90 day trial – no lie too outrageous for National

Written By: - Date published: 7:22 am, June 18th, 2016 - 52 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, jobs, john key, national, spin, workers' rights, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: , , , , , ,

In 2008 National introduced the 90 day trial (fire at will) policy. They said it was all about creating jobs:

Workplace policy: expanding job opportunities
Thursday, 24 July 2008, 9:44 am
Press Release: New Zealand National Party
John Key MP National Party Leader

National’s Employment & Workplace Relations policy will expand job opportunities for those having difficulty getting work and let businesses grow, says National Party Leader John Key.

“National believes employment law should treat employees and employers fairly, expand opportunities for those having difficulty getting work, increase flexibility, and let businesses grow.

“We will introduce a 90-day trial period for new staff, by agreement between the employer and employee, in businesses with fewer than 20 people. This will give those having difficulty getting work – like young, inexperienced people or new immigrants – a better chance at a job.

In 2010 the policy was extended. They said it was all about creating jobs:

90-Day Trial Period Extended To All Employers
Sunday, 18 July 2010, 11:42 am
Press Release: New Zealand Government

The 90-day trial period is to be extended to enable all employers and new employees to have the chance to benefit from it, says Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson.

The extension is among planned changes to the Employment Relations Act 2000 that Prime Minister John Key announced today in a speech to the National Party Conference.

“The Government is focused on growing a stronger economy and creating more jobs for New Zealand families,” says Ms Wilkinson.

“There are a lot of people looking for work and the changes announced today will help boost employer confidence and encourage them to take on more staff.”

Its 2016 and a new Treasury says that the 90 day trial doesn’t work:

90 day trial period fails to help jobseekers – report

The Government’s claims about the benefits of the 90 day trial period have been slammed in a report released by Treasury.

The report, looking at the benefits of the 90 day trial, has found no evidence it increased firms’ hiring – or helped disadvantaged jobseekers. …

Later that day:

Govt changes tune on 90-day trial policy

The government now says its 90-day trial period was never about increasing the number of jobs in New Zealand.

This is what anyone other than a die-hard National supporter calls “a lie”.

That is contrary to statements it has been making about the controversial workplace policy for the last eight years.

Contrary to 8 years worth of statements – why yes, yes it is. No lie is too outrageous for National.

52 comments on “90 day trial – no lie too outrageous for National”

  1. Keith 1

    Underpinning the job creation bullshit to justify taking away someones very basic right to challenge an unfair dismissal or in fact challenge being dismissed at all was the real reasons, wage suppression and engraining poor employment conditions. And on those two fronts this policy was a roaring success and National knew that’s all it was ever supposed to achieve.

    However the never ending lies from National are reaching saturation point, much less the fact they keep getting caught out on a weekly basis.

  2. Greg 2

    Key’s fictional creative writing department likes to rewrite history, they did with the IRD telling John Key that making changes to the zero rated tax companies in 2010 would make NZ a tax haven, changed to one where the zero rating companies would not provide a taxation increase to IRD take. But they sure cost us an extra 205 million paid to IRD to make them comply with EU tax haven and anti money laundering rules, 205 million, for a few Lawyers and Accountants to make 23 Million in fee’s.
    Thats a lot of companies

  3. Nick 3

    ShonKey has a different way of analysis…. “I’m around New Zealand a lot, I walk into dozens of cafes and small businesses and the thing they constantly tell me is the 90-day probationary period gives them the confidence to hire extra staff,” Mr Key said……. He forgot to say that he is researching for the best waitress ponytail in his new mediaworks unreality TV series called fuck NZ, I prefer Hawaii.

  4. tc 4

    It’s got to the point many Tories I know accept that shonky, blinglush, benefit, crusher etc are all full of shit feathering their own nests as the reality of housing, health, education and our disgusting rivers can’t be ignored by them anymore.

  5. ianmac 5

    I guess the real intent was to help employers. So they said lets sell it as helping the job seekers. And they did help the employers and disadvantaged the employees but who cares.
    Max will be shoehorned into a cushy job in due course.

