to deal with a landlord who decides on retirement to sell several units they've held for decades to retire their debt? Is this flipping? Or an owner in their 80's who have decided they want out of the business? And so on; people sell for good reasons.
And new owners may well want to develop the potential of the property for all sorts of good reasons, and existing tenants simply don't fit.
Yet the point you make is a decent one; there isn't any reason to evict a good tenant just because of a sale. It should need some justification beyond that. Perhaps one way forward would be to give existing tenants 'first right of refusal' on any new tenancy that arises after a sale.
By contrast to NZ we had recourse to a very efficient Court process that allowed us to make a formal complaint about the behaviour without dumping the problem onto the landlord
Interesting. Is their tenancy law set up quite differently?
National median rent for 1-2 bedrooms is $390/week so “several years” (3.5 to be generous) is $70,000.
What did they do, burn it down?
The house is in a regional town well below that median. Our net cash flow from it after rates, insurance, maintenance and sundries (but before tax and interest) is about $10k pa. As a rough guess we're going to have to spend at least $20k on it to get it back to scratch.
"I'm in two minds about the 90 day notice for rentals especially reading this."
Maybe landlords should give people a decent amount of time to vacate their home, just a thought. Or god forbid, negotiate with the tenants. Lots of places 90 days isn't long enough to find somewhere else suitable. Thanks housing crisis.
I think in this case if the article is correct, even if they had given six months or a years notice by the look of the photos, they were going to have problems.
Out of interest, what do you think a decent notice period would be for a rental?
I think it depends on the tenants and their situation and needs. A family with kids in a local school have a different set of needs than an itinerant worker. Hence my suggestion about negotiating rather than just relying on law.
We haven't heard the side of the story from the tenants in that situation, so there is no way to know how it might have played out differently. My comment was more general.
I suspect that the landlords in that case were getting bad advice about process.
I think it should also depend on the landlord's situation and needs (as well as tenants). So if the tenant is a family with children that have just started attending a local high school, eg. year 9 (old third form) , what do you consider is a reasonable notice period? (I agree 90 days is very short time to up sticks and find replacement) are you thinking more like six months or a year?
True, but then I don't consider someone wanting to buy a property to develop it a very high priority compared to someone's need for a home.
If you are asking what I think the legally defined notice period should be, I don't know and I would guess what is reasonable will largely depend on the rentals available that will vary a lot by area.
I'd prefer to see a national discussion about how to shift NZ towards the right to home culture that is needed to solve the housing crisis. Rental notices are part of that for sure.
And doesn't really matter if they wreck the house – it's being pulled down. One of my favorite landlords was going to pull down the house we were living in when we vacated. Gave us a years notice and told us to happily rip up the verandah, floorboards and anything else we saw fit to burn in the fireplace over the winter. Was only half a house by the time we left.
We had no firewood costs for the winter and he'd had some free demolition. Great fun was had by all.
But these days that would be illegal, the landlord would be exposing themselves to big fines in the Tenancy Tribunal for renting out a house that was no longer fit for habitation.
Good point though we would never have taken them to the tribunal and the decrepit state of many rental properties doesn’t give me any faith that councils take any responsibility for enforcing building codes in rental properties.
Duncan Garner believes the international view of the Prime Minister is:
like reading kids a picture book.
That'll be why United Arab Emirates projected her image on their flagship building last year. Because they are kids being read a picture book.
Duncan seems upset international viewers only see the warm, sincere, compassionate, socially responsible, people-focussed leadership and are blind to Jacinda Ardern's devious economy-wrecking programs which will apparently bring New Zealand to its knees.
He thinks their view is a shallow view of Ardern and following on from that Duncan must think the PM herself is shallow.
Let's look at shallow. Let's look at cringe appearances on Letterman. Let's look at doing interviews at APEC in a bathrobe, and mincing down a catwalk. Let's look at pulling the pony-tails of adult women, and doing prison-rape jokes on the radio.
I’ll take the world media view of Jacinda Ardern over what they saw of John Key any day.
I wonder if we will ever get comments from a proper US President and an Australian PM to match what Turnbull and Obama had to say about John Key?
From the other side of the ditch we had "I do. He is a real role model."
From the other side of the Pacific we got "Nah, he's a wonderful guy. He and I have become good friends and not just because we play golf together."
Somehow I don't think those sort of comments will ever be said about Ms Ardern. Still with a nutter like Trump in the White House anything could happen. He might decide he likes some aspect of the lady.
I think those sentiments will have helped New Zealand more than appearances on the front of the women's magazines.
That damn woman's magazine "Time". Such a frivolous load of woman's nonsense. My god, we are going to be exhausted turning all these magazines around on the shelves eh, Alwyn. /Sarc
It's long been known that Winston (and therefore NZ First) has advocated for fishing interests, and has received donations from Talleys, so this isn't much of a revelation.
And this has created a clash between NZ First and Green policies on fishing and on the Kermadec sanctuary.
Which adds to other significant differences between Greens and NZ First, and there are increasing signs that Winston is walking all over the meek Green leadership. The EV rebate is one of the latest examples.
Will the Green membership likewise rule out any future deals giving NZ First disproportionate power, which includes the power to ignore governing agreements and sideline the Greens?
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
But if Greens keep wimping along until the election I think there's good chance they won't have to make decision, voters will have decided for them they don't deserve to continue.
What are you saying? Loyal Green voters will desert the party and vote for another party or not vote at all? And how will this help anybody? Sounds like a vengeful reaction one would expect from a petulant child 😉
I just wonder why Green supporters seem not as staunch at opposing governing with NZ First as they are with National.
I understand they were keen to have a go at being a part of a government. But it looks like they have been burnt by NZ First. Have they learnt any lessons from this? Or do they just have no idea how to deal with it?
Try reading what I say rather than what you imagine then.
I said Green membership (not voters), who are said to make key decisions in the party, and who chose to not do any governing arrangement with National. As per weka's comment and link:
Both James Shaw and the rest of the Green Party itself have repeatedly stated that they will not form a government with National.
Currently James Shaw and the Green Party are being criticised (mostly from the left from what I see).
I think they will improve their chances of surviving the election (in Parliament) if they show some backbone and principles and stopped being walked over by NZ First.
I won't vote for Greens going by their current performance. If they made it clear they disapproved of a number of things NZ First have been doing, like reneging on policy support and abusing the donations procedures I would seriously consider voting for them.
Greens need to differentiate and go back to principles of integrity or on top of being walked over they risk getting dragged down by the threshold gurgler by NZ First.
Hi Pete, I’ll get my eyes checked because this is what I read @ 5.1:
But if Greens keep wimping along until the election I think there's good chance they won't have to make decision, voters will have decided for them they don't deserve to continue. [my bold, so I can read it better]
You won’t vote for the Greens and you think other loyal supporters won’t (shouldn’t?) either. This is your practical advice and prediction for the coming election, yes?
To me it sounds like you’re saying that people who formerly voted for the Greens should walk over or away from the party this election unless they stop being ‘wimpy’ and being walked over by NZF? Am I getting this correct or am I imagining it?
I could vote for the Greens, but not if they wimp along like they are currently.
I expect loyal supporters will continue to vote Greens regardless (or abstain from voting) and I'm not giving them any advice on voting, but there may be less than 5% of them.
When Greens like McDonald and Bradford express concerns about how the Greens are conducting themselves I think they have a real problem. If they don't address it they could miss the cut this election.
That would increase the chances of a National government next term (I won't vote for National under Bridges' leadership as they are going at the moment).
I’m glad that you cleared that up, for your decision to not vote for the Greens, and for your prediction that “there may be less than 5% of them”, meaning votes.
It is up to the voters to follow your footsteps (not "advice") and “increase the chances of a National government next term”.
I have cancelled my appointment with the optometrist; there’s nothing wrong with my reading, as it turns out.
You're getting it wrong again. Are you just trying to stir or something?
I haven't made a decision not to vote for the Greens. I made that clear.
I'm not predicting the will get less than 5%. It's an obvious possibility that Greens are concerned about.
"I won’t lie, the last two polls aren’t looking good for us. Last night’s poll marks the second in a row that indicate we are at risk of falling below the 5% threshold." – email from Green Party Campaign Director 14 February.
It is up to the voters to follow your footsteps (not "advice") and “increase the chances of a National government next term”.
You really do have a comprehension problem, unless you're deliberately misrepresenting what I've said.
Not stirring, just getting you to be unambiguous, if not for yourself then at least for the readers here.
Your vote for the Greens is conditional on them stopping “wimping”, yes?
A possibility is a prediction of sorts; it could or might happen does not mean it will happen. An analogy: there’s a 60% chance that it will rain tomorrow. Is that a possibility, a forecast, a prediction, or all of the above? Don’t think only in absolute terms.
The voters can do what you do or they can stay unconditionally loyal to the Greens because the alternative (i.e. consequence) of doing what you might do is that they will be out of Parliament after the election. And you still haven’t answered how this would help anybody (except National). Do you expect other voters to behave differently from you?
Please point out where I’m misrepresenting you. I’m trying to point the consequences of your thinking and possible action as expressed so clearly in your comments here.
At least this thread is now about voters and their possible voting behaviour, which is the only thing that we, as voters, have meaningful control over. All the other stuff about the Green membership is irrelevant unless we are members as well. BTW, I take it that you are not a member of the Green Party.
If you're not clear about what I mean why don';t you ask rather than make silly stuff up?
"A possibility is a prediction of sorts"
No it's nothing of the sort – "there’s a 60% chance that it will rain" suggests that there's close to an even chance that it will rain or won't rain. That isn't a prediction, it is multiple possibilities.
"Do you expect other voters to behave differently from you?'
Ok, no unequivocal answers from Pete, today. Just hot air and possibilities galore.
The Greens may go under (5%) if the displeasure of some voters trumps their rational viewing of how politics work. That’ll teach the party keeping wimping along until the election!
I could vote for the Greens, but not if [conditions].
Hot air. I could vote for National or ACT if they were something other than they are, but that would be a meaningless statement to put in a comment.
I think they have a real problem. If they don't address it they could miss the cut this election.
Your "concern" is duly noted. Bottom line is that there's only one party up for election that takes the environment seriously, and that's the Green Party. Labour is mostly lip service only. If you want to base your vote on trivial pissing contests over who dissed whom and who got pwned, feel free, but there are plenty of people who don't make trivia the basis of their vote.
Not hot air. I could vote for Greens again if they looked like they could stand up for what they believed better and showed signs of more effective leadership in government.
I suspect you have never voted for National or ACT and never would, so it's you doing the hot air.
I agree that Greens take the environment far more seriously than any other party in Parliament seriously. Their problem is having their seriousness about the environment taken seriously enough by Labour and especially NZ First.
And on current performance and numbers they don't look like seriously improving on their influence.
And if Greens don't care about enough votes to make the threshold, even you should be able to work out what might happen.
Green supporters aren't unique in politics, but a number of them seem more intent on driving away anyone deemed impure than attracting support and votes.
While the Green Party tries hard in social media to attract support they are frequently undermined by supposed supporters who seem to think their ideals are all that's permissible.
An all or nothing approach is likely to end up closer to nothing than everything.
"An all or nothing approach is likely to end up closer to nothing than everything."
Given that there's 100% of votes available, even if The Greens get 49% of the total vote, they'll be, as you declare, "closer to nothing than everything".
While the Green Party tries hard in social media to attract support they are frequently undermined by supposed supporters who seem to think their ideals are all that's permissible.
Don't know who you are referring to (because you haven't said), but in this thread at least, the problem isn't that people won't discuss how the GP might manage their election campaign in the light of NZF and associated issues, it's that you're running concern troll lines that skew the debate away from a left wing perspective on the Greens to one that is paternalistic and not allied with the left (apart from the alleged concern for the Greens going under 5%, but we know that you also vote centre and right so that concern is being taken with a grain of salt).
The Green Party supports a transformative Government which implements the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals. In this parliamentary term, the Green Party has a number of priorities to progress the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals.
…
Relationship to other agreements
Both parties to this agreement recognise that Labour will be working with other parties both in terms of coalitions and confidence and supply arrangements. Labour agrees that it will not enter into any other relationship agreement which is inconsistent with this agreement and the Green Party and Labour agree that they will each act in good faith to allow all such agreements to be complied with.
Both parties to this agreement recognise that Labour will be working with other parties to deliver a stable Government. Labour agrees that it will not enter into any other relationship agreement which is inconsistent with this agreement, and New Zealand First and Labour agree that they will each act in good faith to allow any other agreements to be complied with.
NZ First getting their way on fishing and sanctuary policies, and getting donations from people with large commercial fishing interests, has a lot to do with the relative impotence of the Greens.
Sue Bradford claims to not be a right winger:
I am no right-winger, but I find myself unusually in the space occupied by the right – that is, I cannot fathom how property rights can be trampled on in this way, nor how Labour and the Greens can tolerate it.
If you follow Twitter at all you should see that the strongest criticisms of the Greens are coming from the left. Like:
A high ranking member of the Green Party is stepping down before next year's election, citing the party's drift to the centre as one of the reasons.
"When the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] says we have 12 years to save the world from climate catastrophe, we simply don't have time for centrism, moderation or fiscal austerity."
Pete George is playing his usual diversionary tactic by trying to spin this post into a critique of the Greens.
To all the idiots in this country who don't understand the laws of the land and are screaming for Ardern to sack Peters forthwith:
You cannot sack someone including a political office holder on the basis of suspicion. If that were the case then hundreds of people in this country would have to be thrown out of their positions on a daily basis – including Simon Bridges.
When the SFO investigation into NZ First is complete and wrong-doing has been established (if it is established), that is the point the prime minister is able to act.
To do so in advance of that point is to undermine the very democratic processes we are supposed to highly value.
Employment law doesn’t apply in parliament to mp’s and there positions in cabinet.
for someone who has been around politics as long as you have, that’s a pretty basic understanding of how ministerial posts work.
that you are trying to invoke the wrong law to try and make this all look ok from the prime minister shows how desperate labour and its supporters have become in trying to make this a non issue
Morgan and David Cormack have stood out in their strong criticism of the deafening silence from Labour/Greens over the NZ Foundation scam. The influence that the Racing Industry and the Talleys have over this government is disturbing to say the least.
Yes National are hypocrites for being donkey deep in donation issues, while at the same time laying into Winston. But so is every other person who has an issue with National but has essentially has turned a blind eye to Winston.
Shaw told the Herald that the details of what had happened were unclear.
"But regardless of who took the photographs and why, the fact they were passed to a blog that is designed to undermine trust in our political system is a concern."
His comments are likely to increase the pressure on Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who has so far declined to comment on the photos.
