Nat Minister unhappy, leaks Key email

Written By: - Date published: 9:29 am, February 18th, 2009 - 53 comments
Categories: national/act government - Tags: , , ,

Well, that didn’t take long.

In the first 100 days of the new National government we’ve seen a clamp-down on workers’ rights, tax cuts for the rich, and now tying everything up nicely in a big bow, we have the first leaked National Party email of the term.

Another day, another leak in the National Party. We shouldn’t be surprised. Getting into government was never going to stop the problem. But in this instance we should be even less surprised considering the contents of John Key’s email to his Ministers.

In the leaked email John Key admits to his Ministers straight out there IS NO NEW PLAN, infrastructure or any other spending plan, to deal with the economic downturn and all spending must be funded within existing baselines and that Ministers must simply rather ‘reprioritise’.

“Given the challenging fiscal position that we have inherited and the weakness of the economy, we need to focus and target our efforts to achieve maximum impact.”

“The Minister of Finance has written to you to outline the implications of the fiscal outlook…. It will not come as a surprise to hear that there is little new money, and that we will all need to reprioritise within our baselines.”

Barack Obama and Kevin Rudd may have huge stimulus packages to get their respective economies going, but in New Zealand our former merchant banker Prime Minister knows better: tighten the belt and restrict spending.

Obviously at least one of his Ministers doesn’t agree and is worried the impact Key’s inaction will have on National’s 2011 election hopes. Because if the economy goes under, unemployment hits record highs, and small enterprises start going under, we’ll know whose inaction to blame.

(Read Nicky Hagar’s full account of the latest leak here. It’s worthwhile. You might as well read Steve’s analysis too if you haven’t already.)

53 comments on “Nat Minister unhappy, leaks Key email ”

  1. BLiP 1

    Yet more evidence of an indolent MSM in collusion with the big-business captured National Party – surprise surprise

  2. Redbaiter 2

    I dunno what the point of the post is. If it is to allege disloyalty within the National Party then its a pretty thin allegation. If its to say that a “stimulus” package is necessary in NZ then I disagree. Lets get one thing straight here. The word “stimulus” is just a euphemism, as most socialist terms are.

    What Krudd and Zerobama are doing is so bad, its hard for me to find a term that I consider accurate. I don’t know. Banditry? Vandalism? Nope, just completely inadequate.

    The socialist’s “stimulus” is merely a grab bag of politically correct nonsense. Left liberal obsessions brought from dreamworld to some kind of intangible reality by means of money that doesn’t exist.

    The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and even a casual look at where the money is going shows a staggering level of corruption and pork barrel politics.

    $4.2 billion to ACORN for example, the fraudsters who played a big part in the campaign of trickery and deceit and gangsterism that brought Zerobama to the white house. What the damn hell does this stimulate except more fraud.

    Handouts in Australia coincided with massive increases in turnover at gambling outlets.

    I’m surprised that Key and the Nationals appear to understand that to follow in the footsteps of Krudd and Zero would be the wrong path, but hell, if they truly do realise this, maybe there is actually some small degree of hope for them and New Zealand in the long term.

    PS-

    ..and journalists, show some spine you yellow politically partisan scum. You traitors to the concept of democracy.

    The word “stimulus” is propaganda.

    If you had an iota of self respect, you would stop using it.

  3. TomS 3

    Does anyone else just not read anything that starts with “Redbaiter?”

  4. Daveski 4

    Sigh … the Standard is getting very sloppy indeed.

    Spin busting myth # 1 – clamp down on workers rights

    The 90 bill only affects new employees and only those working for companies with 20 employees or less.

    [and those people are workers, eh? SP]

  5. Alex 5

    “Sigh the Standard is getting very sloppy indeed.

    Spin busting myth # 1 – clamp down on workers rights

    The 90 bill only affects new employees and only those working for companies with 20 employees or less.”

    Obviously new workers aren’t workers?

  6. Tane 6

    I’m with TomS.

    Daveski – workers in their first 90 days are still workers. Trying to argue that the removal of the right of workers to appeal against unfair dismissal is not removing workers’ rights is, frankly, absurd.

  7. What is wrong with that email? It seemed truthful of the situation that New Zealand is in?

  8. Tane 8

    Read the linked Hager piece Brett. All is explained.

  9. Worker 9

    Don’t see anything in this that JK hasn’t already been open with to the NZ public. It has probably been leaked on purpose to show that what JK is saying in public is what he is also saying within his party.

  10. Okay, I will have it a read, we all know how fair and balanced Hager is.

  11. Tigger 11

    Is Redbaiter on drugs? Or working in Key’s office?

    National have no plan – the sooner the population sees that the sooner this mess of a government can collapse in upon itself and be shunted on.