  6. save nz 6

    Being able to be fired within 3 months also makes it hard for people to change jobs. It becomes a risky prospect for the employee to leave a current job to try something better or relocate, if you do not have job security.

    If you are trying to encourage innovation, then making employees too scared to move to try something new is stifling innovation.

    It also makes it hard for people to get a mortgage or rental if they do not have any job security.

    Why would you risk going off a benefit for a job, that you could be fired from within 90 days with no reason and then face the very difficult job of trying to get back on the benefit.

    It also makes it look bad on a CV if you did not last more than 90 days at a job, even if you lost the job through no fault of your own.

    Job security is a big issue in NZ now.

    It is clear than there is a very unequal relationship between business and those employees of that business under National.

    And it is also not increasing business taking on more employees – quite the opposite.

  7. Ross 7

    90 day trials allow poor and dysfunctional managers to do what they like; the trials don’t provide such managers with any incentive to upskill. The Government is fond of telling us that we need a skilled workforce. That applies to managers too.

    Some oppose the 90-day trial because it disregards “the elementary human dignity of consultation before dismissal”. We have sympathy with that sentiment, but our primary objection is that the 90-day trial period panders to employers who are poor managers. As Rosenberg puts it,

    ‘the legislation is encouraging poor personnel management practices such as failing to supervise employees adequately, failing to give them feedback to enable them to improve their performance, and using dismissal rather than good interview and employment practices to address the quality of the appointment process.’

    For good managers, the 90-day trial period is unnecessary. Good managers utilise effective selection processes, ensure new employees not only know what is required of them, but also are able to perform, or are receiving training, and monitor their performance and work attitudes. If there are problems, they are addressed. In rare cases employees may be dismissed – but the need for dismissal will be considerably lower when there is careful monitoring of performance and attitudes. Good employers reserve the use of dismissal for situations where the trust and confidence in the relationship has been destroyed.

    Unfortunately for poor managers, the 90-day trial is likely to exacerbate the situation and make them worse by allowing them to continue in managerial roles with inadequate managerial skills because they feel they have the “let-out” of dismissal within the 90 days, there is no incentive for them to upskill. These poor managers will be less likely to monitor performance and attitude and so mediocre employees, who could have become adequate with monitoring, will be disadvantaged. Furthermore, employees bound by the 90-day trial period are at risk of being “let-go” for less than breaching the trust and confidence in the employment relationship because there are no legal consequences for the dismissal. While incidence statistics, according to Walker and Hamilton (2009) vary widely, overall they appear comparable to those internationally.

    Although a National-led Government will almost certainly leave the 90-day trial period in place to appease employers with poor or no managerial skills, we strongly advocate its removal.

    http://www.nzjournal.org/NZJER36(2).pdf

  8. Little Kiwi 8

    While the 90 day trial makes it easier to get a job, it also means that during that trial period I’m also looking for another job, especially when it is reinforced to me that I am on trial. It also means I spend a lot of time getting my skills to a level where I am desirable to employers and in a position to run my own business which is definitely preferable in the current environment for workers. I don’t feel a lot of loyalty towards an employer who puts me through this process. The trial works both ways.

    Reality is that we can all be fired at any stage without any outside support unless we can afford a lawyer. The best thing to do when we are constantly made to feel insecure in a job is move onto another job. Not everyone can do that and the 90 day trial creates a lot of instability for renters over the three month trial. In hospitality, about 1 third of workers don’t make it through the trial. Part of this reason is because employers don’t interview properly, knowing the trial period means they can let people go for no reason.

    • Richardrawshark 8.1

      little kiwi- While the 90 day trial makes it easier to get a job

      How so?

      Some of us lived in a time when this bullshit didn’t exist, the walls didn’t cave in, the world didn’t stop spinning.

      where’s my shovel this modern era bull fkn shit is getting deeper the longer I live.

      absolute fkn twaddle propagated by dickheads who’s jobsworth is to think up something to get there name on a fucking LAW!