Shaw also took a step further in relation to questions about the NZF Foundation and whether it has properly declared donations to the NZF party.
"The allegations are concerning and due process must be followed while they are investigated," Shaw said.
"We know New Zealanders will be looking at this issue and worrying about what it means for their democracy, which is why we are focused on making the system more transparent and fair."
Shaw has previously answered questions about the foundation by saying that the country's electoral system needed to be strengthened.
He is now calling for an independent citizens' assembly to "clean up" political donations, which have been clouded by questions over the NZF Foundation, as well as the SFO charges laid in relation to a $100,000 donation to the National Party.
However National and Labour have shown far more self interest than will for transparency and fairness in the past and I haven't any sign from either that they want to change their self imposed Swiss cheese rules.
Effective reform won't be easy for more reasons than that.
I'm not sure that a citizens’ assembly is an appropriate way to reform – for anything like that it's an unproven system. And even if a citizens’ assembly came up with practical solutions it would still have to be agreed to by a Parliamentary majority.
And apart from the citizens' assembly idea the Green press release you link to is really quite vague. Like:
“Right now more than ever New Zealanders need to be engaging in democracy, not disenfranchised by it. We all must work together to ensure equality for all, healthy nature and climate action.”
Sounds more like electioneering.
“At the moment, two out of five political parties in Parliament are under investigation for potential donations misconduct. Whilst we cannot predict or ponder what the outcomes of those investigations will be, ultimately we think these investigations wouldn’t be happening had parties had access to public funds rather than vying for large donations from private interests."
“Everyone should have equal access to democracy and trust in the political institutions that make decisions for their communities."
Complete public funding of political parties would solve the donations issues and vested interests issues, but it would be difficult to provide 'equal access to democracy'.
Current public funding of parties strongly favours incumbent parties, especially the larger ones, and would make it even more difficult for new parties to compete.
I accept it was out of line. The conversation had degraded many posts ago as Pete repeatedly posed his patois of paternal preening. Someone had to say it. Debating a concern troll is wasted space and time.
Thanks WTB. You are more than welcome to call him out on his concern trolling (it's calling people names and telling them to shut up that tends to start fires and then the mods get grumpy at the extra work).
Green supporters keep reiterating how strongly they are opposed to doing any sort of governing deal with National. See /wtaf-nz-first/#comment-1686694
Will the Green membership likewise rule out any future deals giving NZ First disproportionate power, which includes the power to ignore governing agreements and sideline the Greens?
You linked to my comment but did you bother reading the link therein? It's pretty clear what the GP position is. They will work with any party on shared policy, including National. The reason they've ruled out supporting National via C/S or forming govt with them is because there is so little shared policy between the two parties now and much of National's platform is directly against GP core values. Pragmatically, the implication that they might support Nat to be govt was probably costing them votes, so they made it even clearer at the 2017 election.
Equally obviously, this isn't true of NZF. If the GP position is that they will compromise on policy but not core values (which is how I understand it), then there is in fact room to work with a government that includes NZF. The Greens don't have to get their own way on every policy. They signalled early on that there would be compromises, because that's how MMP works.
As for ruling out future deals, afaik the Green Party doesn't have a deal with NZF, and doesn't have the power to control what deals Labour makes with NZF. What you seem to be implying instead is that the Greens shouldn't support a Labour-led government that includes NZF. Which would mean that National would get to form government. Which would be an entirely nonsense position for the GP to take (unless it was being asked to compromise on core values, which it is not, thus far).
If Greens think that supporting a Labour-NZ First coalition government the way the current government has operated doesn't compromise their core values then they can go to the voters with that.
But some ex-Green MPs and candidates seem to think those values are being compromised.
Have Green members been asked if they support their party supporting a NZ First dominated government?
The NZ first donation issue looks unlikely to be resolved before the election. I think there's a real risk that will drag them down, and potentially the Greens too if they continue to look like a silent compliant junior party.
Few if any Green members would support their party supporting a NZ First dominated government, but you might want to have wee think about your question.
Ok, have Green members been asked if they support their party enabling a Government that includes NZ First?
They can claim an honest expectation of something better from NZ First this term, but I think they need to show they have learned a lesson about how they have been marginalised by NZ First and would not allow similar again (if they get the chance).
How do you propose that the Green Party prevents NZF from marginalising them next time round? (I personally wouldn't use the term marginalise, but I'm curious to see how you make sense of your own framing).
Active GP members are involved in internal party processes for forming positions on working with other political parties. Which you would know if you read the post you linked to.
"Have Green members been asked if they support their party supporting a NZ First dominated government?"
As opposed to what? Letting National form government?
I think most GP members paying attention are aware of this dilemma here. If you think the GP are compromising their core values, then you'd need to say how you see that. At the moment you just look like you're suggesting the GP should take a stand for an unknown principle that would result in a RW govt that would actively work against all that the Greens hold dear.
Not sure what you are reading, but I'm seeing the GP clearly laying down election year lines with regards to both Labour and NZF. Not lines that are 'do what we want or else', but lines that show voters how the Green Party differ from both Labour and NZF and if voters want what the GP is offering then the GP need more MPs in government come Sept. Which is possibly what you are meaning, I just framed it in the positive instead of the negative.
Considering the Greens have almost the same number of seats as NZF, they have very little say on anything in comparison to NZF. Winston just toys with James Shaw. I still believe Chloe is the future leader of the Greens as Shaw is just too weak whereas Marama is too left leaning for a lot of people (but has a lot more spine than Shaw).
About those polls that suggest Sanders would do as well in November against Sherbert Pervert as more moderate Dems – it seems they rely on a massive boost in turnout among young voters. That 'youth wave' is a mirage appearing at almost every election, but it never eventuates.
Here's the view from someone that went through the last time we had a clearly criminal Oval Office occupant, and the left took the opportunity to nominate their no-compromise candidate – that was McGovern in 1972.
People tend to believe polls that fit their preconceptions and be sceptical of those that don't. C'est la vie. The race is unfolding now and I am happy just to watch it without pretending to foreknowledge of any sort.
US co2energy emissions plummet in 2019,largest in absolute terms 1 GT since 2000.
The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis – a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt. US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period. A 15% reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019. Coal-fired power plants faced even stronger competition from natural gas-fired generation, with benchmark gas prices an average of 45% lower than 2018 levels. As a result, gas increased its share in electricity generation to a record high of 37%. Overall electricity demand declined because demand for air-conditioning and heating was lower as a result of milder summer and winter weather.
The rise in developing countries from offshoring may account for some.
Max Rashbrooke makes some good points re: recent child poverty stats. A reduction in poverty might be occurring, and that is good, but the real test will be reducing abject poverty, not the people just under the poverty line.
The fact that NACT has been used a lot here doesn't make it an actual thing.
Last year David Seymour did more good in Parliament than possibly all the National MPs. He deserves credit on his own.
Chloe Swarbrick stood out too, but that doesn't associate her with Labour.
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
[ok, enough Pete. You can definitely sing Seymour’s praises as a man in his own right. You can’t derail my posts, nor repeatedly imply that I used the term in a way I’ve already explained I didn’t. – weka]
ACT only exists by the grace of the National Party. This is completely different from Labour and the Green Party. As usual, you’re blurring lines and distinctions, which is something National has been doing a lot of too lately. Perhaps one day you could surprise us with an original thought and comment, yes?
Rob MacCulloch writes – Can’t remember the last book by a Kiwi author you read? Think the NZ government should spend less on the arts in favor of helping the homeless? If so, as far as Newsroom is concerned, you probably deserve to be called a cultural ignoramus ...
Eric Crampton writes – Grudges are bad. Better to move on. But it can be fun to keep a couple of really trivial ones, so you’re not tempted to have other ones. For example, because of the rootkit fiasco of 2005, no Sony products in our household. ...
A new report warns an estimated third of the adult population have unmet need for health care.Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāHere’s the six key things I learned about Aotaroa’s political economy this week around housing, climate and poverty:Politics - Three opinion polls confirmed support for PM Christopher Luxon ...
Today is May the fourth. Which was just a regular day when my mother took me to see the newly released Star Wars at the Odeon in Rotorua. The queue was right around the corner. Some years later this day became known as Star Wars Day, the date being a ...
Buzz from the Beehive Much more media attention is being paid to something Winston Peters said about former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr than to a speech he delivered to the New Zealand China Council. One word is missing from the speech: AUKUS. But AUKUS loomed large in his considerations ...
Is the economy in another long stagnation? If so, why?This is about the time that the Treasury will be locking up its economic forecasts to be published in the 2024 Budget Economic and Fiscal Update (BEFU) on budget day, 30 May. I am not privy to what they will be ...
The annual list of who's been bribing our politicians is out, and journalists will no doubt be poring over it to find the juiciest and dirtiest bribes. The government's fast-track invite list is likely to be a particular focus, and we already know of one company on the list which ...
In the weeks after the October 7 Hamas attacks on Southern Israel I wrote about the possible 2nd, 3rd and even 4th order effects of the conflict. These included new fronts being opened in the West Bank (with Hamas), Golan … Continue reading → ...
Peter Dunne writes – It is one of the oldest truisms that there is never a good time for MPs to get a pay rise. This week’s announcement of pay raises of around 2.8% backdated to last October could hardly have come at a worse time, with the ...
David Farrar writes – Newshub reports: Newshub can reveal a fresh allegation of intimidation against Green MP Julie-Anne Genter. Genter is subject to a disciplinary process for aggressively waving a book in the face of National Minister Matt Doocey in the House – but it’s not the first time ...
The Treasury has published a paper today on the global productivity slowdown and how it is playing out in New Zealand: The productivity slowdown: implications for the Treasury’s forecasts and projections. The Treasury Paper examines recent trends in productivity and the potential drivers of the slowdown. Productivity for the whole economy ...
Winston Peters’ comments about former Australian foreign minister look set to be an ongoing headache for both him and Luxon. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: The podcast above of the weekly ‘hoon’ webinar for subscribers features co-hosts and , along with regular guests on Gaza and ...
These puppet strings don't pull themselvesYou're thinking thoughts from someone elseHow much time do you think you have?Are you prepared for what comes next?The debating chamber can be a trying place for an opposition MP. What with the person in charge, the speaker, typically being an MP from the governing ...
The land around Lyme Regis, where Meryl Streep once stood, in a hood, on the Cobb, is falling into the sea.MerylThe land around Lyme Regis, around the Cobb that made it rich, has always been falling slowly but surely into the sea. Read more ...
Buzz from the Beehive Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters was bound to win headlines when he set out his thinking about AUKUS in his speech to the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs. The headlines became bigger when – during an interview on RNZ’s Morning Report today – he criticised ...
The Post reports on how the government is refusing to release its advice on its corrupt Muldoonist fast-track law, instead using the "soon to be publicly available" refusal ground to hide it until after select committee submissions on the bill have closed. Fast-track Minister Chris Bishop's excuse? “It's not ...
As pressure on it grows, the livestock industry’s approach to the transition to Net Zero is increasingly being compared to that of fossil fuel interests. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / Getty ImagesTL;DR: Here’s the top five news items of note in climate news for Aotearoa-NZ this week, and a discussion above ...
The New Zealand Herald reports – Stats NZ has offered a voluntary redundancy scheme to all of its workers as a way to give staff some control over their “future” amidst widespread job losses in the public sector. In an update to staff this morning, seen by the Herald, Statistics New Zealand ...
On Werewolf/Scoop, I usually do two long form political columns a week. From now on, there will be an extra column each week about music and movies. But first, some late-breaking political events:The rise in unemployment numbers for the March quarter was bigger than expected – and especially sharp ...
David Farrar writes – The Herald reports: TVNZ says it is dealing with about 50 formal complaints over its coverage of the latest 1News-Verian political poll, with some viewers – as well as the Prime Minister and a former senior Labour MP – critical of the tone of the 6pm report. ...
Muriel Newman writes – When Meridian Energy was seeking resource consents for a West Coast hydro dam proposal in 2010, local Maori “strenuously” objected, claiming their mana was inextricably linked to ‘their’ river and could be damaged. After receiving a financial payment from the company, however, the Ngai Tahu ...
Alwyn Poole writes – “An SEP,’ he said, ‘is something that we can’t see, or don’t see, or our brain doesn’t let us see, because we think that it’s somebody else’s problem. That’s what SEP means. Somebody Else’s Problem. The brain just edits it out, it’s like a ...
Our trust in our political institutions is fast eroding, according to a Maxim Institute discussion paper, Shaky Foundations: Why our democracy needs trust. The paper – released today – raises concerns about declining trust in New Zealand’s political institutions and democratic processes, and the role that the overuse of Parliamentary urgency ...
This article was prepared for publication yesterday. More ministerial announcements have been posted on the government’s official website since it was written. We will report on these later today …. Buzz from the BeehiveThere we were, thinking the environment is in trouble, when along came Jones. Shane Jones. ...
New Zealand now has the fourth most depressed construction sector in the world behind China, Qatar and Hong Kong. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: These are the six things that stood out to me in news and commentary on Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy at 8:46am on Thursday, May 2:The Lead: ...
Hi,I am just going to state something very obvious: American police are fucking crazy.That was a photo gracing the New York Times this morning, showing New York City police “entering Columbia University last night after receiving a request from the school.”Apparently in America, protesting the deaths of tens of thousands ...
Winston Peters’ much anticipated foreign policy speech last night was a work of two halves. Much of it was a standard “boilerplate” Foreign Ministry overview of the state of the world. There was some hardening up of rhetoric with talk of “benign” becoming “malign” and old truths giving way to ...
Graham Adams assesses the fallout of the Cass Review — The press release last Thursday from the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls didn’t make the mainstream news in New Zealand but it really should have. The startling title of Reem Alsalem’s statement — “Implementation of ‘Cass ...
This open-for-business, under-new-management cliché-pockmarked government of Christopher Luxon is not the thing of beauty he imagines it to be. It is not the powerful expression of the will of the people that he asserts it to be. It is not a soaring eagle, it is a malodorous vulture. This newest poll should make ...
The latest labour market statistics, showing a rise in unemployment. There are now 134,000 unemployed - 14,000 more than when the National government took office. Which is I guess what happens when the Reserve Bank causes a recession in an effort to Keep Wages Low. The previous government saw a ...
Three opinion polls have been released in the last two days, all showing that the new government is failing to hold their popular support. The usual honeymoon experienced during the first year of a first term government is entirely absent. The political mood is still gloomy and discontented, mainly due ...
National's Finance Minister once met a poor person.A scornful interview with National's finance guru who knows next to nothing about economics or people.There might have been something a bit familiar if that was the headline I’d gone with today. It would of course have been in tribute to the article ...
