Daily review 02/04/2024

32 comments on “Daily review 02/04/2024 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. SPC 1

   2 April 2024 at 5:45 pm

   Why is no one in the government claiming credit for this …

   From next Thursday, April 11, INZ will have the power to issue infringement notices to employers, with the aim of addressing "non-compliance" with immigration law.

   Stephanie Greathead, INZ's national compliance manager, said the agency will be able to penalise businesses if they: employ someone in breach of their visa conditions, employ someone unlawfully, or fail to comply with a 10-day information request.

   "Non-compliance with these three requirements now has immediate consequences," she said in a statement.

   Is this and consequences for KO tenants, going to be the two things that the government will cite in 2026 as to improvements in the public service?

   https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2024/04/immigration-nz-launches-new-crackdown-on-worker-exploitation.html
   • weka 1.1

     3 April 2024 at 12:56 pm

     Test: needed page reloading and still buggy
2. joe90 2

   2 April 2024 at 6:44 pm

   The World's most moral army doing what it does best. Pricks.

   //

   World Central Kitchen is devastated to confirm seven members of our team have been killed in an IDF strike in Gaza.

   The WCK team was traveling in a deconflicted zone in two armored cars branded with the WCK logo and a soft skin vehicle.

   Despite coordinating movements with the IDF, the convoy was hit as it was leaving the Deir al-Balah warehouse, where the team had unloaded more than 100 tons of humanitarian food aid brought to Gaza on the maritime route.

   “This is not only an attack against WCK, this is an attack on humanitarian organizations showing up in the most dire of situations where food is being used as a weapon of war. This is unforgivable,” said World Central Kitchen CEO Erin Gore.

   https://wck.org/news/gaza-team-update
   • Ad 2.1

     2 April 2024 at 7:06 pm

     As if we didn't need the moral standards of war lowered further, there's a 1961 Geneva Convention against attacking embassies of other countries. If other countries follow suit, the system of embassies will rapidly decline and with it the idea of diplomacy and diplomatic assistance for citizens of one country visiting another.
   • SPC 2.2

     2 April 2024 at 7:49 pm

     Occupation corrupts, more so when those who favour the annexation of territory become part of it.

     The southern command declined under Gallant, when it applied the dahiya strategy – the collective punishment of civilians to coerce release of hostages. It failed to work then (they had to hand over a 1000 prisoners to get an IDF soldier back) and the same man, now Defence Minister returns to what he knows.

     It was the southern command that failed to prevent the Hamas attack (despite intelligence of the plan a year earlier and then 6 months before of training to enact it).

     A real command would have used the intelligence to rationalise a better defence formation, alert systems and gone big on training for an attack. The attackers would have been deterred.

     Not being awake to a 50 year reprise of 1973 (after the shooting of people by the fence 1948-2018 provocation) is inexplicable.

     Occupation armies are first corrupted and then become inept.

     At that point it gets confused as to whether actions are deliberately corrupt (top down) or just manifestation of incompetence (and or casual amorality) at the lower level.

     The defence review should end the term of their PM, and America will only continue to support its coalition including fascists if Trump becomes POTUS again.
3. Dolomedes III 3

   2 April 2024 at 7:03 pm

   I approve of some of the new government's policies, but the indiscriminate 6.5 % cut across so many ministries makes no sense to me. How can you cut 6.5% from health when we need more ICU capacity, for example? And how is DOC supposed to cope with a 6.5 % cut when they're already overstretched? On the other hand, why do we need a Ministry for Women at all in 2024? Don't all the other ministries deal with women?
   • Ad 3.1

     2 April 2024 at 7:15 pm

     They haven't even started on NZTA yet. And the aim is 7%.

     The question you're really asking is who uses public services. And the answer: it's mostly the poor, old, and powerless. That's why we have agencies for disability rights, veterans, the Office for Seniors, women's rights, HRC for human rights, MPac for pacific islanders, Te Puni Kokiri among others for Maori, settlement services in Immigration for refugees, and so on.

     If you've ever been done in by MSD or others, you need some help and those are the kinds of agencies you turn to.

