web analytics
The Standard
Advertising

Thin end of the wedge to get thicker?

Written By: - Date published: 11:38 am, June 10th, 2013 - 54 comments
Categories: capitalism, workers' rights - Tags: ,

The Nats’ attacks on workers rights and conditions started with the “fire at will” (90 day probation) Bill. No surprise to find pressure from employers to double the duration:

Union alarm at talk of longer work trial

Trade unionists have labelled a suggestion by the Employers and Manufacturers’ Association to double the current 90-day trial period for employees as “disgraceful”. …

EMA manager of employment services David Lowe said it was hard to manage employees with fluctuating performance, and extending the 90-day trial to 180 days would allow employers to identify potential issues with workers.

If the Nats buy in to this there will be no end to the process. 180 days won’t be long enough, better double it to a full year. Two years. Do away with employment security altogether. All in the name of stimulating the economy of course.

54 comments on “Thin end of the wedge to get thicker?”

  1. Lanthanide 1

    I’m in the position right now where one of my team members has been employed for a job that he doesn’t really have the skills to do. We’re not entirely sure how he made it through the interview process, but he did.

    If we had realised during the 90 day period that he didn’t have the required skills, we would have showed him the door at that point. It is now however past the 90 day period, so we must follow the normal performance management process. At the moment, this particular employee is managing to perform well enough to avoid a more formal performance monitoring process.

    This is definitely as it should be, and I see no reason why we, or anyone else, should need the duration extended out to 180 days. It is time consuming (and hence expensive) to remove someone from the business if they’re under-performing, and the process itself also must be carefully managed so as to avoid potential grievance etc claims. But that’s our fault for hiring someone that we shouldn’t have hired, and not properly monitoring them in the first 90 days to see if they could do the job. The employee should not be punished for our mistakes.

    • Shona 1.1

      Here’s a thought Lanth, how about your business ‘trains ‘ this hapless individual so they do have the skills required. Oh and he/ she got thru’ the interview process because the interview process is inadequate. Any chance that it will be reviewed? I doubt it NZ businesses don’t bother with questioning their processes or training anyone any more. So of course people lie to get through an employment system that is stacked against them all the way.

      • Macro 1.1.1

        +100

      • Lanthanide 1.1.2

        Because actually it turns out, my employer is not a university, and it is not our job to train someone for 3 years how to be a software developer. We employ people to contribute to the business, if they can’t contribute to the business, they shouldn’t be employed.

        Also, as I said above, the employee is currently performing at a level where a formal monitoring process is not required. We have been assisting him and modifying our normal work to accommodate him, but he still isn’t performing at a level we would expect from someone in his position with his length of time at the company.

        “Any chance that it will be reviewed?”

        Yes, we’ve discussed it and have made changes.

        “So of course people lie to get through an employment system that is stacked against them all the way.”

        In this case I don’t believe there was any deliberate lying involved, although I wasn’t present during the interview process so I don’t really know for sure.

        • Macro 1.1.2.1

          So just like every other business yours just wants to take, take, take, and never give anything back. Businesses have a duty to train – yes even software developers.
          If the young person whom you employed had a relevant qualification – and that wasn’t up to scratch – then that is something else, and maybe you need to look at your selection criteria. But having made a bad choice it really is the ethical duty to make the best of a bad choice.

  2. Tiger Mountain 2

    Precarious short term employment many years ago was “seagulling” on the wharf, maybe you got picked maybe you did not. But in the 50s, 60s, to mid 70s there was a hell of better chance of full time employment on “Award” wages and conditions all over New Zealand.

    Security of and more hours per week/day are a persistent need for many workers now. Employment agencies and contract working increase the modern day precarious work ranks. The trial period puts downward pressure on wages via management by stress. Small business people are under stress too in some cases from the banks etc, but stuff ’em if they think exploiting workers is the way out.

  3. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 3

    The problem Helen Kelly has is that she told us the world would end when the 90 day period came in. Employees would be getting buggered by employers on the High Street.