  12. Doubt Redbaiter works in Key’s office, he’s unemployable.

  13. Tigger 13

    And can a rightie explain to me why National are cutting jobs at MSD in a time of high unemployment? I mean, yeah it’s the government’s biggest employer but I figure with more people on welfare and out of work their might be MORE work for MSD, not less…

    Not to mention why you would pull much needed money out of the building sector by canning work on various government buildings (including that soft furnishings budget!)….pulling money out of the economy is hardly going to help our bottom line. If the government stops spending then we’re all up the creek… Mr Key, is it that your friends build roads and don’t supply soft furnishings? And I thought you said you had gay friends!

  14. djp 14

    Why is it that you guys advocate almost every fallacy enumerated in the classic “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlett

    Download it here: http://fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/

  15. Daveski 15

    At the risk of getting caught up in a semantic war of attrition, a change that affects a small group of people does not by definition affect all workers. Semantics admittedly but it’s no worse that implying that all workers are now worse off under National which is what is being implied.

    To take your logic further, increases to the top tax bracket affect all workers because all workers potentially can earn $60K +.

    While semantics, it’s simply not try that all workers rights have been slashed by National – that’s simply your spin.

  16. Tane 16

    Daveski, the removal of rights from one sector of the workforce actually does affect other sectors in various ways, but I’m not interested in getting into the semantics of your argument here because I think it’s irrelevant.

    This is all actually very simple. What the post said was: “we’ve seen a clamp-down on workers’ rights”, and we have.

    The removal of rights at work by definition means there’s been a clamp-down on workers’ rights. To argue otherwise is simply absurd.

  17. Matthew Pilott 17

    Daveski, also remember that since you no longer work with one employer for life, the 90-day bill will affect a lot of people. Weren’t the estimates at around 500,000 a year (the number of people who move from one job to another)?

    That’s a bit more directly relevant that your tax example, because these are people actually affected, not hypothetically, if they get a whopping pay rise.

  18. Daveski 18

    MP – the issue only arises if one works for an organisation employing 20 or less staff which is the other point I was making.

    It’s not absurb to argue that it does not or will not affect every worker or indeed every worker who changes job.

    Likewise, one could argue that the impact of the law benefits the unemployed as employers may be more willingly to take risks.

    You simply can’t make blanket statements based on your perspective and try to present it as unarguable fact.

  19. BLiP 19

    Daveski said:

    ” . . . You simply can’t make blanket statements based on your perspective and try to present it as unarguable fact. . . ”

    The National Party removed the rights of workers by deception in a move designed to circumvent democracy. That is fact. Your wriggling around trying to soften the reality of the situation doesn’t make it any less of a fact and nor does it soften the impact of the legislation.

    Why are you defending this?

  20. Billy 20

    The National Party removed the rights of workers by deception in a move designed to circumvent democracy. That is fact.

    If, by deception, you mean they campaigned on it, received a mandate and then enacted it, then I guess, yes, they were highly deceptive.

  21. BLiP 21

    Billy said:

    ” . . . If, by deception, you mean they campaigned on it, received a mandate and then enacted it, then I guess, yes, they were highly deceptive. . . . ”

    Under urgency without warning? Yep – you’re right. It was deceptive. It was also hypocritical given Goober John Key’s statement in relation to National wanting to keep New Zealanders in employment and then the first thing it does is pass fire-at-will legislation.

  22. Daveski 22

    BLIP

    An important point. I’m not defending something on principle eg blindly defending the EFA which is a no-go topic here for obvious reasons.

    I’m simply pointing out to argue that “all workers” have been screwed by the National Government is complete spin which largely goes unchallenged here because of the nature of the govt.

    Myth # 2 was that the Nats will cut your wages. Even when proven to be wrong, the spin continues.

    I respect your right, and that of Tane, MP, and others to view the legislation as potentially negative for some workers. But it is patently not true to state as fact workers rights have been removed without considerable qualification.

  23. Matthew Pilott 23

    Daveski, ‘rights’ have been unequivocally reduced. That is a cold, hard and unarguable fact.

    You had many workplace rights, none of which apply for a period of 90 days in new employment, for all workers, unless they are employed by a large organisation.

    There may be benefits to having these rights removed, but that does not make the statement false; rather, your view of what a ‘right’ is isn’t correct.

  24. mike 24

    You guys make me laugh – the same idiots who were screaming blue murder about the Nats borrowing a few billion more than Labour did are now crying that we aren’t going to be in enough debt.

    Also, please don’t quote Rod Oram as if there is any balance to his articles he’s just as deluded as hager

  25. Tane 25

    Daveski, I’m not wasting any more time on you. You’re free to spend all day constructing semantic arguments about how removing the rights of workers isn’t removing workers’ rights. Frankly I’ve got better things to do.

  26. Daveski 26

    My last sentence in my last post missed the word “all” which leaves the comment looking a little naive to say the least.

    MP The potential impact of the law is limited to new workers for organisations employing less than 20 workers. Happy to agree with you that “rights” for people in these situations may have changed.