Rob MacCulloch writes – Throughout the pandemic, the new Vice-Chancellor-of-Otago-University-on-$629,000 per annum-Can-you-believe-it-and-Former-Finance-Minister Grant Robertson repeated the mantra over and over that he saved “lives and livelihoods”.As we update how this claim is faring over the course of time, the facts are increasingly speaking differently. NZ ...
Chris Trotter writes – IT’S A COMMONPLACE of political speeches, especially those delivered in acknowledgement of electoral victory: “We’ll govern for all New Zealanders.” On the face of it, the pledge is a strange one. Why would any political leader govern in ways that advantaged the huge ...
Bryce Edwards writes – The list of former National Party Ministers being given plum and important roles got longer this week with the appointment of former Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett as the chair of Pharmac. The Christopher Luxon-led Government has now made key appointments to Bill ...
TL;DR: These are the six things that stood out to me in news and commentary on Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy at 10:06am on Wednesday, May 1:The Lead: Business confidence fell across the board in April, falling in some areas to levels last seen during the lockdowns because of a collapse in ...
Over the past 36 hours, Christopher Luxon has been dong his best to portray the centre-right’s plummeting poll numbers as a mark of virtue. Allegedly, the negative verdicts are the result of hard economic times, and of a government bravely set out on a perilous rescue mission from which not ...
Auckland Transport have started rolling out new HOP card readers around the network and over the next three months, all of them on buses, at train stations and ferry wharves will be replaced. The change itself is not that remarkable, with the new readers looking similar to what is already ...
Completed reads for April: The Difference Engine, by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling Carnival of Saints, by George Herman The Snow Spider, by Jenny Nimmo Emlyn’s Moon, by Jenny Nimmo The Chestnut Soldier, by Jenny Nimmo Death Comes As the End, by Agatha Christie Lord of the Flies, by ...
On February 14, 2023 we announced our Rebuttal Update Project. This included an ask for feedback about the added "At a glance" section in the updated basic rebuttal versions. This weekly blog post series highlights this new section of one of the updated basic rebuttal versions and serves as a ...
Have a story to share about St Paul’s, but today just picturesPopular novels written at this desk by a young man who managed to bootstrap himself out of father’s imprisonment and his own young life in a workhouse Read more ...
The list of former National Party Ministers being given plum and important roles got longer this week with the appointment of former Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett as the chair of Pharmac. The Christopher Luxon-led Government has now made key appointments to Bill English, Simon Bridges, Steven Joyce, Roger Sowry, ...
Newsroom has a story today about National's (fortunately failed) effort to disestablish the newly-created Inspector-General of Defence. The creation of this agency was the key recommendation of the Inquiry into Operation Burnham, and a vital means of restoring credibility and social licence to an agency which had been caught lying ...
Holding On To The Present:The moment a political movement arises that attacks the whole idea of social progress, and announces its intention to wind back the hands of History’s clock, then democracy, along with its unwritten rules, is in mortal danger.IT’S A COMMONPLACE of political speeches, especially those delivered in ...
Stuck In The Middle With You:As Christopher Luxon feels the hot breath of Act’s and NZ First’s extremists on the back of his neck and, as he reckons with the damage their policies are already inflicting upon a country he’s described as “fragile”, is there not some merit in reaching out ...
The unpopular coalition government is currently rushing to repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. The clause is Oranga Tamariki's Treaty clause, and was inserted after its systematic stealing of Māori children became a public scandal and resulted in physical resistance to further abductions. The clause created clear obligations ...
Buzz from the Beehive The government’s official website – which Point of Order monitors daily – not for the first time has nothing much to say today about political happenings that are grabbing media headlines. It makes no mention of the latest 1News-Verian poll, for example. This shows National down ...
It Takes A Train To Cry:Surely, there is nothing lonelier in all this world than the long wail of a distant steam locomotive on a cold Winter’s night.AS A CHILD, I would lie awake in my grandfather’s house and listen to the traffic. The big wooden house was only a ...
Packing A Punch: The election of the present government, including in its ranks politicians dedicated to reasserting the rights of the legislature in shaping and determining the future of Māori and Pakeha in New Zealand, should have alerted the judiciary – including its anomalous appendage, the Waitangi Tribunal – that its ...
Dead Woman Walking: New Zealand’s media industry had been moving steadily towards disaster for all the years Melissa Lee had been National’s media and communications policy spokesperson, and yet, when the crisis finally broke, on her watch, she had nothing intelligent to offer. Christopher Luxon is a patient man - but he’s not ...
Chris Trotter writes – New Zealand politics is remarkably easy-going: dangerously so, one might even say. With the notable exception of John Key’s flat ruling-out of the NZ First Party in 2008, all parties capable of clearing MMP’s five-percent threshold, or winning one or more electorate seats, tend ...
Bryce Edwards writes – Polling shows that Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau has the lowest approval rating of any mayor in the country. Siting at -12 per cent, the proportion of constituents who disapprove of her performance outweighs those who give her the thumbs up. This negative rating is ...
Luxon will no doubt put a brave face on it, but there is no escaping the pressure this latest poll will put on him and the government. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: These are the six things that stood out to me in news and commentary on Aotearoa-NZ’s political ...
This is a re-post from The Climate Brink by Andrew Dessler In the wake of any unusual weather event, someone inevitably asks, “Did climate change cause this?” In the most literal sense, that answer is almost always no. Climate change is never the sole cause of hurricanes, heat waves, droughts, or ...
Something odd happened yesterday, and I’d love to know if there’s more to it. If there was something which preempted what happened, or if it was simply a throwaway line in response to a journalist.Yesterday David Seymour was asked at a press conference what the process would be if the ...
Hi,From time to time, I want to bring Webworm into the real world. We did it last year with the Jurassic Park event in New Zealand — which was a lot of fun!And so on Saturday May 11th, in Los Angeles, I am hosting a lil’ Webworm pop-up! I’ve been ...
Education Minister Erica Standford yesterday unveiled a fundamental reform of the way our school pupils are taught. She would not exactly say so, but she is all but dismantling the so-called “inquiry” “feel good” method of teaching, which has ruled in our classrooms since a major review of the New ...
Exactly where are we seriously going with this government and its policies? That is, apart from following what may as well be a Truss-Lite approach on the purported economic “plan“, and Victorian-era regression when it comes to social policy.Oh it’ll work this time of course, we’re basically assured, “the ...
Hey Uncle Dave, When the Poms joined the EEC, I wasn't one of those defeatists who said, Well, that’s it for the dairy job. And I was right, eh? The Chinese can’t get enough of our milk powder and eventually, the Poms came to their senses and backed up the ute ...
Polling shows that Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau has the lowest approval rating of any mayor in the country. Siting at -12 per cent, the proportion of constituents who disapprove of her performance outweighs those who give her the thumbs up. This negative rating is higher than for any other mayor ...
Buzz from the Beehive Pharmac has been given a financial transfusion and a new chair to oversee its spending in the pharmaceutical business. Associate Health Minister David Seymour described the funding for Pharmac as “its largest ever budget of $6.294 billion over four years, fixing a $1.774 billion fiscal cliff”. ...
Bryce Edwards writes – Many criticisms are being made of the Government’s Fast Track Approvals Bill, including by this writer. But as with everything in politics, every story has two sides, and both deserve attention. It’s important to understand what the Government is trying to achieve and its ...
TL;DR: Here’s my top 10 ‘pick ‘n’ mix of links to news, analysis and opinion articles as of 10:10am on Monday, April 29:Scoop: The children's ward at Rotorua Hospital will be missing a third of its beds as winter hits because Te Whatu Ora halted an upgrade partway through to ...
span class=”dropcap”>As hideous as David Seymour can be, it is worth keeping in mind occasionally that there are even worse political figures (and regimes) out there. Iran for instance, is about to execute the country’s leading hip hop musician Toomaj Salehi, for writing and performing raps that “corrupt” the nation’s ...
Yesterday marked 10 years since the first electric train carried passengers in Auckland so it’s a good time to look back at it and the impact it has had. A brief history The first proposals for rail electrification in Auckland came in the 1920’s alongside the plans for earlier ...
Right now, in Aotearoa-NZ, our ‘animal spirits’ are darkening towards a winter of discontent, thanks at least partly to a chorus of negative comments and actions from the Government Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: These are the six things that stood out to me in news and commentary on ...
You make people evil to punish the paststuck inside a sequel with a rotating castThe following photos haven’t been generated with AI, or modified in any way. They are flesh and blood, human beings. On the left is Galatea Young, a young mum, and her daughter Fiadh who has Angelman ...
The Government is again adding to New Zealand’s growing unemployment, this time cutting jobs at the agencies responsible for urban development and growing much needed housing stock. ...
With Minister Karen Chhour indicating in the House today that she either doesn’t know or care about the frontline cuts she’s making to Oranga Tamariki, we risk seeing more and more of our children falling through the cracks. ...
The Labour Party is saddened to learn of the death of Sir Robert Martin, a globally renowned disability advocate who led the way for disability rights both in New Zealand and internationally. ...
Labour is calling for the Government to urgently rethink its coalition commitment to restart live animal exports, Labour animal welfare spokesperson Rachel Boyack said. ...
Today’s Financial Stability Report has once again highlighted that poverty and deep inequality are political choices - and this Government is choosing to make them worse. ...
The Green Party is calling on the Government to do more for our households in most need as unemployment rises and the cost of living crisis endures. ...
Unemployment is on the rise and it’s only going to get worse under this Government, Labour finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds said. Stats NZ figures show the unemployment rate grew to 4.3 percent in the March quarter from 4 percent in the December quarter. “This is the second rise in unemployment ...
The New Zealand Labour Party welcomes the entering into force of the European Union and New Zealand free trade agreement. This agreement opens the door for a huge increase in trade opportunities with a market of 450 million people who are high value discerning consumers of New Zealand goods and ...
The National-led Government continues its fiscal jiggery pokery with its Pharmac announcement today, Labour Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall says. “The government has increased Pharmac funding but conceded it will only make minimal increases in access to medicine”, said Ayesha Verrall “This is far from the bold promises made to fund ...
This afternoon’s interim Waitangi Tribunal report must be taken seriously as it affects our most vulnerable children, Labour children’s spokesperson Willow-Jean Prime. ...
Te Pāti Māori are demanding the New Zealand Government support an international independent investigation into mass graves that have been uncovered at two hospitals on the Gaza strip, following weeks of assault by Israeli troops. Among the 392 bodies that have been recovered, are children and elderly civilians. Many of ...
Our two-tiered system for veterans’ support is out of step with our closest partners, and all parties in Parliament should work together to fix it, Labour veterans’ affairs spokesperson Greg O’Connor said. ...
Stripping two Ministers of their portfolios just six months into the job shows Christopher Luxon’s management style is lacking, Labour Leader Chris Hipkins said. ...
Tonight’s court decision to overturn the summons of the Children’s Minister has enabled the Crown to continue making decisions about Māori without evidence, says Te Pāti Māori spokesperson for Children, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. “The judicial system has this evening told the nation that this government can do whatever they want when ...
It appears Nicola Willis is about to pull the rug out from under the feet of local communities still dealing with the aftermath of last year’s severe weather, and local councils relying on funding to build back from these disasters. ...
The Government is making short-sighted changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) that will take away environmental protection in favour of short-term profits, Labour’s environment spokesperson Rachel Brooking said today. ...
Labour welcomes the release of the report into the North Island weather events and looks forward to working with the Government to ensure that New Zealand is as prepared as it can be for the next natural disaster. ...
The Labour Party has called for the New Zealand Government to recognise Palestine, as a material step towards progressing the two-State solution needed to achieve a lasting peace in the region. ...
Some of our country’s most important work, stopping the sexual exploitation of children and violent extremism could go along with staff on the frontline at ports and airports. ...
The Government’s Fast Track Approvals Bill will give projects such as new coal mines a ‘get out of jail free’ card to wreak havoc on the environment, Labour Leader Chris Hipkins said today. ...
The government's decision to reintroduce Three Strikes is a destructive and ineffective piece of law-making that will only exacerbate an inherently biased and racist criminal justice system, said Te Pāti Māori Justice Spokesperson, Tākuta Ferris, today. During the time Three Strikes was in place in Aotearoa, Māori and Pasifika received ...
Cuts to frontline hospital staff are not only a broken election promise, it shows the reckless tax cuts have well and truly hit the frontline of the health system, says Labour Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall. ...
The Green Party has joined the call for public submissions on the fast-track legislation to be extended after the Ombudsman forced the Government to release the list of organisations invited to apply just hours before submissions close. ...
New Zealand’s good work at reducing climate emissions for three years in a row will be undone by the National government’s lack of ambition and scrapping programmes that were making a difference, Labour Party climate spokesperson Megan Woods said today. ...
More essential jobs could be on the chopping block, this time Ministry of Education staff on the school lunches team are set to find out whether they're in line to lose their jobs. ...
Te Pāti Māori is disgusted at the confirmation that hundreds are set to lose their jobs at Oranga Tamariki, and the disestablishment of the Treaty Response Unit. “This act of absolute carelessness and out of touch decision making is committing tamariki to state abuse.” Said Te Pāti Māori Oranga Tamariki ...
The Government is trying to bring in a law that will allow Ministers to cut corners and kill off native species, Labour environment spokesperson Rachel Brooking said. ...
Cancelling urgently needed new Cook Strait ferries and hiking the cost of public transport for many Kiwis so that National can announce the prospect of another tunnel for Wellington is not making good choices, Labour Transport Spokesperson Tangi Utikere said. ...
A laundry list of additional costs for Tāmaki Makarau Auckland shows the Minister for the city is not delivering for the people who live there, says Labour Auckland Issues spokesperson Shanan Halbert. ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters discussed the need for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, and enhanced cooperation in the Pacific with German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock during her first official visit to New Zealand today. "New Zealand and Germany enjoy shared interests and values, including the rule of law, democracy, respect for the international system ...
The Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, Chris Bishop today released his decision on four recommendations referred to him by the Western Bay of Plenty District Council, opening the door to housing growth in the area. The Council’s Plan Change 92 allows more homes to be built in existing and new ...
Thank you, John McKinnon and the New Zealand China Council for the invitation to speak to you today. Thank you too, all members of the China Council. Your effort has played an essential role in helping to build, shape, and grow a balanced and resilient relationship between our two ...
The Government is modernising insurance law to better protect Kiwis and provide security in the event of a disaster, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly announced today. “These reforms are long overdue. New Zealand’s insurance law is complicated and dated, some of which is more than 100 years old. ...
