web analytics
The Standard
Advertising

This is why we have employment law

Written By: - Date published: 7:36 am, June 30th, 2011 - 61 comments
Categories: military, workers' rights - Tags: , ,

We have a government which is committed to chip chip chipping away at employment law (they call it a “flexible labour market”). Perhaps we as a country need a reminder of just why employment law is necessary:

Defence Force cuts condemned

The way in which the Defence Force has dumped 308 military staff has been met with condemnation, with one union calling it an outrageous abuse of power. The force today announced the first in a series of cuts intended to remove 1000 uniformed personnel and replace them with 500 civilian staff. A similar exercise was expected later in the year. …

Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly said there had been special constitutional reasons why military staff were not covered by employment law and the restructuring was an outrageous abuse of power.

“It’s fine for the Defence Force to restructure, but to then make these workers apply for their own jobs on the open market is simply orchestrating what would be an unfair dismissal in any other normal business, and these men and women deserve more respect than that,” she said. …

A spokesman for acting Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman would not comment, saying it was an operational matter for the force. But Defence Minister Wayne Mapp last week said the civilianisation process would allow the force to get “more work out of fewer people”. …

Assistant chief of personnel Commodore Kevin Keat today said the job cuts would save $23 million in total because they would no longer have to pay the staffs’ uniform allowance, accommodation assistance and health and dental care.

Understandably:

Defence Force cuts leave staff ‘gutted’

Defence staff, although gutted, were too loyal to speak up, so civilian Gary Farrer spoke for them, describing the atmosphere at the base as ‘like a morgue’. “You’re talking about people that have done 30 years. That’s all they know, is service,” he says.

There’s nothing wrong with restructuring, but it should be done with due process and consideration for the individuals involved. Here we see how a workforce without the protection of employment law (or better yet a Union) can be treated. Long serving, loyal staff sacked to get “more work out of fewer people”. If they’re “lucky” some of those cast aside might get civilian versions of their old jobs back, with (effectively) huge pay cuts as a sweetener. Welcome to the epitome of National’s flexible labour market.

61 comments on “This is why we have employment law”

  1. Gosman 1

    Perhaps they should form a union and go on strike then.

    • toad 1.1

      Defence staff cannot legally do so – they have fewer employment rights than anyone else in the workforce. That’s the whole point r0b is making.

      • Gosman 1.1.1

        Yes I was well aware of that. I was being a tad facetious. The problem here though is too much State regulation not too little.

        • bbfloyd 1.1.1.1

          that has to qualify as completely meaningless if you aren’t prepared to at least explain how too much state regulation is the cause of this debacle.

          of course, i’m assuming you aren’t just indulging in apologist behavior for the sake of it.

          • Gosman 1.1.1.1.1

            Why haven’t they got the right to protest against this sort of action?

            • Maynard J 1.1.1.1.1.1

              Because the armed services are seen as essential to the functioning of the state. Are you a complete fucking idiot?

              • Gosman

                No, but you obviously are.

                So the reason they can’t strike or protest is because of a Government regulation.

      • KJT 1.1.2

        Most of the workforce do not have the right to withdraw their labour (Except in extremely limited circumstances) .
        One of the main reasons why workers share of GDP is dropping rapidly.
        In contrast to business owners who are allowed to withdraw capital whenever they wish.
        This just shows how powerless ordinary people really are.

        Neo-Liberals do not care about defense. Except to arm the police to protect those in power when the public finally wake up to the fact they are being robbed.

  2. Bill 2

    Who will the employer be under this impending scenario?

    And if it’s the government, how long before contracting out to private companies occurs?

    And if today it’s ‘office staff’, how long before it is maintenance engineers, catering services etc, ie logistical support?

    And how long before the entanglement with private business interferes with military decision making?

    • Pete 2.1

      “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

      -Dwight D. Eisenhower

    • Gosman 2.2

      “And how long before the entanglement with private business interferes with military decision making?”

      Such as what exactly?

      How would a company involved in providing catering service to the Military influence military decision making? An example of this happening in the real world would help.

      • Brokenback 2.2.1

        Try Halliburton -KBR , for example.

        • Gosman 2.2.1.1

          So Halliburton has actively influenced military decisions in the field have they? Care to show where exactly?

          • vto 2.2.1.1.1

            Iraq and Afghanistan, you silly egg.