    That is not the same as calling it a “clampdown on workers rights”.

    I’ll happily withdraw from this discussion (unless suitably riled :)) – I’m not trying to stir anything up but there is at least IMO an issue with the statement. Accept it will be seen differently by others here. I’ll move on.

  27. Tane 27

    And Mike, stop being stupid. Economic circumstances change, and when that happens your policy responses need to change with them. If you don’t understand this then there’s no helping you.

  28. BLiP 28

    Daveski

    Okay – you were right – it is semantics. There are still 108,000 workers affected by the new law. I would posit that the legislation provides the thin end of the wedge for the removal of other workers rights. But, yes, okay, not ALL workers are affected immiedaitely by this one Act.

    Wages have been reduced, or will be reduced, by the so called tax cuts National is planning – another example of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer

  29. the sprout 29

    Hardly surprising that email was leaked and dissent within National is brewing – I’d be very worried if I were part of that caucus and hoping to get re-elected in 2011.

    It won’t take very long at all for the Key administration to get a reputation as a Do Nothing Government as economic and social woes increase while all they can come up with is symbolic but ineffective gimmicks.

    “…we need to focus and target our efforts to achieve maximum impact”

    Yep that’s the truth John, at this rate you’ll need to sell every little half-arsed imitation of a real plan as hard as you can for anyone to believe anything’s being done at all.

  30. sweeetdisorder 30

    Oh dear, just when labour thought they were on a roll again, along comes tonights tv3 poll. Will Goff last till spring? I think not.

  31. Matthew Pilott 31

    sweeetdisorder – I don’t think Labour ‘thought they were on a roll’ as such and in a position to improve on polls (three years out from the election, I’m sure the panic will set in!) but nice of you to acknowledge they were doing well.

  32. mike 32

    Read em and weep lefties:

    National 60%
    Labour 27%
    Greens 7%

    Preferred PM:

    John Key 52%
    Helen Clark 14%
    Phil Goff 4%

    And isn’t this the poll you guys hang your hat on. Bye bye phil…

  33. sweeetdisorder 33

    Mat

    yes, I thought they were just starting to ask a few telling questions, but then I am a polli geek and most of what I see/hear/read goes unreported/unexamined.

    oh well, too bad, never mind.

  34. monkey boy 34

    Wow – if that is the Nats in trouble, I wonder what they look like when they are on a roll!! No wonder Key wants Helen ‘shipped off’ as soon as possible so he can ‘dismantle her legacy’!!
    Might I suggest that on this recent poll, Phil Goff has much better motives for this than John Key?

    http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/2009/02/labours-love-is-lost.html

  35. jimbo 35

    Tane,

    It seems you believer that the 90 day “fire at will” act (as you keep misrepresenting it) is a case of “removing workers rights” because it impacts on whether or not currently unemployed people will be in employment 6 months from now. Is that right?

    In that case, to be consistent you must also believe that raising the minimum wage is “removing workers’ rights”… Why? Because raising the minimum wage stops people who are currently prepared to work for less from getting a job. The worker has lost his “right” to set the price of his labour at a low enough rate to get back into the workforce.

    The phrase “removing workers’ rights” is rolled out by the Left when it doesn’t want to properly debate the merits of a particular policy. It’s basically a shorthand way of saying “You (the Right) are wrong and do not care about people as much as I do. My motivations are more pure than yours so therefore my policies are the best”.

    You don’t want to debate “semantics” so fair enough. Just thought I’d say the “workers rights” refrain has been abused so much by the Left, and thrown around with such astonishing intellectual laziness, that no-one really gives it any credence.

  36. Felix 36

    jimbo,

    Or maybe it’s because the bill removes a bunch of workplace rights for the first 90 days.

  37. Pascal's bookie 37

    jimbo. so it’s like you lot with “property rights” then?

  38. Oliver 38

    I think that those two paragraphs of email drive home an important point. The govt has sweet fa money floating around to use because Labour managed to screw the govt’s books. Therefore the new national govt has to be careful. Nothing wrong with that. they also want to avoid borrowing so much that we’re forever screwed trying to pay it off. nothing wrong with that either.

  39. r0b 39

    If, by deception, you mean they campaigned on it [abolish worker’s rights bill], received a mandate and then enacted it, then I guess, yes, they were highly deceptive.

    It’s not like you to spout such arrant nonsense Billy. National didn’t “campaign on it” – if you can find any reference to it anywhere in National’s speeches or campaign material I will be very surprised. It was on their web site, and discussed on sites like this one, so it was seen by what – 0.1% of voters? They didn’t campaign on it, they had no mandate for it, they enacted it under urgency in a gross violation of the democratic process.

    Arguably, in fact, National didn’t campaign on anything except not being Labour, and tax cuts. Now that they are government it is abundantly clear that they haven’t a clue. Buckle up NZ, the next 3 years will be bumpy.