      • Little Kiwi 8.1.1

        Richard, I’m currently on a 90 day trial. Not a lot of questions were asked of me during the interview. My boss may have checked my references after I was given the job. So that’s why it’s slightly easier to get a job. The staff are asked to critique each other which has lead to some competitive bullish behavior. I’ve been looking for another job because I have no idea whether I will be kept or not. Fortunately for me it’s only a part time job and I’m looking for another. My previous employer put me on a trial with no employment contract! It was not a good work environment, but I got a lot of skills on the job. Like you I am fed up with how down hill things are going in this country.

        • BM 8.1.1.1

          Personally I think it’s far too easy to start a business in NZ, this leads to so many problems and issues.

          It would be good if there was a certification process where people who wanted to be self employed had to go through before they started.

          No certificate, no self employment.

        • Ross 8.1.1.2

          See my comment above. 90 day trials incentivise poor managers. Good managers don’t need to use 90 day trials.

          • red-blooded 8.1.1.2.1

            Another response to Little Kiwi:
            You say the 90 days law makes it easier to get a job because your boss doesn’t need to check your references? I say that sounds like really poor management to me, yet you’re the one who will pay if the boss decides it’s not working out. Plus, I got my job long before the 90 days bill: they read my CV, interviewed me by phone and appointed me. That seems to me to be just as easy (and just as poorly managed) as your experience. I doubt that much has actually changed in that regard. What has changed is the lack of security that you describe in your second comment. This law is a gift to slack or bullying employers.

            • Ross 8.1.1.2.1.1

              I agree.

              If anything, the 90 day law has allowed bad/lazy managers to become badder and lazier. Where’s the incentive for them to change their ways?

              But as has been said, good managers have no need to use 90 day trials.

            • Little Kiwi 8.1.1.2.1.2

              Thanks red-blooded I agree with you there. I half expected not to make it through the trial because my feedback was only negative even though it was constructive. Some people can only give negative feedback, maybe it’s a reinforcement of authority. I find myself asking for feedback and effectively doing my own performance reviews. The trials are pointless because before they existed people could be fired for no reason anyway. Not many people will bother to file a grievance. The 90 day trials don’t create jobs that weren’t already there, they just make employers feel more secure and workers less secure and more bouncy between jobs. They are really just a reminder of how disposable we are as workers.

  9. Richardrawshark 9

    Yeah, the difference I think was there was more jobs back then, you could walk out walk down the road and get another job within a couple of hours factory knocking.

    However I do not see a correlation between an employer needing an employee, as in this law does not create jobs, it just makes the firing process easier.

    But when I was young, you were always on a 1-3 month trial and they could sack you then with no comebacks, what has changed, lack of em0ployment means people now fight employers to keep their jobs because work is hard to come by. If their was excess employment opportunities this issue of hiring and firing disappears.

    Job supply improves wages, conditions, everything, lack of supply creates stupid regulations, and worsening wages and conditions, and if your going to go on a mass wage lowering strategy like National did the first thing you do is nobble the workers ability to fight it.

  10. Nic the NZer 10

    Its kind of surprising Treasury would release this study especially so publically.

    The argument that 90 day trials create more jobs is the same argument that lowering the minimum wage will create more jobs or by extension cutting benefits will create more jobs. Its an argument that employment is cost driven and lowering the cost of employing (in this case that sometimes you might hire an unsuitable employee is the cost) you increase its volume (or more jobs are created).

    On the other hand when people go to measure this supposed ‘outcome’ it practice it has a tendency to not occur. Could it be that the supposed basis for having a market driven outcome to employment is not a reality? This could occur if (in practice) wage barganing outcomes were not driven by costs but by the power balance between employer and employee. In that case the government ought to actively intervene in employment markets (to smooth the imbalance out) or unfair results will happen in practice.

    • KJT 10.1

      One employers cost is another ones customers, and so on.

      If every employer pays third world wages, then they can no longer charge first world prices.