            Was it not the vice-president Cheney who had extensive ownership and directorship (or similar) of Haliburton? Was he also not one of the most militant in wanting to get a war underway?

            Same for Rumsfeld.

            • freedom 2.2.1.1.1.1

              you really should pay closer attention to what actually happens in the world.
              Halliburton alias Blackwater are known as Xe ( for almost 2 years now) and currently have over seventy percent of all security contracts paid for by the US government, not to mention the hundreds of billions they recieve in private security projects, in over sixty countries around the globe.

              In a little over ten years a relatively small private security firm has become the largest private army in the World!

              oh and by the way, Lockheed Martin, those nice people who do the top to toe logistic support for Xe group, they are the same who now do ALL logistical supprt for the NZDF for the next ten years.

              So on the question of sacking our soldiers being good for the future of NZ,,, not so much

              • Gosman

                That isn’t evidence,it is left wing conspiracy theory.

                Please show hard evidence, (e.g. an e-mail, memo, or phone call), where a decision made by some Haliburton employee, in their capacity as a Haliburton employee, influenced a military decision in the field to the benefit of Haliburton.

                • freedom

                  Gosman, Xe development is largley from the efforts of Cheney and associated shareholders of private companies that now do multi-billion dollar contract work for the various agencies these same shareholders work for.

                  So play away, ask your assinine questions, Ignore the facts all you like

                  but for your own sanity take off the smoke and mirror glasses. There are some not very nice people with a lot of very big guns ready for you to sit there and play dead

                  • Gosman

                    So you have zero hard evidence then, just supposition?

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Fuck off how are we supposed to have access to Haliburtons corporate data or emails; your demanding that as evidence is ludicrous.

                      Even we had the emails you would dismiss them as irrelevant or a one off case

                      i.e. another Right Wing tactic to waste time and delay

                      Supposition combined with observation is more than enough to act on and talk to people about, and that is what we are doing.

                      NB its clear that when the Right wants to do something or communicate a specific message, “evidence” and “facts” are completely irrelevant and unnecessary.

                      Blackwater wins US$120M US Govt contract

                      http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20008238-10391695.html

                      Gosman = Loser

                    • Bazar

                      Its resonably simple.
                      Do you believe Dick Cheney, who made millions apon millions from blackwater, wasn’t the slightest bit biased as to how the mitiliary should respond and its internal logistics?

                      Large investement in a private war firm, and being in control of a goverment going to war. Its hard not to see him connecting the dots.

                      If you believe he wouldn’t connect the dots because he was unable to, or unwilling, then i’d say your out of touch with human nature or must think hes a saint.

                      So if you can agree that on *some level* cheney influnaced the goverment into giving blackwater extra work, then you have to agree that

                      “And how long before the entanglement with private business interferes with military decision making?”

                      Has already happened on some level.
                      As for
                      “Please show hard evidence, (e.g. an e-mail, memo, or phone call), where a decision made by some Haliburton employee, in their capacity as a Haliburton employee, influenced a military decision in the field to the benefit of Haliburton.”

                      The orginal arguement was never about field command. It was about military decision making, and when the goverment decides to have a private company handle aspects of war logistics, thats influncing military planning.

                    • Bazar

                      Re Viper:
                      This is how you argue points. You read what has been written, and you stick to the points, and you stay factual.

                      You don’t spin off and have a mental wabbly, accuse the poster of playing unfairly, then wrap it up as a right wing conspiricy (and seriously, every time you pick an arguement, its always some right wing conspiricy this or right wing tactic that at play)

                      At least you’ve tried to provide a fact to your post, but i don’t see how its revelant.
                      All it shows is a company getting a contract for security from the goverment. It doesn’t actually prove that the company interfered with military planning, which is what this arguement was about.

                      PS: too late to care about spell checking/grammar.

                • KJT

                  Ah. Come on! The whole war was for the benefit of Halliburton. Exxon and a few other corporations.

                  It was an ex US General who said he had spent his whole career fighting to help US corporations stiff the locals.

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    Smedley Darlington Butler

                    Interesting, it seems that that BBC has been doing more research into the coup that he was asked to lead.

                    According to the BBC, the plotters intended to impose a fascist takeover and “Adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.