  40. jimbo 40

    Felix, anyone who”s been in a job for over 90 days has “lost” absolutely nothing.

    Let’s be absolutely clear who you’re referring to when you refer to “workers’ rights” (i.e. who you’re “fighting for”).

    Your “worker” in this case is someone who (a) didn’t have any job at all until he was (b) taken on board by an employer who wanted to give him a chance, but who (c) didn’t turn out to be what the employer was looking for (or was maliciously fired by the employer despite being fine at their job).

    Amongst (c), there are at least the following categories:
    (1) Despite doing everything right, boss maliciously fired them.
    (2) Despite doing everything right, boss fired them because of economic downturn.
    (3) Unable to do the job – intentionally misrepresented their ability during interview.
    (4) Unable to do the job – job turned out to be “bigger” than they were expecting. Just couldn’t step up despite making best efforts.
    (5) Lazy.
    (6) Criminal.

    Sure, the Act might need extra protections for category (1) and (2) people above, but to broadly state that “workers rights” have been taken away in the case of a previously unemployable, lazy employee who misrepresented his CV in order to get a job is total nonsense. Why do you fight for such a person? Why not help employers deal with them?

    This is not about “Workers’ rights” – it’s about trying to reddress an INFORMATION IMBALANCE. A potential employee might TELL YOU he is hardworking, competent and able to do the job, but in actual fact he could turn out to be wrong on all counts.

    Similarly, an employer could TELL YOU that the job is good hours, has fun co-workers, and is interesting. If you take that job but change your mind within the first 90 days, you can walk away without paying one cent compensation to the employer.

    The 90 day probation period evens up the information disparity that exists when new worker meets new job/employer – workers can leave at any time for any reason at all if they find out their decision to accept the job offer was “wrong”.

    In short, to say 90 days probation is taking away workers rights is, frankly, so intellectually lazy it’s laughable.

    Pascal – don’t understand your property rights comment.

  41. Tane 41

    jimbo. It helps to know the law before making an arse of yourself on the Internet.

    A lazy, criminal or incompetent employee can be sacked now, it just requires natural justice and a fair process. That fair process is the way we find out which ones are the lazy, criminal or incompetent ones, and which ones are just being unfairly treated by their boss.

    No worker wins by losing the right to a fair process, and in fact it’s the good ones who have the most to lose.

    That right-wingers are now absurdly trying to argue the removal of the right to a fair process in employment isn’t a removal of work rights shows just how desperate they are to defend this indefensible law.

  42. jimbo 42

    r0b – the latest polls show that, on balance, National’s voters have absolutely no problem with the law (or the way in which is was passed). It’s therefore a bit of a moot point to argue about how many people know the details of the policy beforehand.

    Like many others who comment here, you provocatively insist on referring to it as “abolishing workers’ rights”, which shows you’re not really equipped to properly assess the pros and cons of the measure.

    For the record, I think passing the law under urgency was a bit stupid politically. It was designed to make the new govt appear to be decisive and delivering on its promises. I think using urgency for political expediency should have been avoided, if nothing else to contract with the actions of the previous govt.

  43. jimbo 43

    Tane –

    You’re making an arse of yourself by casting around the insults – why the need to fall into ad hominem attacks?

    You’ve selectively chosen one tiny piece of my post and avoided responding to any parts of it that cannot be attacked on woolly grounds like “workers’ rights” or “fair process”.

    I understand the law and the reasons for it. Clearly there have been concerns that “fair process” is too complicated in certain circumstances. Employers are losing money and time because of “procedural missteps”. That potential for loss of time and money means employers are less likely to take a chance on a new, unproven employee.

    The new law effectively says – if the SUBSTANCE of the employer’s position is right, but the PROCEDURE that they followed during the first 90 days was wrong, nevertheless the employee has to leave.

    The new law is evening up (during the first 90 days) some of the “unfair” consequences of dogmatically sprouting “DUE PROCESS DUE PROCESS”, without bothering to consider the wider effects of such an approach.

    The law is saying “due process will now be different during the first 90 days”.

    You said “No worker wins by losing the right to a fair process, and in fact it’s the good ones who have the most to lose”. Care to lay a bit more meat on that bone? What do you mean? Why do “good ones” suffer from this law when these good ones are currently unemployed and presumably desperate to be given a chance to prove themselves.

  44. Tane 44

    It’s quite simple. Right now if you’re a competent employee your job is safe except in situations of redundnacy. Once the new law comes into effect your job is not safe – you can be sacked for no reason at all.

    If you’re lazy, incompetent or criminal you can be sacked now anyway for your laziness, incompetence or criminality.

    The reality is this law punishes competent employees the most and leaves all new workers in small businesses in fear that their economic livelihood could be taken out from under them at any time without warning.

    All this “desperate to prove themselves” rhetoric is nonsense. Aside from the slavish master-servant employment relationship you seem to be promoting, there’s no evidence that allowing bosses to sack their workers more easily will create any new jobs. Jobs exist because there is work to be done, not because it’s easier to fire people.