      • Halfcrown 10.1.1

        But they do. Look around at all the major branded goods. Levies, and Phillips are two good examples. Everything is made in China or Indonesia at cheap labour rates, but they still expect to sell their products at top western world rates. For a long time now, if it is made in China I will pay a Chinese type price only. I am not paying for the name, I go and buy The Happy Rabbit brand or something from the likes of the Warehouse. Experience has taught me it is just as good as a branded name product, and I suspect they come out of the same factory as the branded goods anyway.

    • Greg 10.2

      Hence why claims made how increased trade increases wages and raises the standards of living, is a fiction.
      The evidence is often the opposite, theirs no primary industry which has increase wages on the back of higher export volumes.
      Meat works will be totally automated within a decade.,
      So trade gains will just leave a few crumbs for us to fight over.

  11. The lost sheep 11

    The report …
    ‘did not find evidence at an economy-wide level for the concern that trial periods would increase job churn for employees.’

    This is completely in line with my experience as an employer, and wide knowledge of other employers.
    You don’t hire someone looking to sack them. You hire them because you have a job you need done. Your hope is always that the person you have employed will be able to do the job and you will be able to continue employing them.

    If someone proves to be unsuitable for a role you replace them. Your ability to do so was not constrained before the 90 day law, as trial periods were perfectly legal before then, and dismissal for poor performance or conduct has always been possible and standard practice.

    So someone who was not suitable for a role is exactly as likely to be dismissed from it now as they were before the 90 day law, and this research backs that up.

    One thing that might interest some of you here who are not employers, is that the number one consideration that makes an employee unsuitable from an employers point of view is the impact they have on other employees.
    In my experience, the great majority of times an employer makes the decision to dismiss someone it is not because of the direct impact that has on the employers income or quality of life, but because their poor performance or misconduct is having a significantly negative effect on the enjoyment and satisfaction other employees experience in their workplace.
    I find it difficult to see why you would not seek to dismiss someone when that is the case?

    • KJT 11.1

      The law has always allowed you to dismiss someone who is causing disharmony in the workplace.

      • The lost sheep 11.1.1

        And I’ve been involved in situations where you have to dismiss such people through a performance process. That is almost always a long, complicated and torturous process that is extremely tough on everyone involved – including other employees.

        If someone is going to be disruptive it usually shows up with a month or two, so IMO it is far better for everyone if you can resolve that painlessly via a trial period clause.

        • KJT 11.1.1.1

          Which you could have had for a reasonable period under the old laws.

          The law required that you had to be fair. Which can be involved but if you were an employee would you want it any other way.

          And. As an employer can you really square your conscience with an arbitrary dismissal.

        • KJT 11.1.1.2

          Which you could have had for a reasonable period under the old laws.

          The law required that you had to be fair. Which can be involved, but if you were an employee would you want it any other way.

          Much simpler if your employees belong to a Union. They would soon be told if they didn’t have a case.

          And. As an employer can you really square your conscience with an arbitrary dismissal.

          • The lost sheep 11.1.1.2.1

            It is precisely because you do need and want to be fair that dismissal via a performance or conduct is often so traumatic for everyone involved.

            Problem is, it is hardly ever clear cut and neat, and so it involves a very long process that is usually very emotive and disruptive for the entire workplace over a long period.

            In a genuine case where you have clear immediate evidence of poor performance and conduct, ‘if it were to be done, best it was done quickly’ ?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.1.3

          “Painlessly” for whom?

          …requiring many employees to shoulder the cost of an increase in perceived initial uncertainty about their job security.

          Ah, I see what you mean: you feel less pain when you hurt others.

          Good for you.

          • The lost sheep 11.1.1.3.1

            Happily OAB, this research has shown that the angst that was stirred up by people like you about an increase in arbitrary short term dismissals because of the 90 day law was unfounded.

            Now it has been shown to be a myth, there is no need for employees who are not intending to perform poorly or behave badly to be under stress because of the ‘perception’ they are likely to be dismissed for no reason.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.1.3.1.1

              …requiring many employees to shoulder the cost of an increase in perceived initial uncertainty about their job security.