                    The proven record of Prescott Bush’s involvement in financing the Nazi war machine dovetails with the fact that he was part of a criminal cabal that actively sought to impose a fascist coup in America.

                    Prescott did not succeed but many would argue that two generations down the line the mission has all but been accomplished.

      • framu 2.2.2

        i cant speak for bill – but to me he’s describing a continum – catering services being contracted out to the private sector is one step – not the conclusion

        so focusing on just catering services is possibly, as you put it “being a tad facetious”

        but i suspect you already know that

    • millsy 2.3

      From what I understand, a large amount of NZDF work will be contracted out to the private sector.

      Areas of note include the NZDF health services. I belive that the White Paper also recommended the closure of the Navy’s hospital at Devonport (a businessman like Dean has no idea of the impact that the loss of the decompression facilites at the naval hospital would have, given that he is all about money and profit)

    • Deadly_NZ 2.4

      @ Bill
      And if it’s the government, how long before contracting out to private companies occurs?

      “It’s fine for the Defence Force to restructure, but to then make these workers apply for their own jobs on the open market is simply orchestrating what would be an unfair dismissal in any other normal business, and these men and women deserve more respect than that,” she said. …

      You obviously only read the title or you would have found it a coupla paragraphs down.

  3. prism 3

    Gosman – For an example in the real world of private business involved in war just look at the USA adventures in the Middle East. Let’s face it, you aren’t interested in examples and thinking about comments here, you have heard the same stuff we have and it has rolled off the shiny slickness of the fixed barriers in your mind. Or perhaps you are just a dilettante with nothing better to do than denigrate comments here in a superior all-knowing manner.

    • Gosman 3.1

      This is just your, (and other leftists) opinion not fact.

      If we were to take the leftist world view all military intervention by a Western nation has been dictated by commercial imperitives.

      However this seems to be regardless of whether or not the military of said western nation has aspects of it being contracted to a private business. How do you explain that?

      • Colonial Viper 3.1.1

        Its not the military being controlled by private business, its Congress and other aspects of the Federal Government.

        And its not so much “controlled” in the traditional sense, as it is one highly networked collaborative entity (the military-industrial-governmental complex).

        • Gosman 3.1.1.1

          Yawn.

          So what were the drinving factors behind Soviet involvement in places like Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, etc given they didn’t have this ‘evil’ capitalist military idustrial complex contolling the politicians?

          • joe90 3.1.1.1.1

            http://www.americablog.com/2011/05/blackwaters-erik-prince-is-setting-up.html

            This is the next phase in privatizing the military. First you bring in the mercs to “supplement” the forces you directly control. Then the mercs outnumber the “conventional” forces. Finally you distribute (diversify) the command-and-control structure so that the mercs are roughly self-directing. (In the computer world, this is called “distributed processing.”)

            That’s the phase I think we’re in right now — distributed command-and-control. It’s an unheard-of situation for a first-world military, but it mirrors the distributed command-and-control of our political process in this post-Citizens United corporate era. Scahill elsewhere says this is “the most radical privatization in our history [and] we’re seeing it full-blown in the war machine.”

            • Gosman 3.1.1.1.1.1

              So no reply to my question about the motivation behind Soviet military involvement in places like Afghanistan etc?

  4. prism 4

    The cutback in military staff in support roles is likely to have an affect on Maori. The Defence Force has a strong Maori presence, and it has become a generational thing. Changing the system to downgrade the jobs of those who have retired from active duty but are still taking part in the military and who are trained, experienced, men and women of integrity is a blow to the career paths and incomes of the active members of the forces.

    The change downgrades employment opportunities and the secure future providing a good living that can usually be expected by skilled people, and could turn out to be a real jolt similar to the loss of employment and security when the railways were ‘privatised’ (to use a phrase that Lockwood Smith says with pursed lips is improper).

  5. Portion Control 5

    There are good reasons why military staff don’t have the same employment rights as other employees. Labour acknowledged this because they have not once sought to change the status of defence personnel.

    “Captain, I wish to bring a personal grievance against Lieutenant Mannering because he yelled at me just because I threw that grenade too early.”

  6. What a load of crap. The army is not some branch of the public service that should be defended in any sense. Its not a branch of the state that acts to reproduce or protect the vulnerable, and don’t we know how these branches really serve the bosses interests in the last analysis.