    And, the truth is, it’s not really causing any problems.

    • woodpecker 3.1

      If that’s true, why the need to double it to 180 days?

      • Polish Pride 3.1.1

        because often employers are so busy just trying to survive in the current economic climate they don’t have the time or resources to determine whether an individual is performing as he needs to be. It is also not to give them more time to get rid of an individual, but you might be at the 6 or 8 week mark before you realize there is a problem. Then you have to provide feedback and assistance to see if the problem can be fixed. Many times 3 months just isn’t long enough, 6 would be better for both the employer and the employee in many cases. In the instance where the proper steps have been taken and the employee still can’t do the job then the employer should be able to sit them down and say we have done this, that and the other and its still not happening. I’m sorry but we have to let you go.
        Despite what many on here will think, employers would rather the employee work out and be a good fit. They really do not want to have to go back to recruitment. It is a time consuming costly exercise. Resources are far better spent elsewhere, going back to recruitment is for most employers not an attractive option.

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1

          If an employer or manager hasn’t stayed awake for the first 90 days then they deserve to go out of business.

          Also this measure shows how ‘No Idea’ the National Party is currently at.

          • Polish Pride 3.1.1.1.1

            It’s not that they are not awake it is that they are stretched beyond capacity.
            The second part is true but this in my experience would actually benefit both employers and employees in he current economic climate. They might be bereft of ideas but that doesn’t make this a bad policy.

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1.1

              How on earth can you advocate for a policy which gives employers far more powers and gives employees only insecurity as being a good policy?

              The poor “current economic climate” has been caused by people like you who do not understand that job insecurity destroys economic growth.

              That tells me that you do not give a fuck about the balance of power between employees and employers. Or if you do, you prefer that the hand of employers are always strengthened as a priority.

              It’s not that they are not awake it is that they are stretched beyond capacity.

              Rubbish. That’s employer laziness and incompetence that you are excusing.

              If business is really that busy then why aren’t workers being better paid?

      • Polish Pride 3.1.2

        We use the 90 day rule. We have hired about 10 people on it since it came legislation. 1 of those 10 people didn’t make it. We did what we were supposed to do but they hadn’t come up to speed enough. They were let go because of risk. The 90 days was coming up and we had a choice.
        Let them go before the 90 days
        Take the risk with them and have to go through a lengthy process of warnings and BS if they didn’t cut the mustard.
        Now here’s the kicker. If it was 180 days we would have been happy to take more time to develop the person and try to get them up to speed. They would probably still be with us. 90days in business is a very short time, often too short.
        Without the 90 day rule we would have avoided hiring unless we really really had to.
        I have been both an employee (for many years) and an employer. Many on here have it dead wrong on employer motivations on things like this. It might surprise many but employers never hire someone not wanting them to work out and would rather help someone get up to speed rather than can them and go back to the recruitment process which is very time consuming and takes resource away from doing other activities to progress the business.

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.2.1

          I’m sure you won’t mind it if your work site becomes fully unionised then.

          The union will be able to help you properly assessing, mentoring and training workers, since you seem to be having so much trouble yourself, being “overstretched” or whatever example you used.

          As an employer I’m not surprised that you like the idea of making sure that all your new employees remain precarious as long as possible.

          It is cruel and unnecessary.

          Frankly, we’d be better off with employers with a better attitude than yours. The real job creation has to come from government.

          • Polish Pride 3.1.2.1.1

            I have to be honest the idea of my site becoming fully unionized scares the shit out of me simply because they have the ability to cripple business. I trust them about as much as you trust employers. Besides if they really cared about workers, their goal would be to free them from having to work (ok lets not go there this time)

            as for your last comment soooo wrong. 6th year been to hell and back. Never been paid a cent. Always put staff first. Company breaking even so paying staff as much as we can. no one on less than $15 per hour low staff turnover, good culture, Staff will get increases as revenue improves still before I get paid. Good flexibility with staff personal problems (after all everyone has em) Plenty of opportunity for staff to advance, learn new skills take on new roles. Even had a staff member turn down a job paying 40K more in another different role elsewhere because she didn’t want to leave.