The coalition Government is refreshing its approach to supporting pay equity claims as time-limited funding for the Pay Equity Taskforce comes to an end, Public Service Minister Nicola Willis says. “Three years ago, the then-government introduced changes to the Equal Pay Act to support pay equity bargaining. The changes were ...
Structured literacy will change the way New Zealand children learn to read - improving achievement and setting students up for success, Education Minister Erica Stanford says. “Being able to read and write is a fundamental life skill that too many young people are missing out on. Recent data shows that ...
Trade Minister Todd McClay says Canada’s refusal to comply in full with a CPTPP trade dispute ruling in our favour over dairy trade is cynical and New Zealand has no intention of backing down. Mr McClay said he has asked for urgent legal advice in respect of our ‘next move’ ...
The rights of our children and young people will be enhanced by changes the coalition Government will make to strengthen oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system, including restoring a single Children’s Commissioner. “The Government is committed to delivering better public services that care for our most at-risk young people and ...
The Government is making it easier for minor changes to be made to a building consent so building a home is easier and more affordable, Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk says. “The coalition Government is focused on making it easier and cheaper to build homes so we can ...
New Zealand lost a true legend when internationally renowned disability advocate Sir Robert Martin (KNZM) passed away at his home in Whanganui last night, Disabilities Issues Minister Louise Upston says. “Our Government’s thoughts are with his wife Lynda, family and community, those he has worked with, the disability community in ...
Good evening – Before discussing the challenges and opportunities facing New Zealand’s foreign policy, we’d like to first acknowledge the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs. You have contributed to debates about New Zealand foreign policy over a long period of time, and we thank you for hosting us. ...
From today, passengers travelling internationally from Auckland Airport will be able to keep laptops and liquids in their carry-on bags for security screening thanks to new technology, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “Creating a more efficient and seamless travel experience is important for holidaymakers and businesses, enabling faster movement through ...
People with an interest in the health of Northland’s marine ecosystems are invited to a public meeting to discuss how to deal with kina barrens, Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones says. Mr Jones will lead the discussion, which will take place on Friday, 10 May, at Awanui Hotel in ...
Kiwi exporters are $100 million better off today with the NZ EU FTA entering into force says Trade Minister Todd McClay. “This is all part of our plan to grow the economy. New Zealand's prosperity depends on international trade, making up 60 per cent of the country’s total economic activity. ...
There are heartening signs that the extractive sector is once again becoming an attractive prospect for investors and a source of economic prosperity for New Zealand, Resources Minister Shane Jones says. “The beginnings of a resurgence in extractive industries are apparent in media reports of the sector in the past ...
The return of the historic Ō-Rākau battle site to the descendants of those who fought there moved one step closer today with the first reading of Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara / The Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill. The Bill will entrust the 9.7-hectare battle site, five kilometres west ...
Energy Minister Simeon Brown has announced 25 new high-speed EV charging hubs along key routes between major urban centres and outlined the Government’s plan to supercharge New Zealand’s EV infrastructure. The hubs will each have several chargers and be capable of charging at least four – and up to 10 ...
The coalition Government will not proceed with the previous Government’s plans to regulate residential property managers, Housing Minister Chris Bishop says. “I have written to the Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee to inform him that the Government does not intend to support the Residential Property Managers Bill ...
The Government has announced an independent review into the disability support system funded by the Ministry of Disabled People – Whaikaha. Disability Issues Minister Louise Upston says the review will look at what can be done to strengthen the long-term sustainability of Disability Support Services to provide disabled people and ...
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has attended the Universal Periodic Review in Geneva and outlined the Government’s plan to restore law and order. “Speaking to the United Nations Human Rights Council provided us with an opportunity to present New Zealand’s human rights progress, priorities, and challenges, while responding to issues and ...
The Government and Rotorua Lakes Council are committed to working closely together to end the use of contracted emergency housing motels in Rotorua. Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing) Tama Potaka says the Government remains committed to ending the long-term use of contracted emergency housing motels in Rotorua by the ...
Trade Minister Todd McClay heads overseas today for high-level trade talks in the Gulf region, and a key OECD meeting in Paris. Mr McClay will travel to Riyadh to meet with counterparts from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). “New Zealand’s goods and services exports to the Gulf region ...
Education Minister Erica Stanford has outlined six education priorities to deliver a world-leading education system that sets Kiwi kids up for future success. “I’m putting ambition, achievement and outcomes at the heart of our education system. I want every child to be inspired and engaged in their learning so they ...
The new NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) App is a secure ‘one stop shop’ to provide the services drivers need, Transport Minister Simeon Brown and Digitising Government Minister Judith Collins say. “The NZTA App will enable an easier way for Kiwis to pay for Vehicle Registration and Road User Charges (RUC). ...
Whānau with tamariki growing up in emergency housing motels will be prioritised for social housing starting this week, says Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka. “Giving these whānau a better opportunity to build healthy stable lives for themselves and future generations is an essential part of the Government’s goal of reducing ...
Racing Minister Winston Peters has paid tribute to an icon of the industry with the recent passing of Dave O’Sullivan (OBE). “Our sympathies are with the O’Sullivan family with the sad news of Dave O’Sullivan’s recent passing,” Mr Peters says. “His contribution to racing, initially as a jockey and then ...
Assalaamu alaikum, greetings to you all. Eid Mubarak, everyone! I want to extend my warmest wishes to you and everyone celebrating this joyous occasion. It is a pleasure to be here. I have enjoyed Eid celebrations at Parliament before, but this is my first time joining you as the Minister ...
Associate Health Minister David Seymour has announced Pharmac’s largest ever budget of $6.294 billion over four years, fixing a $1.774 billion fiscal cliff. “Access to medicines is a crucial part of many Kiwis’ lives. We’ve committed to a budget allocation of $1.774 billion over four years so Kiwis are ...
Hon Paula Bennett has been appointed as member and chair of the Pharmac board, Associate Health Minister David Seymour announced today. "Pharmac is a critical part of New Zealand's health system and plays a significant role in ensuring that Kiwis have the best possible access to medicines,” says Mr Seymour. ...
Hundreds of New Zealand families affected by Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) will benefit from a new Government focus on prevention and treatment, says Health Minister Dr Shane Reti. “We know FASD is a leading cause of preventable intellectual and neurodevelopmental disability in New Zealand,” Dr Reti says. “Every day, ...
Regional Development Minister Shane Jones today attended the official opening of Kaikohe’s new $14.7 million sports complex. “The completion of the Kaikohe Multi Sports Complex is a fantastic achievement for the Far North,” Mr Jones says. “This facility not only fulfils a long-held dream for local athletes, but also creates ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters’ engagements in Türkiye this week underlined the importance of diplomacy to meet growing global challenges. “Returning to the Gallipoli Peninsula to represent New Zealand at Anzac commemorations was a sombre reminder of the critical importance of diplomacy for de-escalating conflicts and easing tensions,” Mr Peters ...
Ambassador Millar, Burgemeester, Vandepitte, Excellencies, military representatives, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen – good morning and welcome to this sacred Anzac Day dawn service. It is an honour to be here on behalf of the Government and people of New Zealand at Buttes New British Cemetery, Polygon Wood – a deeply ...
Distinguished guests - It is an honour to return once again to this site which, as the resting place for so many of our war-dead, has become a sacred place for generations of New Zealanders. Our presence here and at the other special spaces of Gallipoli is made ...
Mai ia tawhiti pamamao, te moana nui a Kiwa, kua tae whakaiti mai matou, ki to koutou papa whenua. No koutou te tapuwae, no matou te tapuwae, kua honoa pumautia. Ko nga toa kua hinga nei, o te Waipounamu, o te Ika a Maui, he okioki tahi me o ...
Paul Goldsmith will take on responsibility for the Media and Communications portfolio, while Louise Upston will pick up the Disability Issues portfolio, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced today. “Our Government is relentlessly focused on getting New Zealand back on track. As issues change in prominence, I plan to adjust Ministerial ...
Recreational catch limits will be reduced in areas of Fiordland and the Chatham Islands to help keep those fisheries healthy and sustainable, Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones says. The lower recreational daily catch limits for a range of finfish and shellfish species caught in the Fiordland Marine Area and ...
Energy Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed an important milestone in New Zealand’s hydrogen future, with the opening of the country’s first network of hydrogen refuelling stations in Wiri. “I want to congratulate the team at Hiringa Energy and its partners K one W one (K1W1), Mitsui & Co New Zealand ...
The coalition Government is delivering on its commitment to improve resource management laws and give greater certainty to consent applicants, with a Bill to amend the Resource Management Act (RMA) expected to be introduced to Parliament next month. RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop has today outlined the first RMA Amendment ...
Overseas models for regulating the oil and gas sector, including their decommissioning regimes, are being carefully scrutinised as a potential template for New Zealand’s own sector, Resources Minister Shane Jones says. The Coalition Government is focused on rebuilding investor confidence in New Zealand’s energy sector as it looks to strengthen ...
Asia Pacific Report The prosecutor’s office at the International Criminal Court (ICC) has appealed for an end to what it calls intimidation of its staff, saying such threats could constitute an offence against the “administration of justice” by the world’s permanent war crimes court. The Hague-based office of ICC Prosecutor ...
By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk A women’s union in New Caledonia has staged a sit-in protest this week to support senior Kanak indigenous journalist Thérèse Waia, who works for public broadcaster Nouvelle-Calédonie la Première, after a smear attack by critics. The peaceful demonstration was held on ...
New Zealand Food Safety is monitoring overseas recalls of Indian packaged spice products manufactured by MDH and Everest due to concerns over a cancer-causing pesticide. ...
By Stephen Wright and Stefan Armbruster of BenarNews Fiji’s ranking in a global press freedom index has jumped into the top tier of countries with free or mostly free media after its government last year repealed a draconian law that threatened journalists with prison for doing their jobs. Fiji’s improvement ...
We might be in Invercargill but all anyone can talk about is Gore. Specifically, Salford Street. That’s where three-year-old Lachlan Jones lived, south of the centre of town, between the A&P Showgrounds and the Mataura River. Roughly 1.2 km away from the single level home he lived in with his ...
MONDAY I lined up the latest round of civil servants from city hall against the wall, and signalled for the firing squad to drop their rifles. I stepped up onto a wooden crate to look at the office workers in the eye. But that didn’t feel right, so I found ...
Keen hiker and second-year MSc student Liam Hewson wears two hats when he’s in the great outdoors. “The scientist in me appreciates nature and goes, ‘Oh, there’s that thing and there’s another thing,’ but then the tramper and the outdoorsy person in me thinks, ‘Cool bush.’” Born and bred in ...
After a long and illustrious career as a goal kicker, Dan Carter’s favourite way to unwind is… kicking goals. Why can’t he get enough of it? And what it’s like to watch him do it for an hour straight? A semicircle of people wielding cameras and phones has formed in ...
Dame Susan Devoy takes us through her life in television, including late night ER debriefs, her proudest CTI moment and the show she watches in secret. Quite aside from her four world champion squash titles, Dame Susan Devoy will likely go down in history as one of the best Celebrity ...
Hera Lindsay Bird reveals the best places in Ōtepoti to score more for your apocalypse-prep book hoard.Sometimes I get the feeling I’ve been killed in a car crash, and this second half of my life is just the brain unspooling itself, like one of those episodes of a hospital ...
ThreeNow’s new murder mystery series takes us on a dark, damp journey into the Australian wilderness.This is an excerpt from our weekly pop culture newsletter Rec Room. Sign up here. High Country is ThreeNow’s new Australian eight-part crime drama, set in a remote part of the Victorian highlands. It tells ...
Introducing a new way to read The Spinoff every weekend. After nearly 10 years of being an online magazine, we’re finally embracing the weekend liftout. Despite our best efforts to convince you otherwise, writers and editors at The Spinoff don’t work weekend. It is through the sheer power of technology ...
Tip one: let yourself be nurtured by this big old man. Tip two: don’t ask him to adopt you. So, you’ve arrived at your first session with a new therapist. He tells you to make yourself comfortable and you opt for the tweed armchair, hoping it makes you look like ...
I didn’t know books could open you back up; that there were books that stayed with you, where reading was like a chemical event. I knew nothing.The Sunday Essay is made possible thanks to the support of Creative New Zealand.Not too long ago, I was listening to the American ...
Former Olympic swimmer James Magnussen has already started training for the Enhanced games, though says he won’t start taking performance enhancing substances until about nine months out from the competition. The Australian world champion was the first athlete to be announced by Enhanced, but he says the organisation has had ...
Everyone thinks he’s dead. Every day they expect his body to be washed up along the coast. Most likely up Karitane way, the way the tide’s running. But nobody’ll be too surprised if his body’s never found. Even in death he wouldn’t have wished for such attention. He would have ...
Council members voted 21 to 4 in favour of Ahluwalia returning to the Laucala campus following a much-awaited meeting in Vanuatu this week. It comes as USP and its two unions — the Association of the University of the South Pacific Staff (AUSPS) and the Administration and Support Staff Union ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicola Henry, Professor & Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Social and Global Studies Centre, RMIT University Shutterstock Following an emergency meeting of the National Cabinet this week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a raft of measures to tackle the problem ...
Analysis - A poll showing the opposition is more popular than the government raises questions, politicians go through their 'trial by pay rise' and a Green MP loses her cool in the debating chamber. ...
The entire stretch of Tokomaru Bay on the East Coast will be subject to a joint customary marine title for two hapū, and extending up to four miles out to sea. A High Court judge has found the two groups, who during the case settled a dispute over boundaries for ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Hall, Lecturer, Media & Cultural Studies, Edith Cowan University A longstanding feud between TikTok and Universal Music Group seems to have finally reached an end, with both parties signing a deal that will see Universal-backed music returned to the social media ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Siobhan O’Dean, Postdoctoral Research Associate, The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, University of Sydney After several highly publicised alleged murders of women in Australia, the Albanese government this week pledged more than A$925 million over five years ...
Political parties have now fully disclosed the donations they received last year - with National getting more than double the cash of any other party. ...
A Pacific regionalism expert has called out New Zealand's Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters for withholding information from the public on AUKUS military pact. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard de Grijs, Professor of Astrophysics, Macquarie University Bruno Scramgnon/Pexels All systems are “go” for tonight’s launch of China’s next step in a carefully planned lunar exploration program. Placed on top of a powerful Long March 5 rocket, the Chang’e 6 ...
National returned a massive donation the day after a Newsroom story linked the donors to a property being investigated for operating unlawfully as a migrant workers’ hostel. The party’s 2023 donation filings, released on Friday, show it returned a $200,000 donation from Buen Holdings on August 23. That was the ...