    You complain a lot about how hard it is to manage people. Well I’ve got news for you buddy, according to every international measure we’re one of the easiest places in the world to employ people and to do business. If you can’t even manage the basic task of managing people competently then you shouldn’t be a manager, it’s that simple.

  45. r0b 45

    It’s therefore a bit of a moot point to argue about how many people know the details of the policy beforehand.

    There are moot points (all good fun), and there is re-writing history (which is a form of propaganda). Billy was rewriting history. But I can’t stay to chat alas…

  46. jimbo 46

    Tane,

    Disagree – it’s NOT simple – it’s a careful balancing between the interests of society as a whole and the people who will be affected by the law (i.e. employers, new employees and potential new employees). You guys THINK it’s simple and keep sloganeering – you’d do your cause a lot more favours if you actually engaged on substance.

    For example, your first paragraph is scaremongering and simply not correct. I am a competent employee who has been with my current employer for 2 years – are you saying I can now be fired?

    Right now, if you’re an employee and you’ve been in a job for 90 days or more, nothing has changed at all. This applies whether you’re competent or not. So let’s keep the focus on those first 90 days and on people who previously did not have a job (or who decide to move jobs). It’s not “workers”. At best, it’s a subset of “workers” or it’s a new category called “people who want to become workers” (which they will as soon as they get through the first 90 days).

    Before the Act, if an employer filled a job and it didn’t turn out right (for any reason at all), that employer was faced with the prospect of significant cost and expense to implement “due process”. Employers were saying “this whole process is putting us off taking the risk of employing someone”.

    Society NEEDS economic risk-takers. Without risk-taking, there will be no growth.

    So the Act has responded to a perceived problem with the status quo by saying “lets modify due process during the first 90 days”. The reason the Act does this is because Parliament believes the modification will have positive incentive effects (that outweigh any associated negative incentive effects).

    I can list the positive effects of the law for ages. You can list the negative ones. (Previous threads have canvassed a lot of it.) On balance, Parliament has decided that the positive effects outweigh the negative ones and therefore society is better off if we pass the law.

    Sprouting on about “trampling works rights” or “eliminating due process” doesn’t make your position any better – or morally superior – to mine.

    If your definition of “workers rights” is so broad as to include “a right during the first 90 days of employment to the dismissal process as it existed immediately before
    passage of the law”, then yes, this new law takes away a workers’ right.

  47. jimbo 47

    Tane – I missed the bit in your comment about how I was promoting a “slavish master-servant employment relationship”. Made me laugh.

    God knows how you read that into any of my posts – I can only imagine that you’ve got a sloganeering gremlin in your computer madly adding things into any text on your page!

  48. Matthew Pilott 48

    jimbo, are you living in a 70’s utopia where you get a job and are in it for life, or are you with us in this brave new millenium where people change jobs on average every five years?

    The implication therein that the law will affect more than just those new to the workforce.

    Hence ‘workers’.

    The law does not take away “a workers’ right.” It takes every right of every worker in their first 90 days of employment, with the exception of about 5% of employers due to size.

  49. jimbo 49

    Matthew – are you living in a 1920’s nightmare where all employers are factory-owning, cigar-smoking, fat capitalists who exploit penniless workers under candlelight or have you entered the brave new millenium where (gasp!) society’s growth depends in large part on the efforts of small employers who are (often) no better off than many “workers”?

    You’ve come blazing into the debate, rattled off a pithy little insult to try and imply I’m a head-in-the-sand conservative who’s opinions are arguments are therefore without merit. You’ve made ABSOLUTELY ZERO attempt to address any of the substance in my previous posts.

    Your last paragraph is so bad you’ve decended into self-parody (basically proved my point about the descent into thoughtless sloganeering). I’m assuming you did it on purpose to be ironic.

  50. Matthew Pilott 50

    jimbo, take a breath and read it again.

    You said:

    So let’s keep the focus on those first 90 days and on people who previously did not have a job (or who decide to move jobs). It’s not “workers’. At best, it’s a subset of “workers’ or it’s a new category called “people who want to become workers’ (which they will as soon as they get through the first 90 days).

    To which I made the point that

    … people change jobs on average every five years?

    The implication therein that the law will affect more than just those new to the workforce.

    Hence ‘workers’.

    To analyse, since you insisted on not getting it the first time around, it’s not some special new subset of workers, the law change can affect anyone and everyone. Hence ‘workers’, not your proposed subset, by which you were trying to dismiss the full effect and scope of the law.

    You also posited that:

    If your definition of “workers rights’ is so broad as to include “a right during the first 90 days of employment to the dismissal process as it existed immediately before passage of the law’, then yes, this new law takes away a workers’ right.