            Job Creation comes neither from Govt or Business. Job Creation comes from the working class and middle class.
            They are the ones that spend their money and allow businesses and an economy to grow. Employ policy that reduces wages and you will struggle to grow your economy as they will have less to spend with businesses. Employ policy that reduces wages and your tax take will be lower and Govt will not be able to employ as many people, who again are mostly middle class, and who again spend their money with businesses and so on.

            I have picked up one thing we can improve on though from your comments. We can let them know that we want them to be here, and that if they have any issues or questions or if there’s anything they are unsure of, just ask. No one should ever get in trouble for asking questions. It served me very well in my career.

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.2.1.1.1

              But you can’t create rules for a frakking country based on the experience and organisational culture of your one frakking business.

              What do we do, clone you off 500,000 times so you can be boss of all the other employees around the country?

              And you seem plenty fine with holding all the power as the employer, as the wise old trusty boss.

              as for your last comment soooo wrong. 6th year been to hell and back. Never been paid a cent. Always put staff first.

              FFS so you got your halo intact and shiny, but I’m sorry, when you look at the behaviour of big employers like Air NZ, Talleys and Subway, you are in the moral minority mate.

              Keeping people in precarious employment is absolutely wrong and the fact is that you are on the wrong side of this discussion, despite your self styled halo.

              • Polish Pride

                Ahhh but I’m pretty sure having an end goal of freeing all workers from having to work in order to survive puts me back on the right side and the Unions at best somewhere in the middle.

                I’ve always thought it would be far easier if I could be just installed as a dictator than trying to change the world from where I am now. :)

                On a more serious not I’d have instant respect for unions and would encourage all my workers to join if they would actively and vigorously lobby govts to a system that frees workers from having to work yet still provides the tings that we all need and want.

                • Colonial Viper

                  as creditable as that may be, it reinforces my point that we cannot design the laws and regulations of a whole nation based on the example of your management ethos and practices.

                  I’ve always thought it would be far easier if I could be just installed as a dictator than trying to change the world from where I am now. :)

                  Even a dictator needs a semblance of legitimacy if he/she is to survive in the long run.

    • vto 3.2

      And vice versa of course, with the proviso that having no 90 day trial improves the position of people less well off. Not that that matters to people such as you eh…. it is all about the well off.

      You guys always act against your own best interests like the gormless fools you are. Example – paying the low paid a living wage rather than a minimum wage (read slave wage) would increase the amount of money being spent in the domestic economy and thus boost all business.

      • Kevin Welsh 3.2.1

        The problem vto, is that a lot – but not all – employers see their hired help as a comodity, and treat it accordingly.

    • Poission 3.3

      The 90 day rule has caused problems for employers,by making it more difficult to hire both skilled and unskilled staff as they are less likely to tradeoff security (tenure) for insecurity.

      Additionally the insecurity from having high rates of temporary workers is an impediment for increased productivity,

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/better-business/8776416/Low-productivity-costs-firms-30-billion

      Bridges fits in well with the Troika ( key english and Joyce) he is the thick end.

    • Unionist 3.4

      Department of Labour research shows one in five workers hired under the 90 day period is sacked. That’s a very high ratio.

      The reality is very few of these people are in unions (unions tend to have collective agreements so 90 fire at will clauses don’t apply) so have no voice when things go wrong.

      I know from personal experience that it’s more common than you’d think, and people who are sacked under it are very unwilling to go public for obvious reasons.