              That’s the Treasury department, talking about the cost – or pain as you put it – being transferred onto workers.

              What to believe, your worthless empty opinion, based as it is on rote-learned drivel and self-interest, or a report from Treasury?

              Um, um, um…geez you pose the hard questions alright 🙄

              • The lost sheep

                Good to see you are still entirely predictable in your dishonesty OAB.
                To put your cherry picked sentence and the false implication you attempt to draw from it into context…

                The report concludes that…
                ‘However, no evidence of adverse effects on employees,
                such as an increase in the number of short-term employment relationships or worker turnover, was found.’

                It seems the primary effects of the policy were to reduce the cost to firms of continuing their pre-policy behaviour, while requiring many employees to shoulder the cost of an increase in perceived initial uncertainty about their job security. However, we find no evidence that actual job security decreased. The main burden to employees may thus be the psychological cost of lower perceived security, and this cost could fall in the long term as employees learn that job insecurity has not increased significantly.

                So the ‘cost’ is not actually rated any specific level of seriousness, and more to the point, was entirely the result of a ‘perception’ that has no basis.
                A perception that was created by people like yourself OAB.
                How can you sleep at night knowing the unnecessary burden you have caused some employees?

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Yes, Treasury does indeed say that costs to employers have fallen, while for employees, have increased.

                  Thanks for pointing that out. As for your flailing about the influence comments at The Standard have. I shall rub your face in it the next time you assert The Standard‘s lack of relevance.

                  Yes I know, you were only lashing out in retaliation for my utter contempt for you and your worthless opinions. Diddums.

      • Little Kiwi 11.1.2

        Bullying would be my number one reason to leave a job and move on. There is usually one in every work environment and they are cowards who pick on easy targets. Most businesses will address the issue if they are observant and smart. Quite often, staff will start leaving without saying anything if they think the issue is unresolvable. I suppose it depends on the type of business, whether they care about high staff turnover.

        Apparently we are a nation of job hoppers. It would be interesting to see the statistics for 2016 job tenure if there are any. In 2011 it looks like a lot of people were hopping in the space of a few months.
        http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/yearbook/people/employment/job-change.aspx

    • Halfcrown 11.2

      I have got to agree with you there Sheep. I have always had to work a trail period for every job I have done. Fortunately I have had not many employers as I appear to have been able to work for fair minded people. The last company I worked for, the owner was an officer and a gentleman and I worked for that company for 16 years before more by accident than design I started my own business. I was fortunate enough to work in this until I sold it when I was in my 70’s. and retired (not really as I still dabble part time) If I had not started my business I would have worked for that company until I retired. At a social function after about 4/5 years I asked my boss jokingly, if I had passed the trail period and he said they had made up their minds in a few weeks, which confirms what you are saying Sheep about not hiring just to fire. I also know from experience about disruptive or unsuitable employees impact on other employees. So trail periods are essential to weed out none suitable employees before too much damage is done. Especially in some games where the likes of expensive machine tools are involved, though I cannot see any skilled tradesman hired on a 90 day trail period, but I have no problem with the 90 day trail providing it is done fair.
      However Sheep this 90 day trail is not fare, far from it and it had been designed for the hire and fire of cheap labour. I am aware of a couple of cases where young people have been exploited and used to do specific jobs and then after completion they have been fired as “unsuitable” (one case the person was told he was slovenly dressed. For fucks sake as an apprenticed I was told to make sure I shaved the next time I turned up for work, and get my bloody hair cut. There was no thought of using that as an excuse to fire me) I have not been an employee for quite a few years now and the culture in the workplace has changed dramatically. I might be old fashioned in my thinking but I feel there is a bigger issue here than just employment. To me being employed or in work is important to give a sense of worth as a member of society. The 90 day trail as it stands does none of that for the younger generation as it is used just to exploit them.

      • The lost sheep 11.2.1

        Halfcrown, I have no doubt there are employers out there that have exploited this law, as they no doubt exploit other laws. There are bad employers in exactly they same way there are bad employees.