    No the army serves to defend the state which acts to defend private property. Ostensibly from the foreign enemy, but increasingly from the so-called enemy within. In the last analysis the army functions to suppress revolution against an exploitative and oppressive ruling class (1913 General Strike). Today it is increasingly being hired out as UN mercenaries to police borders (Sinai) or fight insurgents in countries oppressed by imperialism, witness the SAS in Afghanistan.

    So how the army allocates its resources internally is like who gets to be on the Business Roundtable. Its the bosses business. Its not the business of those who claim to be on the ‘left’ unless you too rely on it to stop revolutionaries overstepping the mark and taking up arms against yourselves in power.

    Socialists should be for the abolition of the standing army and for a popular militia. How you go about abolishing the army is the point. Not by unionising it, or seeing it as an equal-opportunity employer, but by conducting campaigns to stop conscription or recruitment as a vocation, such as the military visiting schools to recruit the young, especially Maori; by campaigns that expose the real role of the military; and in the event of wars calling on the ranks to mutiny (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq) cutting off funding; calling on the ranks to support popular movements rather than obey orders to suppress them (Egypt, Libya, Syria etc).

    And don’t get me started on employment law which has historically acted as ‘labour’s leg iron’. Socialists are for ending the wage system, not bending it.

  7. Peter Rabbit 7

    “Socialists should be for the abolition of the standing army and for a popular militia.”

    Dave I’m interested in your above statement and was wondering if would expand on your thoughts around replacing the standing army with a popular militia. In particular:
    How would you envision the militia operating?
    What role(s) would it be responsible for?
    Where would equipment/training come from?
    How would it be deployed?

    • Popular militias arise out of revolutions when the armed people make revolutions and defend them from counter-revolutions. Historically they would include the popular militias in the American Revolution; the Paris Commune of 1871; the armed Soviets in Russia in 1917 and the Red Army that arose to defend the SU from imperialist invasions; the irregular militias that supported the Republic in Spain in the 1930s eg socialist and anarchist militias; the Vietcong etc. Ideally they should be subordinated to the popular organs in the revolutionary society mainly to defend the revolution from reactionary force inside and outside the country. Most historical instances show that so far the counter-revolutionary forces have won eg SU after 1924, and this is often seen as a fault of the revolutionary army (e.g. using violence!) But this is not an argument for abandoning popular militias, rather for having more of them and better organised. Instead of running, Peter Rabbit could have mounted a military takeover of Mr McGregor’s garden.

      • crashcart 7.1.1

        Have to say I am a little annoyed at people who are saying NZDF personel should be downsized because they are an aggresive military. Amazing how one story in the current news about the SAS makes you all forget about the work done by all the branches of the NZDF after both earth quakes in Canterbury. After the second large quake HMNZS Canterbury was already alongside Lyttelton. Within a very short space of time she had disembarked personel and equipment who not only help in securing quake damaged area’s but also fed hundreds of Cantab’s. The ship sailed back and forth between Wellington and Lyttleton delivering supplies and relief to people there.

        Only a year and a half before that she was in the pacific delivering desperately needed aid to islands devestated by the Tsunami. In places such as Nuetaputapu every building on the island had been destroyed and the local populace had not seen a single out sider until Canterbury anchored of the coast and started landing building materials to help rebuild.

        The men and women of our defence force who give up their employments rights and go through seperation from family and friends to help protect and relieve people they have never met before are not the baby killers some of you would like to paint them as. I forget that people like Dave preach equality for every one except those he doesn’t like.

        • dave brown 7.1.1.1

          Crashcart all of the things you say the army is so good at doesnt need an army, but a civilian public service. In fact the student and farmy ‘armies’ have done more good in ChCh than the actual military.

          The other things that the army was used for, APCs and checkpoints were over the top, designed to create a panic of lawlessness and ‘looting’ just as happened in New Orleans after Katrina. This is part of the ‘Shock Doctrine’ of Disaster Capitalism that Naomi Klein talks about where the militarised state response is to label workers ‘looters’ and ‘criminals’ and use force to control them.

          It turned out that in ChCh it was ordinary citizens, incensed at being kept out of the Red Zone that were the ‘enemy'; small businesspeople got thrown out when they protested. One autistic ‘looter’ was arrested and beaten up when collecting light bulbs in empty buildings, another outraged citizen entering his own premises after he had been officially refused access to save a hard-drive with decades of work on it from being destroyed during demolition, was slammed in jail for two weeks and given a psychiatric assessment.