  4. keith ross 4

    the worse thing about the 90 day trial is that it makes movement in the work force a risky business. One does not know if the employer is going to do the right thing or not. This means that if you have a crap boss or job it is a gamble to toss it in for a new job,locking workers into whatever they can get. The same thing was my experience living in the USA, people were to scared to change jobs because they may lose benefits(medical) locking them into their present job. Freedom to change employers should be a right that is protected not undermined. Perhaps well off people or well educated people do not experience this but it is one of the “non measured” effects of this law. making it 180 days is ridiculous and further undermines the ability of the worker to get a fair deal in the market. A great example of legislating the scales in favor of the already well off.(most employers are bettor off than the people they are hiring)

  5. Colonial Viper 5

    You guys are missing one of the most important aspects of this legislation. It dissuades existing long serving staff from waka jumping to another employer due to reasons of insecurity in a new job.

    that reduction in labour mobility is a crucial cost saving for employers not wanting to take on new staff but also not wanting to deal with the costs of staff turning over.

    • fatty 5.1

      true…and that is also the reason why unemployment over 5% is also wanted (govt fantasy figures, not real unemployment). The last thing employers want is employee choice (to use a neoliberal buzzword).

      Coming from National, this de-powering of workers is unsurprising…but what is Labour’s stance. Does Labour have a policy of full employment? Anything less is a disgrace.

      • Rhinocrates 5.1.1

        I think it has something to do with being “realistic”. Ie., making sure that they have the very best deck chairs at the bottom of the North Atlantic rather than sailing into New York Second Class.

    • Te Reo Putake 5.2

      CV, it also discourages new workers from joining the union, if there is one at the workplace, which is another cost saving for the employer.

  6. Winston Smith 6

    I hope the Labour dredge up more examples like they did when the 90 day was brought in, most amusing when it was discovered the examples just happened (pure coincidence of course) to be member of the youth wing of the Labour party

    About the only interesting thing they had on red alert…

    • Draco T Bastard 6.1

      [citation needed]

      And, no, Kiwblog and Whaleoil are not valid references.

    • QoT 6.2

      Holy shit. People in New Zealand are, like, connected to each other! It must be a conspiracy, there’s no other way to explain how people might know each other in a country of 4 million.

  7. infused 7

    To be perfectly honest, the 90 day trail has been the best thing that’s ever happened in business in along time.

    However, I don’t think there is a reason to extend it passed 90 days. If you are on top of your management process, issues will crop up quickly.

    I also wouldn’t call this action disgraceful. I’m sure there is the odd few that can slip through, which is why this should be a small business law only.

    It’s costly to change out staff. I just gave the biggest pay rises I’ve ever given to keep staff this year.

    • framu 7.1

      considering you could use trial periods pre 90 day law – what made things so different for you once the law came into effect?

      • infused 7.1.1

        Where is the law stating that before the 90 day trail period was implemented?

        • framu 7.1.1.1

          well it doesnt exist now does it :-)

          AFAIK it used to be completely legal to specify a non-binding trail period for new employees as long as it was written into the contract that was agreed to.

          I know my boss used (and still uses) them for all new and unproven employees. (and not the 90 day one either)

          The only difference was you had to give a reason that was open to being challenged if you didnt keep them on

          • fatty 7.1.1.1.1

            framu, you made the mistake of thinking that infused might want to back up the claim that the “90 day trail has been the best thing that’s ever happened in business in along time”

            The best you can hope for is some vague comment, which in reality translates as “I’m a shit boss” (see 7.2.1 below)

            • infused 7.1.1.1.1.1

              How do I even need to back that up? It’s an opinion.

              How am I a shit boss? I’ve only ever written it in to one contract and never fired anyone with it.

              • fatty

                How do I even need to back that up? It’s an opinion.

                Well done, you’ve just backed it up by admitting its only an opinion. The way you wrote it originally suggested you might have some reasoning behind the statement

                How am I a shit boss?

                You’re a shit boss because you hire shit employees, even when unemployment is at an historically high level. That shows that non-shit workers don’t want to be involved with you…or am I missing something?

              • framu

                yes its an opinion – but it seems its an opinion based on ignorance of employment law.

                your claiming its the best thing thats happened in ages – ive have pointed out that you didnt need the 90 day law to start with as there were already trial periods at your disposal.