        But what this research is telling us is that the evidence shows that there has been NO increase in the ‘hiring and firing’ of employees on an economy scale.
        It also shows that workers have been just as happy to change jobs under the new law, which was meant to have been another sign of worker intimidation.

        So, overall, outside of the scaremongering that has turned out to be groundless, I don’t see how the law has amounted to an overall decrease in the status of work?

        I like the points you bring up about what was expected of you as an young employee, and how the younger generation today stand in relation to work.
        It’s a two way street eh? Good employers and good employees go hand in hand?

        • Halfcrown 11.2.1.1

          “It’s a two way street eh? Good employers and good employees go hand in hand?”

          Too right mate.

          As I said I have not been employed for some time now and really don’t want to get on a soap box but there was with every company I have been fortunate to work for a great sense of trust and fairplay on both sides That appears to have gone over this 90 days and I really can’t agree with you over the scare mongering after my own experiences. However I am sure you are a fair employer by you reponses.

          Off topic Another thing I find sad is all this PC shit, when I first returned home from the army I worked for a company in the east end of London. It was a filty hole used to come home with grime on my face at the end of the day, from the sulphurised cutting oils they used as coolants on the machine tools. However there was so much fun going on in this place (the work was always done) that I looked forward to going to work as you waited in anticipation for what the next comedian was going to get up to. Nothing was done to put anyone in harms way as it was a dangerous environment to start with, but a lot of fun and laughs went on to relieve the boredom of the work especailly on night shift where harmless traps were set up for the day shift like screwing someone’s enamel cup to the bench and filling it with tea, and visa versa. But I understand today under Osh and Slosh you darn’t do any of the fun things we did as they could be classed as dangerous A big tut tut tut
          So I feel even the fun may have gone out of work as well.

  12. red-blooded 12

    And there have always been provisions for trial periods. There’s a difference between that and the “fire-at-will” approach in this law.

    • The lost sheep 12.1

      This research shows that there is no evidence that ‘fire at will’ has resulted in any economy wide increase in short term dismissals.

      So the difference is?

      • Greg 12.1.1

        You can only be fired on the spot for serious misconduct, so the research is flawed.

        • The lost sheep 12.1.1.1

          During the 90 day trial period you can be dismissed without reason or right to pg, and I think that was the exact situation this research was looking at?

          • McFlock 12.1.1.1.1

            8 comments in this thread and you haven’t once addressed the pont of the post (and fact) that the pretext for this law (increasing jobs) failed, so now the nats are outright lying and pretending they never made that claim.

            No, you try to derail the discussion into the only effect of 90 day fire at will being to “reduce the cost to firms of continuing their pre-policy behaviour”. In other words, not having to pay out on personal grievances any more. It’s now free to be a small-minded, harassing, bigoted, self-important fuckwit.

            Your professional costs must have decreased significantly. I can see why you persist in the distraction.

          • infused 12.1.1.1.2

            No you can’t idiot. Stop talking shit.

      • LilaR 12.1.2

        If no difference had been intended, there would have been no need to change the law. The fact that it was changed indicates that the government fully intended it to make a difference, specifically, to give employers more power, and employees less. QED.

  13. Mosa 13

    Its like death by a thousand cuts for NZ and Key is wielding the blade as he slowly attacks our country, giving us bad medicine and telling us it will make us better with a smile and easy going manner
    He won’t stop untill HE decides he had satisfied his own rotten ego and has enriched his friends and donors.
    Lie’s have become the truth as far as Key is concerned and at 47 % support kiwis keep believing the spin and will vote for it again for a fourth time next year.