    To which I replied:

    The law does not take away “a workers’ right.’ It takes every right of every worker in their first 90 days of employment, with the exception of about 5% of employers due to size.

    which, to the best of my knowledge is true, whether you choose to dismiss it as parody or not.

    To explain further, again because you chose not to understand: currently when newly employed you have the full plethora of Workers Rights. When the law comes into force, you’ll have no workplace rights for those 90 days. Hence taking away every right of every worker (referring to workplace rights, btw, not human rights, in case that needs to be spelled out…). The 5% exception is due to the fact that 95% of empolyees are in companies with fewer than 20 employed, as far as I gather.

    To be honest, I didn’t think it was that bad a comment, and it did address two points you made fairly directly, both of which seemed fairly fundamental to your argument.

  51. Matthew Pilott 51

    First line was a bit unnecessary though, sorry.

  52. jimbo 52

    Matthew,

    The “due process” for the first 90 days of employement has changed. That is unargued.

    The “workers right” you’re arguing for is the *right* for the due process regime for the first 90 days to remain exactly as it was before the law was passed. Do I have that correct? In my view, that’s an incredibly strained view of what a “workers’ right” is.

    No one in society has the “right” for laws to remain static. I don’t have the “right” to drink up to the drink-driving limit as it existed 20 years ago. If that limit changed, it would be ridiculous to say that I’ve lost a “right”.

    To say all workers have had a “right” stripped away from them is, in my view, misleading and inflammatory.

    There is a subset of people currently working who are immediately affected by the law. Whatever % of the workforce are currently less than 90 days into their job with a small employer. ALL people not currently working are also affected in a positive way (they DO NOT have a job right now, the new law makes it more likely they will be offered one).

    Of course “everyone” is affected. That’s what happens when society changes its laws.

    Let’s look at your last paragraph again:

    “It takes every right of every worker in their first 90 days of employment, with the exception of about 5% of employers due to size.’

    You start off with the saying workers lose “every right” during their first 90 days, which is demonstrably wrong. You then switch from employees to employers because the numbers look better for your argument. The 5% of employers due to size end up employing a major chunck of the workforce, do they not? It would have been far more intellectually honest of you to give us the following: “Except for 50% of workers who are employed by companies that won’t be subject to the new law” (FAOD I have no idea whether it is 50%, but I wouldn’t be surprised).

    That’s why the argument never makes progress. It’s clouded by impassioned rhetoric rather than fair and reasoned debate.

    Labour will never repeal this law.

  53. jimbo 53

    Matthew –

    I’ve only just noticed that you genuinely believe ALL workplace rights have been lost for the first 90 days. That is a comical reading of the law and also a total misunderstanding of what is usually regarded as being part of the “plethora of workplace rights”.

    I’m pretty sure (1) health and safety laws, (2) sexual harassment, (3) your legal right to be paid, (4) overtime/hours worked restrictions, (5) right to strike, etc have not been done away with for 90 days…!