     Luxon isn't going for a full austerity budget, but if Act get a few more percentage points next time, you could well see the governing legislation of many of those get reversed, and those entities disestablished. And you would save fuck all for tax cuts in doing so.
   • weka 3.2

     2 April 2024 at 7:46 pm

     On the other hand, why do we need a Ministry for Women at all in 2024? Don't all the other ministries deal with women?

     Our current work programme includes:

     • Provision of advice to the Minister for Women.
     • Implementing the Te Mahere Whai Mahi Wāhine Women’s Employment Action Plan.
     • Coordinating the Crown's response to Wai 2700 – Mana Wāhine Kaupapa Inquiry in partnership with Te Puni Kōkiri.
     • Leading the provision of gender analysis across government (including the Bringing Gender In tool).
     • Leading the Government’s international reporting commitments in relation to the status of women on Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).
     • Supporting women to be nominated and appointed to public sector boards and committees.
     • Jointly leading the Equal Pay Taskforce alongside Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission.
     • Providing support to the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women (NACEW).
     • Jointly leading to address pay transparency alongside the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment.
     • Analysing data and undertaking research on key issues affecting women and girls.
     • Supporting the implementation of Te Aorerekura – the National Strategy for the Elimination of Family Violence and Sexual Violence and Action Plans and leading Action 4 on wāhine Māori leadership succession.

     https://www.women.govt.nz/about-us

     Or are you suggesting that each government department sets up a specialist women's affairs unit?
     • Visubversa 3.2.1

       3 April 2024 at 8:45 am

       Some time last Century I was on NACEW. There were women there representing working women from every part of the spectrum. From the Employer's Assn to the CTU. It was a multi disciplinary group with a focus on improving women's access to the workforce and to employment equity and safety.

       We made recommendations to the Minister for Women, the Dept of Labour, Immigration etc.

       I found it very worthwhile.
     • Dolomedes III 3.2.2

       3 April 2024 at 2:18 pm

       Thanks for the question and the info provided. No, I'm not suggesting each department have a specialist women's affairs unit. Do they have specialist men's affairs units?

       You list a lot of activities carried out by the Ministry for Women. I'm more interested in the results of said activities – what do we have to show for the money spent? For example, is there evidence that Te Aorerekura has had any impact on family and sexual violence?

       And why do we need gender analysis across government? Why do we need a special advisory unit on the employment of women? Why not a special advisory unit on the employment of very short people? Or very tall people? And why do we need research on key issues affecting women and girls? Surely there must also be "key issues" affecting boys and men – are there any parallel initiatives for them? Why do women need special support to apply to public sector boards and committees?

       Why do we need an Equal Pay Taskforce, or the inquiry into "pay transparency"? The so-called "gender pay-gap" is not the result of men being paid more than women for performing the same role – that's illegal. And why would anyone do it? The so-called "gender pay-gap" reflects the different priorities of men and women on average, related to significant average psychological differences. For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/

       I suspect sexual selection is also involved. Many women want high-status men with access to resources. As a result, men compete fiercely to be top-dog. Employment status and salary have no comparable sexual payoff for women, because men are focused primarily on other attributes in their female partners.

       It looks to me like most of the activities carried out by the Ministry for Women's Affairs are based on the premise that women as demographic are "oppressed". But what is the evidence that women are in fact "oppressed" in 21st century NZ? Without proper evidence, it's pure ideology. You can of course cite domestic violence statistics – it would be disengenous to deny that this is primarily male on female violence, but it is highly likely that female on male violence is underreported, because of the shame attached to it. I could respond with plenty of stats showing that women are doing better than men in many areas, or that women are treated better than men by society. For example, women get lighter sentences than men for the same offence (https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/gender-differences-sentencing-felony-offenders), and men make up 89% of workplace deaths (https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/27/2/124)

       I think contemporary feminism in the West is a racket that mostly serves the interests of ambitious middle-class professional women. I might take contemporary feminism more seriously if I saw feminists pushing for women to be better represented in less glamorous male-dominated areas like forestry or waste management.