Pacific Media Watch New Zealand has slumped to an unprecedented 19th place in the annual Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index survey released today on World Press Freedom Day — May 3. This was a drop of six places from 13th last year when it slipped out of its ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Black, Political Historian and Administrator Officer, Australian Historical Association, Australian National University Australia has had its fair share of public record-keeping controversies in recent years. Some have been mere farce, as in the case of two formerly government-owned filing cabinets (containing ...
Heavenly Culture, World Peace, Restoration of Light (HWPL), a United Nations-affiliated organization dedicated to fostering peace through civilian-led initiatives, has issued a statement in response to the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. ...
A poem by Tessa Keenan, from AUP New Poets 10. Mātou These days we are a photograph; one of a farm strewn with cows that used to be bright harakeke or swamp. The kids point at it and say the sun sits behind a smudge (left by someone at Christmas); ...
The only published and available best-selling indie book chart in New Zealand is the top 10 sales list recorded every week at Unity Books’ stores in High St, Auckland, and Willis St, Wellington.AUCKLAND1 Small Things Like These by Claire Keegan (Faber & Faber, $25)The masterful Irish writer ...
Marriage and civil union statistics record the number of marriages and civil unions registered in New Zealand each year, and divorce statistics record the number of divorces granted in New Zealand each year. Key facts Marriages and civil unions In ...
Marriage and civil union statistics record the number of marriages and civil unions registered in New Zealand each year, and divorce statistics record the number of divorces granted in New Zealand each year. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lennon Y.C. Chang, Associate Professor of Cyber Risk and Policy, Deakin University Taiwan stands out as a beacon of democracy, innovation and resilience in an increasingly autocratic region. But this is under growing threat. In recent years, China has used a variety ...
In this excerpt from her new memoir, Dame Susan Devoy remembers her turn as star contestant on the 2022 season of Celebrity Treasure Island. The most anxious time of every day was pre-elimination, when you knew this could be your final day on the show. I felt such contradictory emotions, ...
A week that began in triumph ended in an all-too-familiar disaster for the Green Party. Duncan Greive asks if there’s something in the mission that breaks its best and brightest. A long, strange week for the Green party began with a fantastic poll result. On one level this is hardly ...
By Lydia Lewis, RNZ Pacific journalist Vanuatu’s former prime minister and opposition MP Ishmael Kalsakau has stepped down — just two days after he confirmed he was the rightful opposition leader. Kalsakau, MP for Port Vila, confirmed to ABC’s Pacific Beat, and the Vanuatu Daily Post on Thursday that he ...
What’s to blame for the coalition’s choppy start? Six months in, and the mojo meter is in the doldrums. A new poll would put National out of power and sees its leader, Chris Luxon, sliding in popularity. How much is it about policy, how much coalition management and a perception ...
The striking report goes far beyond the proposed repeal of the Oranga Tamariki Act’s Treaty of Waitangi provision, and its impact should be felt far beyond the unique circumstances of the claim it addresses. Earlier this week, the Waitangi Tribunal released an interim report on the government’s proposed repeal of ...
The world has been experiencing a productivity slowdown, from which New Zealand has not been exempt. COVID-19 temporarily boosted labour productivity, but more recently, productivity has retreated. The overall trend since 2007 has been one of slow productivity ...
What’s more wasteful than spending $315k on syrup and machine maintenance? Trying to drum up a controversy about it.Cast your mind back to the pre-pandemic idylls of 2019. A “rat” was a disgusting rodent and not a self-administered plague test; the sixth Labour government was in power; and the ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Professor of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts, Monash University, Monash University Ken stocker/Shutterstock In the wake of numerous killings of women allegedly by men’s violence in 2024, thousands of Australians have joined rallies across the country to demand action ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Cutler, Professor and Director, Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University Oleg Ivanov IL/Shutterstock Waiting times for public hospital elective surgery have been in the news ahead of this year’s federal budget. That’s the type of non-emergency surgery ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Konstantine Panegyres, McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellow, Historical and Philosophical Studies, The University of Melbourne Amna Artist/Shutterstock One of the earliest descriptions of someone with cancer comes from the fourth century BC. Satyrus, tyrant of the city of Heracleia on the Black Sea, ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Rose, Professor of Sustainable Future Transport, University of Sydney LanaElcova/Shutterstock Electric vehicles are often seen as the panacea to cutting emissions – and air pollution – from transport. Is this view correct? Yes – but only once uptake accelerates. Despite the ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Giselle Natassia Woodley, Researcher and Phd Candidate, Edith Cowan University There is widespread agreement Australia needs to do better when it comes to gender-based violence. Anger and frustration at the numbers of women being killed saw national rallies over the weekend and ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Graham, Lecturer in Economics, University of Sydney Mark and Anna Photography/Shutterstock As home ownership moves further out of reach for many Australians, “rentvesting” is being touted as a lifesaver. Rentvesting is the practice of renting one property to live ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sukhmani Khorana, Associate Professor, Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, UNSW Sydney Netflix The new season of Heartbreak High is garnering mixed reviews. Critics are writing about the racy story lines, comparing it to other coming-of-age series about teenage relationships and ...
Bob Carr intends to launch legal action against Winston Peters and Julie Anne Genter is facing a second allegation of bullying. Both sucked the air out of an announcement on education, writes Anna Rawhiti-Connell in this excerpt from The Bulletin, The Spinoff’s morning news round-up. To receive The Bulletin in ...
In 1995, Sally Clark went out on her own in a bold and unorthodox attempt to join an illustrious group of equestrian riders conquering the world. In the days of glovebox road maps, brick cell phones, and the hit song How Bizarre, Clark refused to follow Sir Mark Todd, Blyth ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Beaglehole, Senior Lecturer, Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago niphon/Getty Images The number of people accessing medication for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in Aotearoa New Zealand increased significantly between 2006 and 2022. But the disorder is still under-diagnosed and ...
To celebrate the start of New Zealand music month, we look back at the best local tuneage that managed to weasel its way into Hollywood productions. There’s nothing quite like the thrilling zap of recognition when New Zealand weasels its way into a glamorous Hollywood production. Crack open a Tui ...
People trust other people more than institutions. So how can the media gain that trust through journalists without losing what’s important about the institution? Anna Rawhiti-Connell reflects on two years of curating the news for The Bulletin.Amonth ago, armed cops descended on my neighbourhood as calls to “lock your ...
Opinion: PFAS – per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances – are a class of thousands of man-made chemicals used widely in everyday consumer items such as textiles, packaging, and cookware, popular for their water, grease and stain-repellent properties. However, the very properties that make PFAS so attractive to manufacturers are also what ...
NONFICTION 1 The Last Secret Agent by Pippa Latour & Jude Dobson (Allen & Unwin, $37.99)’ This is the hottest book in New Zealand, number one with a bullet in its first week, selling more than any overseas title, and demand is so huge that it’s already been reprinted. A ...
Loading…(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){var ql=document.querySelectorAll('A,DIV,A[data-quiz],DIV[data-quiz]'); if(ql){if(ql.length){for(var k=0;k<ql.length;k++){ql[k].id='quiz-embed-'+k;ql[k].href="javascript:var i=document.getElementById('quiz-embed-"+k+"');try{qz.startQuiz(i)}catch(e){i.start=1;i.style.cursor='wait';i.style.opacity='0.5'};void(0);"}}};i['QP']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){(i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m)})(window,document,'script','https://take.quiz-maker.com/3012/CDN/quiz-embed-v1.js','qp'); Got a good quiz question?Send Newsroom your questions. The post Newsroom daily quiz, Friday 3 May appeared first on Newsroom. ...
As much as left Govt. critics are essentially snookered by the demonstrable “lesser of two evils” scenario, and the 30 year old major party neo liberal consensus–militate for change we must.
Benefit (Job Seeker Allowance) 13 week stand down period for Forest industry workers displaced by International virus blowback is not going to be shifted according to Mr Robertson.
Floods or droughts see millions in largesse for the farming community, but working class people living week to week get no consideration under Labour’s hard neo liberal approach to welfare–dating back to Helen Clark’s punitive “Jobs Jolt”.
“Work will set you free” is still WINZ/MSD sadistic approach. Even though the nature of 21st Century work has totally changed since the 1964 Social Security Act and there is little non precarious, viable work! Yes, I have seen the Labour “Future of Work” talk fest documents and they are full of it. We need UBI now. In the interim no stand downs or sanctions or abatements for any beneficiary. Carmel Sepuloni is another apologist that should hang her head in shame.
When Labour comes knocking very shortly for votes they should think about growing the working class vote rather appeasing middle class welfare recipients such as neo rentiers.
Who does Robertson think he is impressing really? The answer I guess has been known for years.
UBI without welfare bolted on will be a disaster for many people, especially disabled people, and young mums. Doubly so under National.
Not advocating welfare be ended with introduction of some form of UBI.
Do support making Govt. payments/tax adjustments unique to holder regardless of relationships, and dropping the abatement rate poverty traps. And it would be nice to see the top echelons of WINZ/MSD reapply for their jobs, and sent packing.
The problem is that all the NZ UBI models are based around no welfare or haven't solved the welfare issue, and when people start talking about UBI it tends to get left out of the conversation.
Agreed that so many things are wrong with how MSD/WINZ are doing welfare, lots needs sorting out there.
Fair enough point. There is no universally agreed UBI definition (no pun etc.) for what people mean by the term. Welfare absolutely should be retained–but benefit stigma and appalling treating of disabled and long term ill in particular should cease.
A difficult problem to solve while private landlords run riot and utility costs rise. Fare free public transport and free Wi-fi nationwide and a massive public housing build would provide a better setting for a discussion on UBI/Welfare/Superannuation! But what Govt. would go there just yet.
I've got a post on UBI nearly ready to go up. I don't go into the housing crisis, but it's definitely the thing that's makes all other problems very hard to solve.
That doesn't sound right at all. The stand down periods are individually worked out and can be assessed here: https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/online-services/apply/what-is-a-stand-down.html#null Go to: work out how long your stand down is.
The 13 weeks is a maximum applying to people that have recently been in work and have left for reasons that do not satisfy WINZ/MSD. But, if you are taking a personal grievance etc. for say claimed unjustified dismissal, stand downs may be waived.
I based my comment on the The Forest Industry Contractors Assn call on the Minister.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018735806/covid-19-forestry-industry-calls-for-benefit-stand-down-exemption
Dealing with WINZ/MSD is a fraught process for most that encounter it. Because something is in the legislation does not mean it will necessarily applied to individuals.
I am pointing to the difference between automatic verbal assurances for Farmers in weather events and the the recalcitrance here. Robertson just has to say–“no one out of work due to Covid 19 related reasons will be stood down or denied a benefit” there, not so hard is it?
The 13 week period came from the mouth of Shane Jones. I bet it is not 13 weeks, and these people are now getting a taste of reality for many – officious asshats who act like you are a criminal for having needs. These mongrels are still thick on the ground in WINZ despite the call for kindness. Maybe these workers do need an advocate, as they've thrown their toys out of the cot at round one. Got the media involved, Shane’s there… I see no reason to make blanket reassurances we have no idea of the length and scope of the virus epidemiology yet.
i had a very abusive boss once in NZ, the guy got taken weekly to the employment court and i am not joking here. when i went to winz to ask what would happen if i would quit my employment with this person i was told that i would be stood down for 12 weeks as a boss who is a known bully – inclusive sexual and racist abuse – was no reason for anyone to quit a job.
So yes, this it not something Shane Jones makes up (even if it might fit the narrative that all the fuck ups ofthe kinder gentler bullshit goverment currently running the show is the fault of NZ First), this is something that everyone who loses their employment or wants to quit for reasons not acceptable by our Tory leader ship (again, blue, green, red, nary a difference) needs to keep in mind.
So you might want to consider what you are betting on.
https://www.cab.org.nz/article/KB00001934
They may use 'may', but generally speaking do not quit your job unless you have enough resources to last 15 weeks, no matter how abusive your work place, how dangerous, how fucked up. Because you.will.be.stood.down. And the current lot Red/Green/Black has done absolutly nothing to change that. Kinder, gentler, bullshit.
Did the forestry workers quit their jobs? Big difference to being laid off or put on hold. Shane pulled the largest 13 week figure out from the documentation, I still see no evidence this is the actual case.
Sorry about your nasty boss. most of us have worked for a mongrel or three. You need unions involved with bad bosses or you're on your own, unfortunately.
Yip .
I watched Robinson say the other day that they would try repurpose (my word but that was th general drift) forestry workers who have been stood down . And I I thought fuck you . Your a fucking labour party . How about forcing the forestry industry to gaurentee workers wages for 52 weeks of the year you gutless cunt.
Atleast national are honest we know they hate the working man.
To me this strongly depends on the implementation Robertson is thinking about. The govts tree planting program could use some capable labour.
Ultimately I don't think that any business can guarantee work for all its employees full time. There will be periods when available work is insufficient for all who want to be employed. To resolve this the govt should implement a job guarantee. We already implement a similar buffer stock policy actually through treasury and RBNZ unemployment rate targets but instead of maintaining the work skills of those who endup without work we let their willing contributions go to waste.
Yeah na
Your part of the problem obviously.
Logging is a full time job in all but name .
You show me another fulltime employment industry where the bosses can just shut the gates and send you home with your last paycheck while expecting you to come back as soon as things pick up .
Bit confused about what your tilting at. Is it the idea of more trees?
No it's the fact that forestry workers are treated like shit .
Absolutely no safeguards or security to their employment.
But allgood they can just up sticks and pick fruit according to Robertson.
I agree with everything you're saying about benefits and a UBI but saw an opportunity to say something about the draconian, unfair, but legal 13-week stand down.
There's no automatic 13-week stand down for forestry workers or anyone else affected by job-loss caused by coronavirus. The 13-week stand down only applies if the person, any person applying for the equivalent of the unemployment benefit (whatever it’s called right now) leaves their job without good and sufficient reason or is sacked for misconduct. This is what the Act says, but I accept the practice is different.
Good and sufficient reason must take account of the person's circumstances, such as child care responsibilities, transport difficulties, whether the employment relationship breaks down and the person resigns: anything that affects the person's ability to continue in the employment. Good and sufficient isn't about the subjective views of the decision-maker, which unfortunately too many decisions are based on.
Similarly, misconduct means gross misconduct. It doesn't simply mean being sacked because an employer wants to do that, or thinks the reason for the dismissal is justified. In other words, it's not the opinion of the employer that's relevant to whether a stand down is imposed. And contrary to popular belief, a PG does not have to be taken in order for a benefit to be paid in instances where the person has lost their job because of misconduct, despite MSD staff often insisting that it must.