    The one “right” that has changed in the dismissal process. Don’t over-egg it.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • EV road user charges bill passes
    Transport Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed the passing of legislation to move light electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) into the road user charges system from 1 April.  “It was always intended that EVs and PHEVs would be exempt from road user charges until they reached two ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 hours ago
  • Bill targets illegal, unregulated fishing in international waters
    New Zealand is strengthening its ability to combat illegal fishing outside its domestic waters and beef up regulation for its own commercial fishers in international waters through a Bill which had its first reading in Parliament today. The Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2023 sets out stronger ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 hours ago
  • Reserve Bank appointments
    Economists Carl Hansen and Professor Prasanna Gai have been appointed to the Reserve Bank Monetary Policy Committee, Finance Minister Nicola Willis announced today. The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) is the independent decision-making body that sets the Official Cash Rate which determines interest rates.  Carl Hansen, the executive director of Capital ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 hours ago
  • Stronger protections for apartment owners
    Apartment owners and buyers will soon have greater protections as further changes to the law on unit titles come into effect, Housing Minister Chris Bishop says. “The Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Act had already introduced some changes in December 2022 and May 2023, and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    8 hours ago
  • Travel focused on traditional partners and Middle East
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters will travel to Egypt and Europe from this weekend.    “This travel will focus on a range of New Zealand’s traditional diplomatic and security partnerships while enabling broad engagement on the urgent situation in Gaza,” Mr Peters says.   Mr Peters will attend the NATO Foreign ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    8 hours ago
  • Keep safe on our roads this Easter
    Transport Minister Simeon Brown is encouraging all road users to stay safe, plan their journeys ahead of time, and be patient with other drivers while travelling around this Easter long weekend. “Road safety is a responsibility we all share, and with increased traffic on our roads expected this Easter we ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    11 hours ago
  • Cost of living support for over 1.4 million Kiwis
    About 1.4 million New Zealanders will receive cost of living relief through increased government assistance from April 1 909,000 pensioners get a boost to Superannuation, including 5000 veterans 371,000 working-age beneficiaries will get higher payments 45,000 students will see an increase in their allowance Over a quarter of New Zealanders ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    11 hours ago
  • Tenancy reviews for social housing restart
    Ensuring social housing is being provided to those with the greatest needs is front of mind as the Government restarts social housing tenancy reviews, Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka says. “Our relentless focus on building a strong economy is to ensure we can deliver better public services such as social ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    12 hours ago
  • Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary plan halted
    The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary will not go ahead, with Cabinet deciding to stop work on the proposed reserve and remove the Bill that would have established it from Parliament’s order paper. “The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill would have created a 620,000 sq km economic no-go zone,” Oceans and Fisheries Minister ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    12 hours ago
  • Cutting all that dam red tape
    Dam safety regulations are being amended so that smaller dams won’t be subject to excessive compliance costs, Minister for Building and Construction Chris Penk says. “The coalition Government is focused on reducing costs and removing unnecessary red tape so we can get the economy back on track.  “Dam safety regulations ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    13 hours ago
  • Drought support extended to parts of North Island
    The coalition Government is expanding the medium-scale adverse event classification to parts of the North Island as dry weather conditions persist, Agriculture Minister Todd McClay announced today. “I have made the decision to expand the medium-scale adverse event classification already in place for parts of the South Island to also cover the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    14 hours ago
  • Passage of major tax bill welcomed
    The passing of legislation giving effect to coalition Government tax commitments has been welcomed by Finance Minister Nicola Willis.  “The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023–24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill will help place New Zealand on a more secure economic footing, improve outcomes for New Zealanders, and make our tax system ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Lifting economy through science, tertiary sectors
    Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Judith Collins and Tertiary Education and Skills Minister Penny Simmonds today announced plans to transform our science and university sectors to boost the economy. Two advisory groups, chaired by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, will advise the Government on how these sectors can play a greater ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Government announces Budget priorities
    The Budget will deliver urgently-needed tax relief to hard-working New Zealanders while putting the government’s finances back on a sustainable track, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says.  The Finance Minister made the comments at the release of the Budget Policy Statement setting out the Government’s Budget objectives. “The coalition Government intends ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Government to consider accommodation solution
    The coalition Government will look at options to address a zoning issue that limits how much financial support Queenstown residents can get for accommodation. Cabinet has agreed on a response to the Petitions Committee, which had recommended the geographic information MSD uses to determine how much accommodation supplement can be ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Government approves extension to Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care
    Cabinet has agreed to a short extension to the final reporting timeframe for the Royal Commission into Abuse in Care from 28 March 2024 to 26 June 2024, Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden says.                                         “The Royal Commission wrote to me on 16 February 2024, requesting that I consider an ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • $18m boost for Kiwis travelling to health treatment
    The coalition Government is delivering an $18 million boost to New Zealanders needing to travel for specialist health treatment, Health Minister Dr Shane Reti says.   “These changes are long overdue – the National Travel Assistance (NTA) scheme saw its last increase to mileage and accommodation rates way back in 2009.  ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • PM’s Prizes for Space to showcase sector’s talent
    The Government is recognising the innovative and rising talent in New Zealand’s growing space sector, with the Prime Minister and Space Minister Judith Collins announcing the new Prime Minister’s Prizes for Space today. “New Zealand has a growing reputation as a high-value partner for space missions and research. I am ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Concerns conveyed to China over cyber activity
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has confirmed New Zealand’s concerns about cyber activity have been conveyed directly to the Chinese Government.     “The Prime Minister and Minister Collins have expressed concerns today about malicious cyber activity, attributed to groups sponsored by the Chinese Government, targeting democratic institutions in both New ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Independent Reviewers appointed for School Property Inquiry