       In summary, you haven't convinced me we need a Ministry for Women.
       • weka 3.2.2.1

         3 April 2024 at 3:19 pm

         I might take contemporary feminism more seriously if I saw feminists pushing for women to be better represented in less glamorous male-dominated areas like forestry or waste management.

         Funny, I was just listening to a gender critical feminist pointing out that the reason there is no push for women to be bin men is because of the physiological differences between women and men.

         It doesn't however explain why men don't do their fair share of cleaning toilets.
         • Robert Guyton 3.2.2.1.1

           3 April 2024 at 3:32 pm

           "It doesn't however explain why men don't do their fair share of cleaning toilets."

           They don't?

           Bastards!
           • weka 3.2.2.1.1.1

             3 April 2024 at 4:02 pm

             and with comments like that, you can't complain about being called sexist either.
             • Robert Guyton …

               3 April 2024 at 4:31 pm

               Nor misunderstood, neither.
       • weka 3.2.2.2

         3 April 2024 at 3:20 pm

         Fortunately for New Zealand women, as opposed to say women in Afghanistan, we currently don't have to convince sexist men about the need for a Women's Ministry. Most other people already know why it matters.
         • Dolomedes III 3.2.2.2.1

           3 April 2024 at 3:30 pm

           And prithee tell, why does it matter? Maybe most people don't question the need for a women's ministry because for several decades now, feminists and other "progressives" have had inordinate influence over our state education system. And implying I'm a "sexist" isn't actually an argument.
           • Robert Guyton 3.2.2.2.1.1

             3 April 2024 at 3:35 pm

             You quote-mark progressives as though they are a bad thing?
             • Dolomedes III …

               3 April 2024 at 6:18 pm

               Yes, I see little to recommend in "progressivism". It's frighteningly self-righteous, authoritarian and untethered from reality. I wish the left would drop identity politics, and be more evidence-driven, more practical, and focused on core tasks like strengthening our public health and education systems and developing our infrastructure (which was so neglected by Key et al).

               I would add that I also see little to recommend in neoliberalism. Election time means deciding which dead rat is least intolerable.
               • Robert Guyton …

                 3 April 2024 at 6:34 pm

                 "…strengthening our public health and education systems and developing our infrastructure…"

                 That sounds good, and progressive, to my ear 🙂

                 What particular infrastructure to you wish was focused upon?
                 • Dolomedes III …

                   3 April 2024 at 8:17 pm

                   Two examples.

                   We need more medical school capacity. For years now we've been happy to poach doctors from India, which is a bit crap really. We've been turning away many non-Maaori students with good marks, simply because there isn't the capacity to train them. That's likely to change in the near future – though frankly it might more sense to expand the Otago and Auckland med schools rather than creating a new one at Waikato.

                   I think it's clear our drinking water infrastructure also needs investment. The issue isn't so much water quality as the losses to leakage. And no, 3/5 Waters was not a bona fide infrastructure project – David Seymour's description of it as a "treaty settlement disguised as an infrastructure project" was pretty close to the truth. If the previous government had been serious about a sustainable improvement to our water infrastructure, they could have reached out across the aisle and negotiated something that wouldn't be scrapped at the next change of government. Instead, despite knowing they were likely to lose the 2023 election, they tried to coerce the (probable) future government by signing long-term contracts for 3/5 Waters employees within a few weeks of election day.
           • weka 3.2.2.2.1.2

             3 April 2024 at 4:01 pm

             I'm not implying you're sexist, I'm calling you sexist to your face. Any halfwit can look up stats on how women fare in society, so I can only assume your sexism is intentional and wilful. If you don't want to be seen like that, then maybe don't make long sexist comments 🤷‍♀️
             • Dolomedes III …

               3 April 2024 at 6:08 pm

               I'm not troubled by your accusation of "sexism" – it's just a lazy truncheon word. I'm just pointing out that you've resorted to it because you're unable to refute my arguments.
               • weka …

                 3 April 2024 at 6:49 pm

                 dude, I've been in hard core feminist debates spaces online for years. I've also been blogging on feminism in that time as well. It's not that I can't make the argument, it's that I have better things to do with my time when clearly you have a sexist position against the interests of women rather than trying to understand why women have particular needs in NZ society.
               • Descendant Of Smith …

                 3 April 2024 at 9:20 pm

                 We've been turning away many non-Maaori students with good marks.