Stand-downs are a bit like current benefit levels: frittering around the edges makes life better for some people, but really we need to lock minimum benefit levels to a fair proportion of median income and get rid of stand-downs altogether.
t's important to remember that bad implementations of UBI are possible, and in fact more likely than good ones under current conditions. It is a tool not an end in itself. Oops, answer to weka at 2.1
Any UBI implementation provides more income to those who are in work as well as those on welfare. But if the intention is to bolster the income of people on welfare then just improving the welfare rates and associated regressive policies seems to be better targeted.
A job guarantee is a technically better policy, as it helps with some of the difficulties caused to people finding a job without a solid employment history.
Its also worth acknowledging that the unemployment rate is always an artifact of official govt policy.
Any UBI implementation provides more income to those who are in work as well as those on welfare.
Not if you adjust PAYE tax rates to balance things out at the same time. I agree with AB that bad implementations are perfectly possible, indeed in general it's way easier to fuck things up than get them right, but the principle of universality is a good one worth aiming for.
At the moment we still treat welfare as something you have to 'deserve', and then intrusively impose bureaucratic judgements that most people find debilitating and destructive in the long run. It's fundamentally counterproductive.
In pragmatic terms I'm open to the idea of introducing a UBI very incrementally. There is no reason why it could be be initially set at quite a low number like $5kpa as a sort of 'tax free income threshold' while retaining much of the existing system. Then over a period of a decade or so we could annually move the UBI up and slowly adapt the existing systems to incorporate it, until eventually we reduced targeted benefits to the minimum judged necessary. It would be a process, not an event.
This would allow the economy time to rebalance, discover any bugs, and create the opportunity to mitigate any issues that arose.
When I mentioned that a UBI helps those in work and out I was indicating those on low income vs existing welfare. Creating a more steep income step between welfare and work seems problematic to me.
And the intro of a tax free threshold doesn't help anybody with no income. All the UBI proposals I have seen discussed are talking about replacing benefit regimes (so to make them universal and unregressive) here but it seems that concept should be discarded as a part now?
As far as i can see its obvious how to resolve the issues with welfare regimes, but not so for any UBI proposals.
Creating a more steep income step between welfare and work seems problematic to me.
One of the great virtues of a UBI is it can eliminate that 'step' altogether. Ideally you want the settings to work so that everyone has access to the base UBI, and any income earned above this is taxed at a smooth and reasonable rate.
One of the big intractable issues with targeted welfare is that inevitably as a person earns even a small amount, it's necessary to claw back their benefit at very high marginal tax rates. This creates a huge disincentive.
And the intro of a tax free threshold doesn't help anybody with no income.
Well as I explicitly said, a low UBI of say $5kpa is only 'sort of' like a tax free income band, but with the added bonus that it helps everyone regardless of whether they have an income or not.
All the UBI proposals I have seen discussed are talking about replacing benefit regimes (so to make them universal and unregressive) here but it seems that concept should be discarded as a part now?
While most UBI advocates argue for a technically clean system for the sake of argument, reality is messy and it's probably not desirable to impose purity for just ideological reasons. I'm open to keeping a targeted benefit system during an extended transition period, and hopefully finishing up with the best of both approaches in the long run.
Why would you want to eliminate that step?
I guess this is one of the major differences between left and right. The right always are going to believe that paid work should be significantly better paid than welfare. Not just in respect of the costs of work (travel, food, etc) but also to show the work is more beneficial to both society and the individual.
If the only benefit is pay, then the work isn't beneficial to people. The money is.
The right think that people need to be bullied into work, so people not in work should live in hardship.
The left know that if there is work in a good team with a competent boss who treats them with respect, people will want to do it.
Additionally, when the economy is structured around maintaining a level of unemployment to avoid inflation, unemployed people are victims of that structural feature.
Apologies … I expressed that too cryptically and I think you misunderstood.
The problem I was referring to was the well known poverty trap that occurs when a beneficiary starts to move back into paid work, often part time or casual.
Their new income isn't enough to live on, so they still need some state support. Typically what happens though is that support is taxed at very high marginal rates, otherwise you would finish up in the inequitable position that someone working full time alongside them might easily finish up on a lower net income.
Then you get the impact of stand-down periods if the new job doesn't work out for some reason. Or you have to shift for family reasons. And the very low partner qualifying income in this country also works against families.
The overall problem is that while benefits are damned miserable in this country, the median wage isn't much better. And this makes transitioning from one to the other problematic. You can easily find yourself working 20 or 30 hours a week, and by the time you take the costs and lost opportunity into account, you aren't much better off. This is the disincentive I was mentioning.
Essentially a decently designed UBI eliminates issues at root.
The mythical incentive gap is completely beside the point Wayne. Due to errors (inefficiencies if you like) in the Govts economic policy handling there are just not regularly enough of the kinds of jobs such that everyone is employed. Only govt policy could possibly reliably solve that but instead we leave it to the market with occasional nudges to monetary and fiscal policy (for better or sometimes worse).
The policy which maintains this is a blight. Its also the single biggest source of waste in the economy.
I agree workers should be compensated and not so insignificantly they're comparable to benefits. But also, benefits are meant to bridge a gap in employment not drive people into poverty. So both minimum wage and benefits need to be increased.
True. In a similar vein, what is the rationale for returns on capital being better rewarded than paid work?
I don't think we are quite discussing the income step in equivalent terms. I am suggesting there are 3 regimes being discussed, 1) welfare & work (present) 2) UBI & work and 3) UBI & welfare & work. Of these 2 can be problematic because those out of work will be on the UBI only and that will be too low to live on by itself. 3 will be less problematic but relative to 1 the difference between welfare and work will be whatever income is shifted out of welfare to the universal UBI payments. This seems to be making people in welfare significantly worse off from a bad starting point. This is also the nature of the UBI proposals I have seen. Simply making the benefit regime universally available to the unemployed would get that solved relatively simply on the other hand.
Sadly the fact remains that ALL the solutions are long term and the patience (within the electorate) is not there….we have created a substantial pool of individuals who are not only not productive but will be negatively productive for some considerable period…..a UBI will not turn that around, especially one at any sort of affordable level….when one considers what determines our purchasing power internationally.
Not consigning this group to perpetual poverty would be a good start
The two main UBI advocates, that I know of, are Gareth Morgan and Keith Rankin. Both advocate coupling it wit a flat tax rate – Morgan, 30%, and Rankin, 35%. Morgan suggested a UBI of $11,000 pa, while Rankin suggested $200 pw. The main difference between the two was Morgan saw a UBI as largely replacing welfare, while Rankin would keep the welfare system intact.
Taking Morgans suggestions one sees that someone on an income of $50,000 pa would pay $15,000 in tax but would be receiving $11,000 UBI from the government; so his net payment to the government would be $4,000 which, on an income of $50,000, is equivalent to a tax rate of 8%. On the other hand someone on $20,000 would pay $6,000 in tax and receive $11,000 by way of UBI. Therefore he/she is receiving a net payment from the government of $5,000 – he is, in effect, benefiting from the equivalent of a negative income tax.
Similar calculations at other income levels would show that a UBI coupled with a flat tax is equivalent to a progressive tax system.
it is not and we have been there before
We have a UBI now for old people. It's called NZS and plenty of them choose to work or not and we pull some of that money back through the tax system due to the higher earnings they earn on top of their super. They have absolute freedom to choose to work or not.
We could start by reducing the NZS age back to 60 and lifting the top tax rate a little to help pay for it.
The miracle of metamorphosis from whence a bludger is reborn as a deserved and revered taxpayer that currently exists at 65 could be even more useful at 60 – especially for those – often Maori – who don't reach 65.
The removal of cheap labour through a UBI would also mean more investment in high quality jobs, robotics, etc. to increase New Zealand's productivity.
We don't need more low paid jobs e.g. cafes and restaurants, picking fruit, shop assistants, tourism, etc.
The biggest emerging factor is in my view the inherent racism in the labour market. New Zealand has an older declining European workforce and an increasing young Maori workforce.
If we want to be successful in the future we have to be investing in young Maori. No ifs, no buts.
To do that we have to address the poverty issue and quickly.
To do that we should at least put benefit rates back to the same rate as NZS- immediately and without any fuss. Get rid of the youth rate as well.
For those who don't believe the rates were the same here's the rates from 1976.
UB 18+ unmarried $28-75
NZS unmarried person $28-75
Today it is
UB 18+ single at home $145-98
UB 18 – 24 single not at home $182-47
UB 25+ single at home $218-98
NZS single living alone $411-15
NZS sharing $379-52
It is completely disgusting that we have gone from 100% equivalence to having such a wide disparity in the way we treat our most vulnerable.
Wayne's notion of keeping a gap between benefits and wages in order to encourage people to work reinforces how much of a lie it was that giving tax cuts to employers would mean they would be able to pay workers more. One of the many big economic lies. If they had passed those tax cuts onto workers then benefits would not need to have been kept so low.
It as big a lie as increased productivity leads to more work/jobs. Increased productivity can only lead to less jobs – if you had 10 people making widgets and they increased their output then you wouldn't need 10 people. Increased productivity will make you more efficient and competitive and be able to produce things at a lower cost but this is all in vain if you can't actually sell more product. It like orchardists planting heaps more apple trees and having no markets to sell them in.
Companies that stay around and are big innovate – not just rely on low wages to make the bottom line look better.
There is no rational reason to keep benefit rates low really. It actually stifles productivity and innovation and maintains rubbish employers.
do the numbers….there are roughly 4 million kiwis over the age of 18. If you are not going to reduce the income of super annuitants then you have a gross annual out going of around 85 billion pa for a UBI…current total tax take is around 93 billion
Umm I was suggesting only four things. Increasing benefit rates to the NZS rates, dropping NZS down to 60 again and increasing the tax rate at the top to get more of the NZS back for those for whom NZS+work equals a high income.
Didn't suggest a UBI for everyone.
Tell me why do most NZS recipients work – because A they have to or B – because they want to.
Agree benefit rate needs to be increased….though so much damage has been done that wont solve the problems.
A 60 retirement option while sensible IMO would be a hard political sell….esp given the rhetoric over the past cpl decades.
A more progressive tax system with substantial clawback for exceedingly high salaries a no brainer.
Dont know that 'most' NZS recipients do work…though of those that do I suspect a good proportion of them do so because they have to
The "most" referred to of those that work why do most do so, rather than suggesting that the majority of all NZS recipients work.
While looking around you isn’t a good way of measuring things nearly all the people I know on super working don’t have to. The ones that do are generally raising their grandchildren and in general are Maori.
Assuming a tax rate of, say, 20%, a tax-free zone of $5,000 would amount to a UBI of $1,000 per year.
or around 20 dollars a week…or 3.5 cafe coffees
I'm in two minds about the 90 day notice for rentals especially reading this.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/119787941/landlords-battle-to-get-tenants-to-leave-property
I'd like to know how long the family had been there and when the present owners bought the property.
It matters because by the look of it that is a troubled family requiring significant support. If they had been living in that property for many years with the previous owner and the Tuffleys bought it and kicked them out immediately that suggests an absence of duty of care. People with high needs like that can’t just up-sticks and go find another rental.
We hear from landlords all the time what a kind, caring social service they provide the country's poorest but if the situation I have described above is true then that doesn't fit.
The Tuffleys look like developers to me rather than landlords (the clue is in the company name) and the 'no cause' legislation is designed to make sure landlords and developers do follow a duty of care to their vulnerable tenants which has not been the case for decades now.
Time for landlords to show themselves to be what they claim they are.
We have a similar (although not quite as bad) tenant for the past 10 years. The property manager routinely asks that we invoke the 90 day eviction, and we probably should have. The place is going to cost us a bomb to fix when the day of reckoning arrives. Probably several years worth of rent.
We also had a similar case where one tenant is a block of three began disturbing the other two neighbours. We lost three good tenants before we were able to finally get her to move on, again a costly and frustrating exercise. And all this was before the proposed legislation that will make the process even harder.
While it's all very well and good to stand up for the rights of the weak and dysfunctional, but very often their failures have consequences for everyone else around them that cannot be ignored.
In this case the Tuffleys are planning to demolish the existing end of life building and replace it with four new townhouses … and increasing the supply of homes in the area. But instead of being supported in this, they're somehow made into the villans.
As for the existing tenants; I've always been 100% crystal clear on this … around 10-15% of the population simply need social housing. Period.
The Tuffleys in that article are not being made into villains, they are clearly pictured as the victims.
Not arguing against knocking down that house and building townhouses – that is a good thing.
But, the difficulty in this case seems to be a failure in the court and tribunal system rather than the legislation itself. If you are going to be a developer you can't cry about not being able to afford a lawyer to action existing pro-landlord rules! That seems weird to me.
As far as I can see the new legislation would require three instances of adverse behaviour to be lodged then the 90 day order can be applied. Pretty simple I would have thought.
As is stands now no proof of adverse behaviour is required – no reason at all.
The other thing I hope the new law will do is for landlords who are kicking their tenants out for whatever reason to explore their duty of care.
Finally, in your first example you say it’s going to cost several years worth of rent to fix the house. National median rent for 1-2 bedrooms is $390/week so “several years” (3.5 to be generous) is $70,000.
What did they do, burn it down?
If you are going to be a developer you can't cry about not being able to afford a lawyer to action existing pro-landlord rules!
Not all developers are wealthy people and are by definition almost always short of cash; especially on your first few projects.Good lawyers are very expensive; $10,000 can get gobbled up without blinking.
There is no doubt in my mind these tenants have totally abused the property, they have abused the process and no-one, not even the taxpayer, can be blamed for not wanting give them have a house they will almost certainly wreck. High needs or not, they pretty much have themselves to blame for the mess they're literally in.
As far as I can see the new legislation would require three instances of adverse behaviour to be lodged then the 90 day order can be applied.
That is almost exactly the process we went through with the paranoid tenant I mentioned above. We gave her multiple chances over the period of two years, but each time she backslid and caused another tenant to leave.
We are not social workers, and we have no capacity to determine a person's state of mind, and gathering evidence of adverse behaviour, when often it's covert and the perpetrator denies it vehemently, is also fraught. Most people want nothing to do with this kind of crap and just move on as soon as they can. You get a verbal complaint from them, but getting them to write something down and sign it is much harder. They don’t want to get involved because.
In the end it took us over two years from the first doubts, through multiple attempts at exercising our 'duty of care', to finally evicting her. We absolutely did not enjoy the process as we also had considerable empathy for her position; yet in the end we could not tolerate her persistent interference with other tenants. Issuing a 90 day notice without reason was our last resort, but necessary. Imagining any of this is 'easy' is only possible if you haven't been in this position.