                As with all new laws passed by anyone, its helpful to look at whats changed – not what its promoters claim it does

                so… is it still the best thing to happen in ages? or has a little bit of knowledge changed your opinion?

          • Unionist 7.1.1.1.2

            Exactly. The law always allowed for a fair dismissal in the first 90 days. All that’s changed in the law is employers are allowed to dismiss unfairly and can’t be challenged on it.

            • infused 7.1.1.1.2.1

              They can be challenged on it.

              • Colonial Viper

                On what grounds?

                • Jim Davis

                  Only on direct human rights grounds if they’re stupid enough to say ‘you’re fired because you’re a Jew’ or similar. If they just say ‘you’re fired’ and don’t give a reason they don’t have to provide one. Or if they say ‘you’re fired because you’re not performing’ that’s okay too, because they don’t have to prove or quantify non-performance so no one can challenge it. It really is a shit of a law.

    • Colonial Viper 7.2

      To be perfectly honest, the 90 day trail has been the best thing that’s ever happened in business in along time.

      Sad if that’s really the case. In summary it describes how poorly National has performed at improving small and medium business growth in this country.

      • infused 7.2.1

        I don’t think you realise how big a deal it was trying to get rid of shit employees.

        • McFlock 7.2.1.1

          Much, much easier than getting rid of a shit employer.

          So what was the difficulty for you: giving clear expectations and feedback of employee performance; or that fiddly “good faith” lah-di-dah pc-gone-mad hogwash?

        • Colonial Viper 7.2.1.2

          I don’t think you realise how big a deal it was trying to get rid of shit employees.

          Oh yeah, it was sometimes a problem, some employees would raise a PG on leaving in the hope of getting an extra $2K to $3K pay out for no reason.

          But the solution to an unfair practice is not to can due process entirely and institute more unfair practices.

        • framu 7.2.1.3

          considering youve demonstrated a woeful lack of knowledge regarding employment law – im not that surprised

  8. fambo 8

    Like other right wing organisations attacking workers etc, the Employers and Manufacturers’ Association has no self defined boundaries. The only one it knows is the fence put up to keep it from running riot. The present government is cut from the same cloth.

  9. georgecom 9

    If the EMA are consistent, what they really want is fire at will. Any day of the week an employer can sack a worker for any reason.

    “EMA manager of employment services David Lowe said it was hard to manage employees with fluctuating performance, and extending the 90-day trial to 180 days would allow employers to identify potential issues with workers”.

    Thats a really weak justification for extending the sacking period. If ‘fluctuating performance’, I imagine employers would want to sack a person AT THE POINT the performance fluctuated, be it 60, 90, 180 or 360 days. That being the case, just come out and state as such honestly and clearly rather than use some weak excuse.

  10. George D 10

    I’d be surprised if the National Government did this. It’s bad politics.

    (Yes, it’s awful, but that’s not why they’d refrain from it.)

  11. millsy 11

    Hi infused (and others),

    Just wondering if you see your workers as expendable beasts of burden to be thrown away?

    Cheers
    Millsy
    (real name withheld)

    • Macro 11.1

      Of course they do! That’s why its called an “H R” Human Resource.

      Resource according to the online dictionary is “A stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function”.

      It used to be a “personal department” but that had the unfortunate connotation that you were actually dealing with PEOPLE.