          Who needs this type of army and police? Only the ruling class scared of a breakdown of law and order. And for good reason as we see that is exactly what is happening as the system goes into crisis and begins to breakdown. As soon as the masses appear on the streets, unarmed and peaceful, they are attacked by the armed forces. The bosses call this protest ‘terrorism’ justifying a semi-fascist clampdown on citizens rights.

          I am for equality but this is impossible between capitalist boss and worker. They use the military to force workers to pay for their crisis, or increasingly as mercenaries to suppress freedom fighters. That is why I am for the abolition of the bosses’ system including its army, and its replacement by a workers government defended by a workers’ militia.

          • crashcart 7.1.1.1.1

            Your problem is that you use a couple of extreem examples to paint the entire military. You completely ignore the good they do. You may have guessed I am in the military. I don’t know a single person who isn’t a normal Kiwi just like you or anyone else who wakes up and goes to work in the morning.

            Civilian groups have been helpful but it is for exactly those circumstanes where authority needs to be exersized that police and military are required. I am guessing that you are a believer in the Anarcist system where government is completely removed and we all of a sudden realise that we don’t have to be mean to each other or take advantage of each other and as comunities we will all live happily ever after. I am afraid I just don’t agree. Our system mis far from perfect but the other extreem isn’t the answer either.

            I admire your spirit and energy in your beliefs. I am just dissapointed when you value people who do this work lower than every one else in this country. When you feel that they aren’t entitled to the same rights as every one else. Not a very socialist attitude if you ask me.

  8. Jim Nald 8

    Alasdire has the luxury of employment law working for him.
    His is a kind of meritorious case that deserves the protection of due process :-P

  9. vto 9

    What happens when there is a military crisis and all the civilians go AWOL? Big holes in the defence force capabilities, that’s what.

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha, bloody useless.

    Dumb decision.

  10. ZeeBop 10

    A black man in the South fifty years ago. Wealth is now the new White.
    Criminalizing and dehumanizing the poor and less well paid.
    In 100% pure NZ. Just more slogans to cover the growing proto fascism.
    Hey, just remember Hitler first worshipped the rich, then he targetted
    some rich – Jews. Its the way social cannibalism works, the rich should
    be worried but they are not. Least they forget, first Hitler came for the
    weak, the marginalized, and when he’d used them up, he moved to target
    the middle classes, and even members of the loyal members of his own
    party.
    First the elite must make sure everyone knows they are perfect.
    Then the elite turns on any imperfection as a treat to their perfection.
    Then even the most perfect, the estates of the very richest, are
    opened to the little one orb man from Austria who says he’s a perfect
    German. The hypocrisy, the lies, the inhumanity.

    When you let Key lie you reward the path to a fascist state.
    $50,000 no oops, $100,000.

    • Jim Nald 10.1

      on the pretext of attacking the ‘nanny state’,
      national turns us into the nasty state.

  11. ianmac 11

    Wonder what the pay is for a Defence person before, and then after the restructuring for one doing the same job?

    • ZeeBop 11.1

      Technically? Don’t they have to be able to fire a rifle, etc, and now that is no longer necessary for the job. Like a police office who needs to pass the fitness, put in a non-com and they don’t have to pass the fitness examine.

      What worries me is this under minds the army community, since many roles within the army back office would be taken up by family of servicing personal, who buy into the culture. Now anyone can apply for these positions and displace them. Knowing your loved ones are looked after while on mission surely must help morale, but now National have pretty much destroyed that perk.

  12. Sea bandit 12

    When Labour down sized the NZ Airforce National cried its eyes out Fkn Hippo,s

  13. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 13

    But having employment law apply in this situation would have made no difference to the outcome. The employer would just have to have gone through a cruel charade of pretending to consult with the employees as if they could do something to change the outcome, and then they would have been made redundant anyway.

    • IrishBill 13.1

      The employer would just have to have gone through a cruel charade of pretending to consult with the employees as if they could do something to change the outcome, and then they would have been made redundant anyway.

      But every job that was readvertised with no significant change (i.e. the jobs where uniformed workers were sacked and civilians hired to the same job on lower terms and conditions) would have been grounds for a constructive dismissal and would have been highly likely to have resulted in some kind of recompence such as hurt and humiliation payments and, most likely, reinstatment.