(Incidentally here in Australia as tenants ourselves we were on the receiving end of a similarly paranoid neighbour who caused my partner a lot of stress. By contrast to NZ we had recourse to a very efficient Court process that allowed us to make a formal complaint about the behaviour without dumping the problem onto the landlord. It worked very well I have to say.)
Let me clear. Of the roughly 50 tenants who have rented our homes in the past 20 years, exactly 5 of them … ie 10% … have created significant problems. This is about industry average over that period. Ultimately this is why property owners are increasingly turning to professional managers who dispassionate and efficient in dealing with these issues. It's also partly why your rent keeps going up.
You don't know whether I pay rent or not. I hope you are not fishing for personal information.
No I am not. It has been my own choice to be transparent about my personal interest and stake in this debate over many years now … but what you say about your position is entirely up to you.
Yes I can see this new rule could be a problem especially where there is a block of 3 flats joined and the middle tenant likes wild parties and has unsavoury people turning up at all hours. The front and back tenants are more likely to just move on ASAP than get involved in having to make complaints etc to landlord and the landlord will likely lose two good tenants (and have trouble replacing them).
Well yes. Landlords do have an obligation to ensure the tenant has 'quiet enjoyment' of their home. But how to handle this when other tenants compromise this? It can rapidly become very messy.
Of the 50 odd tenants in our experience, we have used the 90 day order on one of them, and will eventually need to on another. That's 4% of all our tenants and similar to the 3% of all tenants who are issued eviction notices annually. It's reasonable to think a majority of evictions are done for good and proper reasons.
No reasonable person enjoys being on either end of the process, but one of the hard lessons we've been slow to learn is that when the landlord/tenant relationship goes south for whatever reason, it's usually best to get to a clean break earlier rather than later.
Perhaps, but my original point was did the Tuffleys know this when they bought the property. Reading between the lines it looks like they are recent purchasers, while that family has been there some time. They would have known what they bought.
Afraid I just don't buy the 'we were going to move in there before they wrecked it' line which has been fed the writer of the article and to us, the public. They are "Tuffley Developments" after all.
Afraid I just don't buy the 'we were going to move in there before they wrecked it'
I can easily imagine just this happening. For a period of five years we lived in the worst of our units while we were doing up the other three in the group (and while I worked a more than full-time job).
Developing is not just a matter of clearing the land and plonking up some houses. It typically takes around 18 – 36 months of planning, permitting, funding and organising before so much as a spade gets looked at. It's entirely plausible the Tuffley's were intending to live in the old house to minimise their cash flow until they could start building. It's what I'd likely do.
And it's my reading of the story that while it was a definitely a mess before they bought it, the tenants made an extra effort to trash the place after the eviction process started. That's always the big reason why landlords often don't evict when unless they really have to … the frequency of vengeful tenants taking it out on the property while not especially high, is not zero either.
There is no reasonable expectation the tenant has a right to live in an end of life house indefinitely. It was time to demolish it and replace it with something better.
Your quote:
Which line in the article leads you to believe this? Is it this from Leanne Tuffley:
Umm. Anyone looking at those pictures will not believe that 'an effort to trash the place' dragged the value of the house down anymore than it was already.
Also, how do these statements match up? From the writer of the article:
and from Adrian Tuffley:
And here is Leanne again:
But they weren't being residential landlords in this case, they were being developers who kicked high needs, long term tenants out on the street. And they bought the house with full knowledge of the state of it.
Look at the pictures, that didn't happen since October 2019.
The article is just horror-tenant-porn for consumption by the land-owning class. Not saying Susan Edmunds doesn’t about bad landlords, she does, but this one is pure sneering at vulnerable people.
I would guess the old owner had decided that the house was end of life and no longer economic to bring up to current standards and decided to sell.
The new owners clearly never intended to rent it out; but because the sale came with the tenants in-place they were forced into the role as landlords, at least temporarily, while the 90 day order was implemented. This is a novice mistake, no experienced developer would make because of exactly this kind of hazard. And the sort of problem real landlords like myself do have to confront. The idea that it's some kind of made up horror-tenant-porn is bullshit.
And I'm not quibbling with you about this family being 'high needs'. That is what social housing is for. The real question has to be, why didn't HNZ assist them as soon as the 90 day notice came up?
It's what I hope the new legislation will do. Help encourage landlords to take more of an interest in their tenants' affairs rather than serving up 42 or 90 day notices when they feel like it.
Perhaps this could take the form of them involving HNZ early and helping make the transition for a high needs family less traumatic.
As I said before we do hear a lot about the social service NZ amateur landlord provide for renting Kiwis. I think they need to show it a bit more.
You said before it’s not the job of a landlord to be social worker. Perhaps not but they should show more of an interest than the Tuffleys did.
Edit: Newshub say Tuffley Developments Ltd bought the property in December 2018.
Edit again:
Removed the link to the Newshub article. They have plastered the Tribunal decision at the top of the article. Wankers.
Help encourage landlords to take more of an interest in their tenants' affairs
I hear you; it's a temptation we've fallen into a number of times now and sadly I have to report that it has bitten us firmly on the arse every single damned time. It is very, very difficult to help people until they are willing to take responsibility for their problems.
rather than serving up 42 or 90 day notices when they feel like it.
And while I can only speak directly for myself, I think most landlords are reasonable people and only resort to eviction notices with good reason. If the tenant is paying the rent, looking after the place and there is no adverse behaviour causing problems … then why would you? Far better to keep good people you know in place than taking on new tenants who are an unknown risk. There is simply no sane motivation to do it on an arbitrary or whimsical basis.
Edit: In this case the reason is clear; the house was no longer capable of economically meeting the new rental standards and it was going to be demolished to make way for four new units. That seems reasonable to me.
The flipping of properties is one big reason why they issue eviction notices. Nothing to do with perfectly good tenants and it happens a lot although I assume less so recently with bright line tests and the Asian money out of the market.
This behaviour damages the stability of local communities.
The flipping of properties is one big reason why they issue eviction notices.
Yes I can accept this is a factor, but exactly how to deal with it? I've always maintained there is a real difference between landlords who buy, build or rennovate and hold long term, and investors who I agree are prone to 'flipping'. But determining the difference isn't easy.
How to deal with a landlord who decides on retirement to sell several units they've held for decades to retire their debt? Is this flipping? Or an owner in their 80's who have decided they want out of the business? And so on; people sell for good reasons.
And new owners may well want to develop the potential of the property for all sorts of good reasons, and existing tenants simply don't fit.
Yet the point you make is a decent one; there isn't any reason to evict a good tenant just because of a sale. It should need some justification beyond that. Perhaps one way forward would be to give existing tenants 'first right of refusal' on any new tenancy that arises after a sale.
Interesting. Is their tenancy law set up quite differently?
The house is in a regional town well below that median. Our net cash flow from it after rates, insurance, maintenance and sundries (but before tax and interest) is about $10k pa. As a rough guess we're going to have to spend at least $20k on it to get it back to scratch.
"I'm in two minds about the 90 day notice for rentals especially reading this."
Maybe landlords should give people a decent amount of time to vacate their home, just a thought. Or god forbid, negotiate with the tenants. Lots of places 90 days isn't long enough to find somewhere else suitable. Thanks housing crisis.
I think in this case if the article is correct, even if they had given six months or a years notice by the look of the photos, they were going to have problems.
Out of interest, what do you think a decent notice period would be for a rental?
I think it depends on the tenants and their situation and needs. A family with kids in a local school have a different set of needs than an itinerant worker. Hence my suggestion about negotiating rather than just relying on law.
We haven't heard the side of the story from the tenants in that situation, so there is no way to know how it might have played out differently. My comment was more general.
I suspect that the landlords in that case were getting bad advice about process.
I think it should also depend on the landlord's situation and needs (as well as tenants). So if the tenant is a family with children that have just started attending a local high school, eg. year 9 (old third form) , what do you consider is a reasonable notice period? (I agree 90 days is very short time to up sticks and find replacement) are you thinking more like six months or a year?
True, but then I don't consider someone wanting to buy a property to develop it a very high priority compared to someone's need for a home.
If you are asking what I think the legally defined notice period should be, I don't know and I would guess what is reasonable will largely depend on the rentals available that will vary a lot by area.
I'd prefer to see a national discussion about how to shift NZ towards the right to home culture that is needed to solve the housing crisis. Rental notices are part of that for sure.
And doesn't really matter if they wreck the house – it's being pulled down. One of my favorite landlords was going to pull down the house we were living in when we vacated. Gave us a years notice and told us to happily rip up the verandah, floorboards and anything else we saw fit to burn in the fireplace over the winter. Was only half a house by the time we left.
We had no firewood costs for the winter and he'd had some free demolition. Great fun was had by all.
But these days that would be illegal, the landlord would be exposing themselves to big fines in the Tenancy Tribunal for renting out a house that was no longer fit for habitation.
Good point though we would never have taken them to the tribunal and the decrepit state of many rental properties doesn’t give me any faith that councils take any responsibility for enforcing building codes in rental properties.
Duncan Garner believes the international view of the Prime Minister is:
That'll be why United Arab Emirates projected her image on their flagship building last year. Because they are kids being read a picture book.
Duncan seems upset international viewers only see the warm, sincere, compassionate, socially responsible, people-focussed leadership and are blind to Jacinda Ardern's devious economy-wrecking programs which will apparently bring New Zealand to its knees.
He thinks their view is a shallow view of Ardern and following on from that Duncan must think the PM herself is shallow.
Let's look at shallow. Let's look at cringe appearances on Letterman. Let's look at doing interviews at APEC in a bathrobe, and mincing down a catwalk. Let's look at pulling the pony-tails of adult women, and doing prison-rape jokes on the radio.
I’ll take the world media view of Jacinda Ardern over what they saw of John Key any day.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/02/overseas-views-of-jacinda-ardern-as-a-hero-are-shallow-duncan-garner.html
I wonder if we will ever get comments from a proper US President and an Australian PM to match what Turnbull and Obama had to say about John Key?
From the other side of the ditch we had "I do. He is a real role model."
From the other side of the Pacific we got "Nah, he's a wonderful guy. He and I have become good friends and not just because we play golf together."
Somehow I don't think those sort of comments will ever be said about Ms Ardern. Still with a nutter like Trump in the White House anything could happen. He might decide he likes some aspect of the lady.
I think those sentiments will have helped New Zealand more than appearances on the front of the women's magazines.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/74225621/john-key-praise-from-barack-obama-reflects-genuine-friendship
That damn woman's magazine "Time". Such a frivolous load of woman's nonsense. My god, we are going to be exhausted turning all these magazines around on the shelves eh, Alwyn. /Sarc
You would think that.
I don't think there's any disputing Ardern has far, far more international profile and influence than Key.
Key appealed to right-wing Australia only, and his friendship with Obama was for diplomatic optics only. Duncan Garner might describe it as "shallow".
It's long been known that Winston (and therefore NZ First) has advocated for fishing interests, and has received donations from Talleys, so this isn't much of a revelation.
And this has created a clash between NZ First and Green policies on fishing and on the Kermadec sanctuary.
Which adds to other significant differences between Greens and NZ First, and there are increasing signs that Winston is walking all over the meek Green leadership. The EV rebate is one of the latest examples.
Sue Bradford still shows that old green trait of integrity in Donations & Loss Of Property Rights Means Racing Bill Should Be Withdrawn Immediately
The current Green Party didn't put up a speaker and voted for the first reading,. It looks like they have rolled over for NZ First again.
Green supporters keep reiterating how strongly they are opposed to doing any sort of governing deal with National. See https://thestandard.org.nz/wtaf-nz-first/#comment-1686694
Will the Green membership likewise rule out any future deals giving NZ First disproportionate power, which includes the power to ignore governing agreements and sideline the Greens?
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
But if Greens keep wimping along until the election I think there's good chance they won't have to make decision, voters will have decided for them they don't deserve to continue.
What are you saying? Loyal Green voters will desert the party and vote for another party or not vote at all? And how will this help anybody? Sounds like a vengeful reaction one would expect from a petulant child 😉
Not saying anything like that.
I just wonder why Green supporters seem not as staunch at opposing governing with NZ First as they are with National.
I understand they were keen to have a go at being a part of a government. But it looks like they have been burnt by NZ First. Have they learnt any lessons from this? Or do they just have no idea how to deal with it?
So, what are you saying then, in practical terms about people who voted for the Greens in 2017?
I read a lot of words (AKA hot air) but you don’t seem to be saying much.
Try reading what I say rather than what you imagine then.
I said Green membership (not voters), who are said to make key decisions in the party, and who chose to not do any governing arrangement with National. As per weka's comment and link:
Currently James Shaw and the Green Party are being criticised (mostly from the left from what I see).
I think they will improve their chances of surviving the election (in Parliament) if they show some backbone and principles and stopped being walked over by NZ First.
I won't vote for Greens going by their current performance. If they made it clear they disapproved of a number of things NZ First have been doing, like reneging on policy support and abusing the donations procedures I would seriously consider voting for them.
Greens need to differentiate and go back to principles of integrity or on top of being walked over they risk getting dragged down by the threshold gurgler by NZ First.
Hi Pete, I’ll get my eyes checked because this is what I read @ 5.1:
You won’t vote for the Greens and you think other loyal supporters won’t (shouldn’t?) either. This is your practical advice and prediction for the coming election, yes?
To me it sounds like you’re saying that people who formerly voted for the Greens should walk over or away from the party this election unless they stop being ‘wimpy’ and being walked over by NZF? Am I getting this correct or am I imagining it?
You're 'imagining' quite a bit again.
I could vote for the Greens, but not if they wimp along like they are currently.
I expect loyal supporters will continue to vote Greens regardless (or abstain from voting) and I'm not giving them any advice on voting, but there may be less than 5% of them.
When Greens like McDonald and Bradford express concerns about how the Greens are conducting themselves I think they have a real problem. If they don't address it they could miss the cut this election.
That would increase the chances of a National government next term (I won't vote for National under Bridges' leadership as they are going at the moment).
Pretty much what I
imaginedsaid then.I’m glad that you cleared that up, for your decision to not vote for the Greens, and for your prediction that “there may be less than 5% of them”, meaning votes.
It is up to the voters to follow your footsteps (not "advice") and “increase the chances of a National government next term”.
I have cancelled my appointment with the optometrist; there’s nothing wrong with my reading, as it turns out.
You're getting it wrong again. Are you just trying to stir or something?
I haven't made a decision not to vote for the Greens. I made that clear.
I'm not predicting the will get less than 5%. It's an obvious possibility that Greens are concerned about.