                 I see you're a racist plonk as well otherwise you would have just said students. It used to be you pretty much only got into med school if you were the child of a doctor. If you couldn't get in via that route you got your child to be a chemist as chemists' children were next off the rank.

                 As most doctors were already European then Maori never stood a shit show. That is exactly why affirmative action policies are needed. Even with that we've only gone from 2.3% of doctors being Maori to 4.7%. They make up 16% of the population.
       • Descendant Of Smith 3.2.2.3

         3 April 2024 at 4:49 pm

         I've worked in workplaces where all the management and high level positions were men. Women simply were not considered for those positions. The men however used to do the interviews for the lower positions where they held up scorecards behind the interviewees back rating them out of 10 – blond hair and large breasts always got higher ratings.

         More recently worked with a group of women all employed at the same time where someone had accidently emailed everyone the pay rates. All the men started on $20,000 more than the women. They felt they needed to improve their negotiating skills – I said no they didn't the only person who knew the starting salaries was the manager and they had deliberately paid all the women less saving in the process $100,000 per year for however many years they worked there. The men of course thought it was really funny. The manager was just an arse. Many of the women had much more experience than the highest paid male.

         There are better ways of setting salaries than by men.

         Hospital cleaners play a vital role in the workings of our healthcare facilities. Not only do they clean hospitals and help maintain standards of hygiene to protect against infection but they also contribute towards wider health outcomes. The importance of these cleaners is often underestimated and undervalued in the way they are paid and treated.

         We estimated, however, that for every £1 they are paid, over £10 in social value is generated.

         Although the role of an advertising executive has high status, the impact of the industry has always been a point of controversy. It encourages high consumer spending and indebtedness. It can create insatiable aspirations, fuelling feelings of dissatisfaction, inadequacy and stress. In our economic model we estimate the share of social and environmental damage caused by overconsumption that is attributable to advertising.

         For a salary of between £50,000 and £12 million, top advertising executives destroy £11 of value for every pound in value they generate.

         https://neweconomics.org/2009/12/a-bit-rich
     • Robert Guyton 3.2.3

       3 April 2024 at 2:42 pm

       And you thought I was a problem 🙂
       • weka 3.2.3.1

         3 April 2024 at 3:21 pm

         I'll revise my opinion when I see you making arguments for women's rights 🙂
4. bwaghorn 4

   2 April 2024 at 7:18 pm

   https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/infrastructure/im-pretty-worried-bishop-on-kiwirail

   Are roads economic?
   • mac1 4.1

     3 April 2024 at 9:15 am

     Are roads economic?

     In 2022, the situation regarding road damage was that trucks caused 80% of the damage and contributed 23% of the cost.

     https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2212/S00111/trucks-do-the-most-damage-on-our-roads-but-pay-the-least-towards-fixing-them.

     Who pays for the upkeep of the railways?

     I'm about to start paying RUC for my EV. Fair enough, though there is a n argument for incentives.

     When will the trucking companies pay their true cost?

     They'd pass it on, anyway, in their charges and then there's be competition between rail and road, pressure on truckers to be as least damaging as they can, and lots more money in the pot to address the roading issues.

     Has anyone actually costed the decision to allow trucks on roads in NZ that were too heavy for the actnal design strength? Who made it? What did it actually cause?
     • weka 4.1.1

       3 April 2024 at 1:00 pm

       Test : cursor in place ok
5. gsays 5

   3 April 2024 at 12:25 pm

   Thanks mac1 for linking that article.

   It gets my blood boiling when I hear the likes of Nick Leggat, Willis and others lie ​​​​​​ talk about trucking and/or rail.

   Which then gets me beating my other favourite drum, lobbying's influence, especially the trucking lobby.
6. Phillip ure 6

   3 April 2024 at 3:29 pm

   To weka..that irony thing again..

   It won't let me reply to your replies question..@ 3/4..

   And if your question is do I know how to press the reply button at others comments..the answer is yes..

   If you don't mean that..the answer is no..

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS