Wednesday, November 22, 2006



Probationary employment bill fails

Wayne Mapp's Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill lost its second reading tonight, 67-53, with NZ First joining the Labour - Green - Progressive - Maori Party bloc in voting it down. Listening to some of the speeches, I was shocked by the hysterical claims made in support of the bill - that the economy would collapse if it did not pass, and that employers would simply stop hiring people if they were not allowed to deny them employment rights. Somehow, I don't think this is likely - and if any do, I think that they are the sorts of employers we are all better off without. It is revealing though of the mindset of some National Party MPs, that they think that anything less than treating workers like serfs is a recipe for economic disaster. I guess nineteenth century attitudes about the divine right of capital die hard...

The House also got through the Whangamata marina bill (voted down) and the Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill (sent to committee), so there will be a ballot tomorrow for one bill. I'll post the results and information on any new bills at the usual time.

10 comments:

Oh come on I/S. There is an elephant in the room. Maybe you are not ready to post yet on DBP. Fair enough. But don't leave it too long.

Could United Future walk away from the coalition? If not, will the Govt. lose their majority pending a by-election? Will Israel demand an explanation?

Talk about interesting times.

Posted by kiwi_donkey : 11/22/2006 10:53:00 PM

Que pasa? Have I missed something?

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 11/22/2006 11:00:00 PM

Ah, so desu ne. Fucked if I'm paying those creeps a dollar to read it. I'm sure any parts of it which are newsworthy (rather than merely salacious) will be mirrored in free and respectable media.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 11/22/2006 11:03:00 PM

You really should pay your dollar and download Investigate's article.

You'll need a shower afterwards (because of Wishhart, not DBP). But there seems a strong prima facie case, backed up by verbatim reporting. The activities don't worry me (except for the impact on how we interpret secondary school incidents). What worries me is the extraordinary degree of (claimed) political hypocrisy and lying.

Also, there has been some corroboration - DBP's comment to Wishhart, the existence of the group and some named individuals. More corroboration is desirable. A denial would be better.

Posted by kiwi_donkey : 11/22/2006 11:07:00 PM

No thanks - I'd really rather not financially support his bigoted panty-sniffing operation.

While not knowing the full extent of the allegations, to the extent that its between consenting adults, I take exactly the same approach that I did in the case of Don Brash: I don't care. It might be amusing, it might be titillating, it might be unexpected, but fundamentally its none of my business who other people screw, or how, or how many at once. I don't want them thinking about my bedroom, and I sure as hell don't want to think about theirs.

I should also add that once again Ian Wishart has shown himself to be a panty-sniffing bottom feeder. This is the sort of crap Truth spewed in the 70's. And it hasn't got any better with age.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 11/22/2006 11:30:00 PM

I/S Fair enough. I think there is a public interest, but respect your different view. But doesn't the sheer (alleged) hypocrisy of DBP worry you a bit?

Posted by kiwi_donkey : 11/23/2006 07:48:00 AM

You don't have to pay money to that fucking weasel Wishart to see why he has a vendetta aganist David Benson-Pope. Its all in his first paragraph:

"In July 2004, at the height of the clash of cultures surrounding Labour’s civil unions legislation, the man responsible for ramming that law through Parliament laid down a gauntlet challenging the integrity of groups opposing him. Married, with two children, Associate Justice Minister David Benson-Pope..."

Wishart is conducting a vicious smear campaign against Mr. Benson-Pope because he sees him as responsible for getting the civil union law through parliament.
No media has picked this up except in the most cautious manner possible in the Herald. Wishart will be sued over this, no doubt about it.

Posted by Sanctuary : 11/23/2006 08:19:00 AM

The fictional Coketown industrialists portrayed in Dickens's Hard Times show that some attitudes have barely changed in the last hundred-and-sixty-plus years:

"Whenever a Coketowner felt he was ill-used - that is to say, whenever he was not left entirely alone, and it was proposed to hold him accountable for the consequences of any of his acts - he was sure
to come out with the awful menace, that he would 'sooner pitch his property into the Atlantic.' This had terrified the Home Secretary within an inch of his life, on several occasions.

However, the Coketowners were so patriotic after all, that they never had pitched their property into the Atlantic yet, but, on the contrary, had been kind enough to take mighty good care of it. So there it was, in the haze yonder; and it increased and multiplied."

The same voices that advocate eroding the conditions of working people as a key to prosperity are those who eulogise the relatively high-wage Australian economy.

Posted by woppo : 11/23/2006 09:16:00 AM

On to the actual topic...

I was in the House for the last part of Mapp's bill, the Whangamata bill, and the Airport bill. Most people in the public gallery were there for Darren Hughes' bill, not Mapp's, which shows a lack of care from unions. (I was there for Darren's bill I should note).

Posted by G : 11/23/2006 03:11:00 PM

G, get your facts right.

There was a large contingent there from the EPMU, and later on a number of officials from the CTU and other affiliated unions showed up to watch the final vote.

Posted by Anonymous : 11/27/2006 08:38:00 AM