"I won’t lie, the last two polls aren’t looking good for us. Last night’s poll marks the second in a row that indicate we are at risk of falling below the 5% threshold." – email from Green Party Campaign Director 14 February.
You really do have a comprehension problem, unless you're deliberately misrepresenting what I've said.
Not stirring, just getting you to be unambiguous, if not for yourself then at least for the readers here.
Your vote for the Greens is conditional on them stopping “wimping”, yes?
A possibility is a prediction of sorts; it could or might happen does not mean it will happen. An analogy: there’s a 60% chance that it will rain tomorrow. Is that a possibility, a forecast, a prediction, or all of the above? Don’t think only in absolute terms.
The voters can do what you do or they can stay unconditionally loyal to the Greens because the alternative (i.e. consequence) of doing what you might do is that they will be out of Parliament after the election. And you still haven’t answered how this would help anybody (except National). Do you expect other voters to behave differently from you?
Please point out where I’m misrepresenting you. I’m trying to point the consequences of your thinking and possible action as expressed so clearly in your comments here.
At least this thread is now about voters and their possible voting behaviour, which is the only thing that we, as voters, have meaningful control over. All the other stuff about the Green membership is irrelevant unless we are members as well. BTW, I take it that you are not a member of the Green Party.
If you're not clear about what I mean why don';t you ask rather than make silly stuff up?
"A possibility is a prediction of sorts"
No it's nothing of the sort – "there’s a 60% chance that it will rain" suggests that there's close to an even chance that it will rain or won't rain. That isn't a prediction, it is multiple possibilities.
"Do you expect other voters to behave differently from you?'
Think about how stupid that question is.
Ok, no unequivocal answers from Pete, today. Just hot air and possibilities galore.
The Greens may go under (5%) if the displeasure of some voters trumps their rational viewing of how politics work. That’ll teach the party keeping wimping along until the election!
I could vote for the Greens, but not if [conditions].
Hot air. I could vote for National or ACT if they were something other than they are, but that would be a meaningless statement to put in a comment.
I think they have a real problem. If they don't address it they could miss the cut this election.
Your "concern" is duly noted. Bottom line is that there's only one party up for election that takes the environment seriously, and that's the Green Party. Labour is mostly lip service only. If you want to base your vote on trivial pissing contests over who dissed whom and who got pwned, feel free, but there are plenty of people who don't make trivia the basis of their vote.
Not hot air. I could vote for Greens again if they looked like they could stand up for what they believed better and showed signs of more effective leadership in government.
I suspect you have never voted for National or ACT and never would, so it's you doing the hot air.
I agree that Greens take the environment far more seriously than any other party in Parliament seriously. Their problem is having their seriousness about the environment taken seriously enough by Labour and especially NZ First.
And on current performance and numbers they don't look like seriously improving on their influence.
Pete George would vote for The Greens, if only they…
I've spoken with The Greens. They've accepted the loss of Pete's vote and the general consensus is:
No
One
Cares.
And if Greens don't care about enough votes to make the threshold, even you should be able to work out what might happen.
Green supporters aren't unique in politics, but a number of them seem more intent on driving away anyone deemed impure than attracting support and votes.
While the Green Party tries hard in social media to attract support they are frequently undermined by supposed supporters who seem to think their ideals are all that's permissible.
An all or nothing approach is likely to end up closer to nothing than everything.
It's just the one vote they don't care about Pete:
Yours.
Now you're free to nail your colours to another mast, Pete!
Any idea who's?
"An all or nothing approach is likely to end up closer to nothing than everything."
Given that there's 100% of votes available, even if The Greens get 49% of the total vote, they'll be, as you declare, "closer to nothing than everything".
The Greens at 49%?
I could live with that.
Don't know who you are referring to (because you haven't said), but in this thread at least, the problem isn't that people won't discuss how the GP might manage their election campaign in the light of NZF and associated issues, it's that you're running concern troll lines that skew the debate away from a left wing perspective on the Greens to one that is paternalistic and not allied with the left (apart from the alleged concern for the Greens going under 5%, but we know that you also vote centre and right so that concern is being taken with a grain of salt).
Everyone's vote is just one vote.
A curious aspect of political forums is there seems to be far more intent to repel support than to attract it.
What “governing agreements” have been ignored, Pete?
https://www.parliament.nz/media/4487/nzlp___gp_c_s_agreement.pdf
https://www.parliament.nz/media/4486/362429780labourandnewzealandfirstcoalitionagreement.pdf
Greens have supported and are supporting (as above) some quite questionable policies implemented for NZ First.
In return they are being vetoed by NZ First.
How on earth is this post about the Greens? Yet you mention them seven times and NZF five times.
Looks like you have just used your comment to regurgitate right-wing attack talking points about the Green Party.
NZ First getting their way on fishing and sanctuary policies, and getting donations from people with large commercial fishing interests, has a lot to do with the relative impotence of the Greens.
Sue Bradford claims to not be a right winger:
If you follow Twitter at all you should see that the strongest criticisms of the Greens are coming from the left. Like:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/395936/high-ranking-greens-member-pulls-pin-before-election
And:
https://twitter.com/MorganGodfery/status/1230760721861902336
Pete George is playing his usual diversionary tactic by trying to spin this post into a critique of the Greens.
To all the idiots in this country who don't understand the laws of the land and are screaming for Ardern to sack Peters forthwith:
You cannot sack someone including a political office holder on the basis of suspicion. If that were the case then hundreds of people in this country would have to be thrown out of their positions on a daily basis – including Simon Bridges.
When the SFO investigation into NZ First is complete and wrong-doing has been established (if it is established), that is the point the prime minister is able to act.
To do so in advance of that point is to undermine the very democratic processes we are supposed to highly value.
Looks like your usual tactic of attacking. I have not suggested that Ardern sack Peters if that's what you're implying. But…
"You cannot sack someone including a political office holder on the basis of suspicion."
You can stand them down pending an investigation or prosecution. Both Helen Clark and John Key did that.
Employment law doesn’t apply in parliament to mp’s and there positions in cabinet.
for someone who has been around politics as long as you have, that’s a pretty basic understanding of how ministerial posts work.
that you are trying to invoke the wrong law to try and make this all look ok from the prime minister shows how desperate labour and its supporters have become in trying to make this a non issue
Morgan and David Cormack have stood out in their strong criticism of the deafening silence from Labour/Greens over the NZ Foundation scam. The influence that the Racing Industry and the Talleys have over this government is disturbing to say the least.
Yes National are hypocrites for being donkey deep in donation issues, while at the same time laying into Winston. But so is every other person who has an issue with National but has essentially has turned a blind eye to Winston.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12308988
https://thestandard.org.nz/green-party-call-for-national-discussion-on-political-party-funding-and-donations-reform/
Hardly deafening silence.
More like a sideline hum in a self-interested beehive.
it doesn't surprise me that you would miss the importance of talking about electoral finance reform at this moment in time. Far easier to just diss.
I fully support electoral finance reform.
However National and Labour have shown far more self interest than will for transparency and fairness in the past and I haven't any sign from either that they want to change their self imposed Swiss cheese rules.
Effective reform won't be easy for more reasons than that.
I'm not sure that a citizens’ assembly is an appropriate way to reform – for anything like that it's an unproven system. And even if a citizens’ assembly came up with practical solutions it would still have to be agreed to by a Parliamentary majority.
And apart from the citizens' assembly idea the Green press release you link to is really quite vague. Like:
Sounds more like electioneering.
Complete public funding of political parties would solve the donations issues and vested interests issues, but it would be difficult to provide 'equal access to democracy'.
Current public funding of parties strongly favours incumbent parties, especially the larger ones, and would make it even more difficult for new parties to compete.
Oh do shut up you incompetent old fool.
Please don't abuse people like that, it just degenerates the conversation.
I accept it was out of line. The conversation had degraded many posts ago as Pete repeatedly posed his patois of paternal preening. Someone had to say it. Debating a concern troll is wasted space and time.
Thanks WTB. You are more than welcome to call him out on his concern trolling (it's calling people names and telling them to shut up that tends to start fires and then the mods get grumpy at the extra work).
Yeah, good point; a moderator should move it to OM.
on it.
You linked to my comment but did you bother reading the link therein? It's pretty clear what the GP position is. They will work with any party on shared policy, including National. The reason they've ruled out supporting National via C/S or forming govt with them is because there is so little shared policy between the two parties now and much of National's platform is directly against GP core values. Pragmatically, the implication that they might support Nat to be govt was probably costing them votes, so they made it even clearer at the 2017 election.
Equally obviously, this isn't true of NZF. If the GP position is that they will compromise on policy but not core values (which is how I understand it), then there is in fact room to work with a government that includes NZF. The Greens don't have to get their own way on every policy. They signalled early on that there would be compromises, because that's how MMP works.
As for ruling out future deals, afaik the Green Party doesn't have a deal with NZF, and doesn't have the power to control what deals Labour makes with NZF. What you seem to be implying instead is that the Greens shouldn't support a Labour-led government that includes NZF. Which would mean that National would get to form government. Which would be an entirely nonsense position for the GP to take (unless it was being asked to compromise on core values, which it is not, thus far).
If Greens think that supporting a Labour-NZ First coalition government the way the current government has operated doesn't compromise their core values then they can go to the voters with that.
But some ex-Green MPs and candidates seem to think those values are being compromised.
Have Green members been asked if they support their party supporting a NZ First dominated government?
The NZ first donation issue looks unlikely to be resolved before the election. I think there's a real risk that will drag them down, and potentially the Greens too if they continue to look like a silent compliant junior party.
Few if any Green members would support their party supporting a NZ First dominated government, but you might want to have wee think about your question.
Indeed.
Ok, have Green members been asked if they support their party enabling a Government that includes NZ First?
They can claim an honest expectation of something better from NZ First this term, but I think they need to show they have learned a lesson about how they have been marginalised by NZ First and would not allow similar again (if they get the chance).
How do you propose that the Green Party prevents NZF from marginalising them next time round? (I personally wouldn't use the term marginalise, but I'm curious to see how you make sense of your own framing).
Active GP members are involved in internal party processes for forming positions on working with other political parties. Which you would know if you read the post you linked to.
"Have Green members been asked if they support their party supporting a NZ First dominated government?"
As opposed to what? Letting National form government?
I think most GP members paying attention are aware of this dilemma here. If you think the GP are compromising their core values, then you'd need to say how you see that. At the moment you just look like you're suggesting the GP should take a stand for an unknown principle that would result in a RW govt that would actively work against all that the Greens hold dear.
Not sure what you are reading, but I'm seeing the GP clearly laying down election year lines with regards to both Labour and NZF. Not lines that are 'do what we want or else', but lines that show voters how the Green Party differ from both Labour and NZF and if voters want what the GP is offering then the GP need more MPs in government come Sept. Which is possibly what you are meaning, I just framed it in the positive instead of the negative.
Considering the Greens have almost the same number of seats as NZF, they have very little say on anything in comparison to NZF. Winston just toys with James Shaw. I still believe Chloe is the future leader of the Greens as Shaw is just too weak whereas Marama is too left leaning for a lot of people (but has a lot more spine than Shaw).
About those polls that suggest Sanders would do as well in November against Sherbert Pervert as more moderate Dems – it seems they rely on a massive boost in turnout among young voters. That 'youth wave' is a mirage appearing at almost every election, but it never eventuates.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/25/21152538/bernie-sanders-electability-president-moderates-data
Here's the view from someone that went through the last time we had a clearly criminal Oval Office occupant, and the left took the opportunity to nominate their no-compromise candidate – that was McGovern in 1972.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/02/25/sanders-supporters-waste-their-vote-doomed-2020-democrat-column/4821921002/
Do you get it's not 1972, and populism on both the left and the right have changed the game? Too Soon….
People tend to believe polls that fit their preconceptions and be sceptical of those that don't. C'est la vie. The race is unfolding now and I am happy just to watch it without pretending to foreknowledge of any sort.
US co2energy emissions plummet in 2019,largest in absolute terms 1 GT since 2000.
The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis – a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt. US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period. A 15% reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019. Coal-fired power plants faced even stronger competition from natural gas-fired generation, with benchmark gas prices an average of 45% lower than 2018 levels. As a result, gas increased its share in electricity generation to a record high of 37%. Overall electricity demand declined because demand for air-conditioning and heating was lower as a result of milder summer and winter weather.
The rise in developing countries from offshoring may account for some.
https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019
Max Rashbrooke makes some good points re: recent child poverty stats. A reduction in poverty might be occurring, and that is good, but the real test will be reducing abject poverty, not the people just under the poverty line.
The fact that NACT has been used a lot here doesn't make it an actual thing.
Last year David Seymour did more good in Parliament than possibly all the National MPs. He deserves credit on his own.
Chloe Swarbrick stood out too, but that doesn't associate her with Labour.
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
[ok, enough Pete. You can definitely sing Seymour’s praises as a man in his own right. You can’t derail my posts, nor repeatedly imply that I used the term in a way I’ve already explained I didn’t. – weka]
Sheesh. It has been used on NZ political blogs for the last decade. Is that really the best problem you can find today?
Sheesh. Is this really the best problem you can find today?
A decade of misuse is still misuse. A strength of MMP is diversity of parties, the term is used to diminish diversity.
Hang on a sec.
National and ACT have been inseparable for a decade and National direct their Epsom supporters to vote for the ACT candidate.
So the term NACT is 100% legitimate.
Labour and nz1 have been inseparable their last two Electoral cycles in government. By your logic the two are inseparable.
But Labour have never had the same relationship with NZF as NACT have had since John Key and the tea-pot tapes.
Key sat down that day with a crook in John Banks, remember?
Unless you count the 2015 Northland by-election. Why was there a by-election? Because Mike Sabin was dodgy.
See the pattern?
Dancing on the head of a pin is so unbecoming.
Labour / nz1 form government. Nz1 gets pilloried for making a Mockery of electoral financing. Labour / nz1 lose the election
cant you see a pattern forming here?
He has all of Epsom to dance on, Climaction. You are the one tripping off the edge of a pin.
No John Key this time.
Good luck anyway, though.
ACT only exists by the grace of the National Party. This is completely different from Labour and the Green Party. As usual, you’re blurring lines and distinctions, which is something National has been doing a lot of too lately. Perhaps one day you could surprise us with an original thought and comment, yes?
If I had something original to criticise from nz1 I wouldn’t sound so repetitive to you.
Here’s an original thought. Labour don’t need nz1 to win the next election. My question is why do they behave like they do?
Somewhere in your neighbourhood a hedge needs trimming.
mod note for you Pete.