  14. Mosa 14

    This 90 day trial would never have happened with a strong UNION movement.
    That insurance policy for workers has been stripped away and they have been left to the mercy of unscrupulous employers and repugnant National governments with no one to fight for them.
    Untill we have a powerful Labour govt remembering why they were formed in the first place and protecting salary and wage earners the abuse will continue in NZ

  15. NZJester 15

    National has prevented a lot of other information from being collected to hide their lies over the last few years. The results of what is happening with the 90-day trial is a big cause in the other two things they have tried to hide. The main reason homelessness and poverty have become so bad is because of the 90-day trial helping to drive down wages and National refusing to collect any statistics about them so they can claim they do not exist or are not as bad as they are being made out to be. The fact is what we are seeing is the tip of an iceberg becoming so large it is hard to ignore when it comes to homelessness and poverty. National will follow their ideology to the end, even though all the facts and studies show they do not work.
    Trickle down economics was debunked long before this current National government came into power, yet they still refuse to acknowledge is does not work. They pushed on with charter schools even though the data from overseas available before the first NZ charter school was even opened showed they did not work.
    Ideology first no matter what the data or statistics say.

  16. Michael 16

    So that explains why Labour will retain fire-at-will employment laws, for at least the first 90 days of an employment relationship, cosmetic changes notwithstanding? Just like it did with the zero-hours employment contracts and as it is doing with the Social Security Rewrite Bill – talking left and acting right. In its current state, Labour is a gross betrayal of its founders and the principles they fought for. Time to give it a decent burial and replace it with a political organisation fit for the purpose of representing ordinary New Zealanders.

  17. emergency mike 17

    “I’m around New Zealand a lot, I walk into dozens of cafes and small businesses and the thing they constantly tell me is the 90-day probationary period gives them the confidence to hire extra staff,” Mr Key said.

    Mr Key said a lot of New Zealand businesses had a very small number of staff and hiring someone was a very big deal for them.

    “So you can have a piece of academic research but it’s quite different from the small cafe owner whose money is on the line, who’s taking the risks and who actually relies on this kind of policy”

    Translation: I akshully live in New Zealand, (part of my job), and I’ve been to lots of cafes looking for a good panini and a nice ponytail. Unverifiable anecdote came out of my mouth.

    Hiring people is a big deal for small businesses.

    So pay no attention to academic research, (I bet they didn’t go drink all the soy lattes like me), because fantasy imaginary scenario came out of my mouth.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Confirmation bias
    Something slightly deeper. Facebook is an out of control dangerous institution that neatly divides us up into our own tribes and lets us reinforce our beliefs with each other while at the same time throw rocks ...
    Confirmation bias
    3 hours ago
  • Andrew Little leads NZ delegation on global anti-terrorism taskforce
    Justice Minister Andrew Little leaves for the United States today to take part in a global task force that’s tackling terrorism and anti-money laundering. “I’m looking forward to leading the New Zealand delegation to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Third reading: Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill
    Mr Speaker We have travelled a long way in eight days, since the bill was read a first time. It has been a punishing schedule for MPs and submitters and public servants who have played a role in this process. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Legal framework for gun buyback scheme announced
    Police Minister Stuart Nash has announced a legal framework for the gun buyback will be established as a first step towards determining the level of compensation. It will include compensation for high capacity magazines and parts. Mr Nash has outlined ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Second reading: Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines and Parts) Amendment Bill
    Mr Speaker, it is Day 25 of the largest criminal investigation in New Zealand history. Not a day, or a moment, has been wasted as we respond to the atrocity that is testing us all. That is true also of ...
    2 weeks ago
  • First reading: Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines and Parts) Amendment Bill
    Mr Speaker, as we meet today New Zealand is under a terror threat level of HIGH. As we meet today, Police are routinely carrying firearms, Bushmaster rifles and Glock pistols, in a significant departure from normal practice. As we meet ...
    3 weeks ago
  • NZ-China economic ties strengthened
    Economic ties between New Zealand and China are being strengthened with the successful negotiation of a new taxation treaty. The double tax agreement was signed by New Zealand’s Ambassador to China and by the Commissioner of the State Taxation Administration ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Tighter gun laws to enhance public safety
    Police Minister Stuart Nash has introduced legislation changing firearms laws to improve public safety following the Christchurch terror attacks. “Every semi-automatic weapon used in the terrorist attack will be banned,” Mr Nash says. “Owning a gun is a privilege not ...
    3 weeks ago