      Redundacies based on outsourcing the work to a contractor (who subsequently hired the same workers back on lessor terms and conditions) would get around that but also bring the extra costs and risks involved in a contracting relationship.

      Defence runs a real risk of having the rehired “civilian” staff immediately unionise and initiate for a collective agreement with claims seeking their previous terms and conditions. I’d imagine that they’d have the right to industrial action as civilians that they don’t have as military personnel.

      Frankly I think this is a badly thought out plan that doesn’t stand a chance of making the savings defense claims it will.

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 13.1.1

        “…the extra costs and risks involved in a contracting relationship.”

        What are these, when compared to having an employee?

        • IrishBill 13.1.1.1

          A cost is the profit margin of the contracting company another is the administration involved in running a tendering process. A risk is the loss of control of the work being done and the quality of the work being done.

          To be clear, if the military-get-out-of-employment-law-free clause didn’t apply defense could not contract the jobs out individually as it would be easy to have independent contracts between defense and individual contractor ruled as employment agreements and thus defense would be back to square one (but with a variety of costs).

      • Colonial Viper 13.1.2

        Frankly I think this is a badly thought out plan that doesn’t stand a chance of making the savings defense claims it will.

        Ley and English are only after the headline numbers in the news for impact, they dont care if any actual savings are realised. If they aren’t the Govt books will be in worse shape than ever = more rationale to sell off our assets = Win win for them

  14. Treetop 14

    Well looks as though there are going to be a lot of ex defence lining up at the Police College. 10 years in the defence force and the pay is above $50,000 but usually below $60,000. Redundancy could be about $50,000. Minus health care and a paid uniform approx $2,000 a year.

    What won’t be missed is being transfered and having to relocate because you are told you have to go there, even if you own your home. Hard on families with school age children or if you own a business.

    I doubt $23 million will be saved because having civilians do military jobs can create problems e.g. cost of employment complaints, attrition and wages.

  15. alex 15

    Everyone calm down. Our defence force currently lacks any fighting capability beyond special forces, but we spend truckloads on fighting capability anyway. To be honest, this seems more like a gradual morphing of the army as it stands to something more useful, i.e what Japan has, which is an army which never operates overseas, unless for disaster relief, and mainly just helps out in the wake of natural disasters. It is a colossal waste of money to spend it on the back-room staff needed to kill people. I was glad when the Clark govt cut the airforce and I’m glad that Key is doing the same with the army. Lets stop wasting money on killing power. We have precious little to throw around.

    P.S. Sorry about the people who lost their jobs, but they work for an organisation that kills people, so not that sorry.

  16. clandestino 16

    I don’t quite understand why people are caring about army personnel aside from the personal, emotional response.
    The way I see it, our defence force is a giant waste of money in the first place, indulging boyhood fantasies of playing soldier. All those ‘military attaches’ at embassies and consulates around the world, uniformed ‘officers’ in Wellington, ‘Colonels’ hanging out back office at Waiouru etc. are/were making big bucks directly off our dollar and the large majority do not fight and have not for 40 years.
    Is that value for money? I don’t think so, and accept we don’t need them.

  17. MrSmith 17

    Comparing NZ to the US as some have been, isn’t very helpful, as there can be no real comparison.
     
    As much as I am anti the US military and fighting wars etc in general, there is something just around the corner, that most have there heads still firmly buried in the sand about, and thats climate change, the crises thats unfolding as we speck.
     
    We think sitting down here at the bottom of the world nobody notices us, but once the market for climate change relocation&refugee’s becomes a business, legal or otherwise, our shores may see ships and boats arriving nightly. We should be preparing for dealing with this now, it’s called being prepared and the numbers are in on this one, but thinking is always hard for the Nact’s as there’re generally busy only thinking about their wallets. Hey!, maybe the market will provide like it has in CHCH.

    • Draco T Bastard 17.1

      Yep, when relocation of a few billion people becomes inescapable a lot of those people will be looking this way. At that point, we’re going to need a defence force capable of actually defending us.

      • rosy 17.1.1

        at that point, we’re going to need a defence force capable of actually defending us

        I disagree… but only because we will have already sold-off our land and laws to those who will most need our food production capacity.