Important links

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

1 2 3 7

  • 50 cents? Makes no sense.
    The minimum wage rose by 50 cents this month from 14.25 to 14.75. While it’s a small step towards ensuring minimum workers get a fair share, it’s important to remember that real wages only rose 1.5% while productivity rose by… ...
    GreensBy Denise Roche MP
    2 hours ago
  • The Serco corrections circus
    It should seem obvious to employers, private or public, that it’s important to do what you can to retain your best, most experienced staff. They make life easier for you because they’re effective, attentive and often respected by those around… ...
    GreensBy David Clendon MP
    3 hours ago
  • Time for NZ to prohibit the killing of great apes
    That ban was widely hailed, and spurred efforts in other countries to get similar bans. However, apes are still being exploited, abused and killed, both in captivity and in the wild. Examples of cruelty, neglect and abuse abound. Apes are… ...
    GreensBy Mojo Mathers MP
    3 days ago
  • Auckland building consents: Tragic
    The only word to describe the latest building consent figures for Auckland is ‘tragic’, Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford says. “Whatever the Government is doing to address the Auckland housing crisis, it is clearly not working. ...
    3 days ago
  • A whiff of a new biosecurity scandal?
    A pest which could create havoc for New Zealand’s horticulture and agriculture sector must be as much a focus for the Government as hunting out fruit flies, Labour’s Biosecurity spokesperson Damien O’Connor says. “While the Ministry for Primary Industries is… ...
    3 days ago
  • Government shrugs off health sector crisis
    Despite new evidence showing that cuts to health spending are costing lives the Government continues to deny the sector is struggling, Labour’s Health spokesperson Annette King says. “Health services in New Zealand are in crisis. ...
    4 days ago
  • Parata lowered the bar for failing charter school
    When Hekia Parata became aware that the Whangaruru charter school was experiencing major problems her first action was to drop standards by reducing the number of qualified teachers they had to employ, Labour’s Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins has revealed. “Hekia… ...
    4 days ago
  • National not being straight about the economy
    John Key and Bill English need to be straight with New Zealanders about the damage their failure to diversify the economy is doing, after new figures show export growth plunged due to a collapse in dairy exports, says Grant Robertson.… ...
    4 days ago
  • Mind the Gap
    This week the International Monetary Fund released a report on the wider economic value in closing the gender pay gap. When even the bastions of free-market economics start to raise concerns about gender pay gaps, we have to realise how… ...
    GreensBy Jan Logie MP
    4 days ago
  • Labour will hold National to parental leave promise
    Labour will hold National to its promise to increase the support given to new parents of premature, multiple birth and babies born with disabilities, Labour’s paid parental leave campaigner Sue Moroney says. "I am naturally disappointed that after battling for… ...
    5 days ago
  • It was all just pillar talk
    Steven Joyce’s confession that he can no longer guarantee a pillar-free design for the New Zealand International Convention Centre shows the Government has abandoned its dream of creating an ‘iconic’ ‘world-class’ structure, says Labour Economic Development spokesperson David Clark. “Steven… ...
    5 days ago
  • Australians move on offshore speculators
    John Key might want to have a quiet word with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott about Canberra's just-announced crack down on offshore speculators when he visits New Zealand this week, Labour's Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford says."Tony Abbott's centre right government… ...
    5 days ago
  • Government at odds on overseas driver crashes
    National backbencher Jacqui Dean has spoken out about overseas driver crashes, putting herself at odds with Prime Minister John Key who is on record as saying it’s not a big issue, Labour’s Transport spokesperson Phil Twyford says. “I’m not surprised… ...
    5 days ago
  • Human Rights and the Palestine Crisis
    Last week I heard two Palestinians speak at Wellington events about the ongoing crisis in their country. Samar Sabawi spoke to a full house about the history of Palestine and gave us a lucid and disturbing account of the situation… ...
    GreensBy Catherine Delahunty MP
    5 days ago
  • Time to take real care of our kids
    An Amnesty International report has once again criticised New Zealand’s track record on looking after our kids, Labour’s Children’s spokesperson Jacinda Ardern says. The annual report, which looks at global human rights abuses highlights not only the fact that high… ...
    5 days ago
  • John Key wrong about Labour’s war vote