    Independent Reviewers appointed for School Property Inquiry Education Minister Erica Stanford today announced the appointment of three independent reviewers to lead the Ministerial Inquiry into the Ministry of Education’s School Property Function.  The Inquiry will be led by former Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully. “There is a clear need ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Brynderwyns open for Easter
    State Highway 1 across the Brynderwyns will be open for Easter weekend, with work currently underway to ensure the resilience of this critical route being paused for Easter Weekend to allow holiday makers to travel north, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “Today I visited the Brynderwyn Hills construction site, where ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Speech to the Infrastructure Funding & Financing Conference
    Introduction Good morning to you all, and thanks for having me bright and early today. I am absolutely delighted to be the Minister for Infrastructure alongside the Minister of Housing and Resource Management Reform. I know the Prime Minister sees the three roles as closely connected and he wants me ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Parliamentary network breached by the PRC
    New Zealand stands with the United Kingdom in its condemnation of People’s Republic of China (PRC) state-backed malicious cyber activity impacting its Electoral Commission and targeting Members of the UK Parliament. “The use of cyber-enabled espionage operations to interfere with democratic institutions and processes anywhere is unacceptable,” Minister Responsible for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • NZ to provide support for Solomon Islands election
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Defence Minister Judith Collins today announced New Zealand will provide logistics support for the upcoming Solomon Islands election. “We’re sending a team of New Zealand Defence Force personnel and two NH90 helicopters to provide logistics support for the election on 17 April, at the request ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • NZ-EU FTA gains Royal Assent for 1 May entry to force
    The European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill received Royal Assent today, completing the process for New Zealand’s ratification of its free trade agreement with the European Union.    “I am pleased to announce that today, in a small ceremony at the Beehive, New Zealand notified the European Union ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • COVID-19 inquiry attracts 11,000 submissions
    Public consultation on the terms of reference for the Royal Commission into COVID-19 Lessons has concluded, Internal Affairs Minister Hon Brooke van Velden says.  “I have been advised that there were over 11,000 submissions made through the Royal Commission’s online consultation portal.” Expanding the scope of the Royal Commission of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Families to receive up to $75 a week help with ECE fees
    Hardworking families are set to benefit from a new credit to help them meet their early childcare education (ECE) costs, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says. From 1 July, parents and caregivers of young children will be supported to manage the rising cost of living with a partial reimbursement of their ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Unlocking a sustainable, low-emissions future
    A specialised Independent Technical Advisory Group (ITAG) tasked with preparing and publishing independent non-binding advice on the design of a "green" (sustainable finance) taxonomy rulebook is being established, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says.  “Comprising experts and market participants, the ITAG's primary goal is to deliver comprehensive recommendations to the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Chief of Army thanked for his service
    Defence Minister Judith Collins has thanked the Chief of Army, Major General John Boswell, DSD, for his service as he leaves the Army after 40 years. “I would like to thank Major General Boswell for his contribution to the Army and the wider New Zealand Defence Force, undertaking many different ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Minister to meet Australian counterparts and Manufacturing Industry Leaders
    25 March 2024 Minister to meet Australian counterparts and Manufacturing Industry Leaders Small Business, Manufacturing, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly will travel to Australia for a series of bi-lateral meetings and manufacturing visits. During the visit, Minister Bayly will meet with his Australian counterparts, Senator Tim Ayres, Ed ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Government commits nearly $3 million for period products in schools
    Government commits almost $3 million for period products in schools The Coalition Government has committed $2.9 million to ensure intermediate and secondary schools continue providing period products to those who need them, Minister of Education Erica Stanford announced today. “This is an issue of dignity and ensuring young women don’t ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Speech – Making it easier to build.
    Good morning, it’s great to be here.   First, I would like to acknowledge the New Zealand Institute of Building Surveyors and thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning.  I would like to use this opportunity to outline the Government’s ambitious plan and what we hope to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Pacific youth to shine from boost to Polyfest
    Minister for Pacific Peoples Dr Shane Reti has announced the Government’s commitment to the Auckland Secondary Schools Māori and Pacific Islands Cultural Festival, more commonly known as Polyfest. “The Ministry for Pacific Peoples is a longtime supporter of Polyfest and, as it celebrates 49 years in 2024, I’m proud to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • 2024 Ngarimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarships announced
    ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Speech to Breast Cancer Foundation – Insights Conference
    Before moving onto the substance of today’s address, I want to recognise the very significant and ongoing contribution the Breast Cancer Foundation makes to support the lives of New Zealand women and their families living with breast cancer. I very much enjoy working with you. I also want to recognise ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Kiwi research soars to International Space Station
    New Zealand has notched up a first with the launch of University of Canterbury research to the International Space Station, Science, Innovation and Technology and Space Minister Judith Collins says. The hardware, developed by Dr Sarah Kessans, is designed to operate autonomously in orbit, allowing scientists on Earth to study ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Speech to the New Zealand Planning Institute
    Introduction Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today and I’m sorry I can’t be there in person. Yesterday I started in Wellington for Breakfast TV, spoke to a property conference in Auckland, and finished the day speaking to local government in Christchurch, so it would have been ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Support for Northland emergency response centre
    The Coalition Government is contributing more than $1 million to support the establishment of an emergency multi-agency coordination centre in Northland. Emergency Management and Recovery Minister Mark Mitchell announced the contribution today during a visit of the Whangārei site where the facility will be constructed.  “Northland has faced a number ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Celebrating 20 years of Whakaata Māori
    New Zealanders have enjoyed a broader range of voices telling the story of Aotearoa thanks to the creation of Whakaata Māori 20 years ago, says Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka. The minister spoke at a celebration marking the national indigenous media organisation’s 20th anniversary at their studio in Auckland on ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Some commercial fishery catch limits increased
    Commercial catch limits for some fisheries have been increased following a review showing stocks are healthy and abundant, Ocean and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones says. The changes, along with some other catch limit changes and management settings, begin coming into effect from 1 April 2024. "Regular biannual reviews of fish ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago

Page generated in The Standard by Wordpress at 2024-03-28T08:39:58+00:00