        • KJT 17.1.1.1

          No we won’t. China and USA will happily defend the land we sold them from each other.

        • Draco T Bastard 17.1.1.2

          What is our sustainable food production capacity without oil? Hint: It’s not what we’re producing now.

  18. Drakula 18

    Contracting out to private firms is definately going to be more expensive to the taxpayers because contractors are businessmen and like all capitalists they are going to slap on a profit.

    For those who don’t believe me then just consider how our local body rates have soared in the last twenty years.

    The defence force are doing exactly the same!!!

    It’s just another gravey train!!!!!!

Important links

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Waihopai – years on, still the same
    On 24 January, I attended the Waihopai Base protest in my electorate.  It was attended by a great range of people who are all concerned about the direction our country is heading in.  Thank you to all of those who… ...
    GreensBy Steffan Browning MP
    17 hours ago
  • Greens call for ring-fencing of state home proceeds
    The Government must ring-fence the proceeds of any state home sales and spend every dollar raised on more Government-built homes in order to address the housing crisis, the Green Party says.Prime Minister John Key has indicated that his first major… ...
    GreensBy Kevin Hague MP
    2 days ago
  • English breaks his $6000 wages promise
    Just one month into the new year Bill English has already rowed back on his election promise of real wage rises for New Zealanders, says Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson. “During the election campaign National promised Kiwis that the average… ...
    7 days ago
  • National fails to produce evidence justifying attack on RMA
    The National Government is misusing evidence provided in the Motu report on planning rules to justify gutting the environmental protections secured by the Resource Management Act (RMA), says the Green Party today. The Motu group's research into the impacts of… ...
    GreensBy Julie Anne Genter MP
    7 days ago
  • National fails to produce evidence justifying attack on RMA
    The National Government is misusing evidence provided in the Motu report on planning rules to justify gutting the environmental protections secured by the Resource Management Act (RMA), says the Green Party today. The Motu group's research into the impacts of… ...
    GreensBy Julie Anne Genter MP
    7 days ago
  • RMA changes won’t knock a dollar off the cost of a new home
    The Government’s proposed changes to the RMA won’t increase the number of affordable homes or knock a dollar off the cost of building a new house, Labour Leader Andrew Little says.  “Tinkering with the RMA will not solve National’s housing… ...
    1 week ago
  • Palestine – NZ talks loudly in New York, does little at home
    Even though New Zealand has been gently slumbering over the last few weeks, world affairs have been progressing at its usual break-neck speed. There have been a number of significant steps since we all disbanded from the last parliamentary year.… ...
    GreensBy Kennedy Graham MP
    1 week ago
  • DOC debacle means hundreds may have missed out on fishing licences
    Hundreds of families and recreational fishers may have had their holidays spoiled by missing out on their fishing licences, with Conservation Minister Maggie Barry preferring instead to focus on more high profile portfolio priorities over the summer break, Labour’s Conservation… ...
    1 week ago
  • Effective action needed against pirate fishing boats
    New Zealand’s failure to detain pirate shipping vessels poaching endangered species in our region is simply not good enough, Labour’s Defence spokesperson Phil Goff says. “We send New Zealand naval vessels to the Arabian Gulf to board pirate ships there… ...
    1 week ago
  • Housing affordability crisis gets worse under National
    News that Auckland’s housing is now among the 10 most unaffordable in the world confirms the Government’s housing policy has failed, Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford says. “After six years in power, National’s housing policies have not fixed the housing… ...
    1 week ago
  • Rheumatic fever rates continue to soar despite millions spent on prevention...
    The Government’s $65 million spend on rheumatic fever prevention has made little impact on the alarmingly high rate of the disease among young New Zealanders, Labour’s Health spokesperson Annette King says. “Latest figures from ESR show there were 235 notified… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Speech to the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum in Quito, Ecuador
    I was honoured to speak to the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, calling for cooperation and action on climate change. You can read my speech below. Greetings from New Zealand in our first language – kia ora nga mihi nui… ...
    GreensBy Gareth Hughes MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Government wipes off $5 billion in tax debt
    Since coming to office, the National Government has written off $5 billion* in tax debt owed by more than a million, Labour MP Stuart Nash says. "There are two sides to the New Zealand economy under the National government: the… ...
    3 weeks ago

Public service advertisements by The Standard

Current CO2 level in the atmosphere