    John Key’s desperate claims that the former Labour Government didn’t put combat troop deployment to a Parliamentary vote are simply wrong, Labour’s Defence spokesperson Phil Goff says. “It was disgraceful that the Prime Minister ran rough shod over democracy and… ...
    5 days ago
  • Māori language bill needs work
     It is clear that the first draft of the Māori Language Bill was about structures and funding rather than the survival of te reo Māori, Labour’s Māori Development Spokesperson Nanaia Mahuta says.  “Labour is pleased that the Minister of Māori… ...
    5 days ago
  • Report proves troubled school shouldn’t have opened
    The long-awaited release of an Education Review Office report into Northland’s troubled Whangaruru charter school proves it should never have been approved in the first place, Labour’s Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins says. “This report identifies problems with absenteeism and disengaged… ...
    6 days ago
  • Reply to PM’s statement on deploying troops to Iraq
    “The decision of any Government to send troops to a conflict zone is a very serious one, and it is right that this House takes time to consider it, to debate it, and, ideally, to vote on it, but we… ...
    6 days ago
  • Minister must take action on death trap slides
    Workplace Relations Safety Minister Michael Woodhouse must take urgent action to ensure inflatable amusement rides don’t become death traps for children, Labour’s spokesperson on Labour Relations Iain Lees-Galloway says. “No one wants to stop kids having fun, but horror stories… ...
    6 days ago
  • Manus Island and the New Zealand Government
    This week the Greens have participated in awareness activity about Manus Island, the refugee camp on an island in Papua New Guinea where Australia dumps asylum seekers. John Key says that he has every confidence in the Australian Government’s claim… ...
    GreensBy Catherine Delahunty MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Election Inquiry – Getting accessible voting on the agenda
    James Shaw has been doing a series of blogs on the Election Inquiry into last year’s general election.  I thought this was a great opportunity to raise an issue very dear to me – accessible voting. Last year’s general election… ...
    GreensBy Mojo Mathers MP
    2 weeks ago
  • RMA changes no solution to Christchurch housing
    Housing will continue to be a big issue in 2015. The latest Consumer Price Index, released last month, shows both good news and bad news on the housing front. After years of being the most expensive place to build a… ...
    GreensBy Eugenie Sage MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Saving kokako in South Auckland’s Hunua Ranges
    It is amazing that you can hear the song of the endangered North Island kokako in South Auckland’s Hunua Ranges, less than 50 kms from the central city. A heavy schedule of policy workshops at the Green Party’s Policy… ...
    GreensBy Eugenie Sage MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Let’s not turn a blind eye to human rights
    The Cricket World Cup has just opened in New Zealand, and it’s an opportunity for us to shine on the world stage. International sport can be a chance for us to build relationships with other countries, and examine what it… ...
    GreensBy Catherine Delahunty MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Its Just Not Cricket
    This week it was my privilege to work with Sri Lankan Tamil communities in this country and host Australian journalist and human rights advocate Trevor Grant. I knew a bit about Trevor from his biography but I didn’t know just… ...
    GreensBy Catherine Delahunty MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Time for NZ to #BeCrueltyFree
    The Government is about to progress the final stages of the Animal Welfare Amendment bill. This will be our last opportunity to get changes made to improve the bill to ensure a better outcome for animals. I have put forwards… ...
    GreensBy Mojo Mathers MP
    2 weeks ago
  • We want access!
    Access to buildings is a big issue for many New Zealanders. It looks like that, due to the hard work and persistence of people in the disability community, the Government may finally be starting to take access to buildings seriously.… ...
    GreensBy Mojo Mathers MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Greens call on Super Fund to divest from fossil fuels
    The Green Party today called on the New Zealand Superannuation Fund (the Fund) to divest from fossil fuels, starting immediately with coal. The call was accompanied with a new report, Making money from a climate catastrophe: The case for divesting… ...
    GreensBy Russel Norman MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Young Kiwis’ housing crisis
    Shelter is a fundamental human need along with food, water and clean air. All humans need adequate shelter; it’s a human right. Warm, safe, stable accommodation is critical for young people to be able learn and grow and just be.… ...
    GreensBy Jan Logie MP
    3 weeks ago

Removed at the request of The Daily Blog.
Public service advertisements by The Standard

Current CO2 level in the atmosphere