Two bills pass

The Government successfully had two bills passed in Parliament yesterday.

NZH: Paid parental leave amendment passes final reading in Parliament

The Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill has passed it’s final reading in Parliament.

NZH:Longer paid parental leave starts in July

Bill extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks by July 2020 has passed its final reading.

And NZH: Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill is Govt’s second major law to pass

The Government insists that new minimum standards to ensure rental homes are warm and dry will not push up the price of renting – and help will be available to landlords facing extra costs.

The Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill – which requires minimum standards for heating, insulation, ventilation and drainage in rental homes – passed its third and final reading in Parliament this evening.

The bill passed with the support of Labour, New Zealand First and the Green parties. I

Housing Minister Phil Twyford said most landlords do a good job, but the lack of legal standards means some rentals are not fit to live in.

“A butcher isn’t allowed to sell meat that will make their customers sick, but a landlord is allowed to rent out a house that is too cold, or damp and damages the health of its occupants.

It may help push some landlords to improve houses and flats, but it won’t guarantee every house and flat will always be warm and healthy. Tenants (and owner/occupiers) need to take some responsibility for their own living conditions.

Leave a comment

56 Comments

  1. Trevors_elbow

     /  December 1, 2017

    A number of houses will be left vacant and not be upgraded.. then they will be bowled, when the time is right to make max dollars, with units replacing them… be interesting to see if lefties bemoan the destruction of “character” homes when this occurs or the perfect but tiny boxes that replace all that “character”.

    Could easily make the rental market tighter especially in old suburbs favoured by students…

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  December 1, 2017

      smash speculators with unused land tax,empty inhabitable house tax…tax them out of existence..they are parasites on society.

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  December 1, 2017

        I agree with the sentiment in some ways Blazer, especially historically, but we don’t have to smash them …

        A simple TOP-like asset or wealth tax will do the job …

        Rationalize the whole marketplace – insomuch as ‘property in the soil’ can be rationalized – and divert the investment funds into productive businesses in sustainable industries.

        Reply
        • PDB

           /  December 1, 2017

          PZ: “A simple TOP-like asset or wealth tax will do the job …”

          The biggest problem with that policy was that it wasn’t simple – huge costs to enforce & administer, exceptions for Africa, and major issues regarding fairness – especially in regard to not being able to claim tax rebates where assets have been overvalued.

          Reply
          • PartisanZ

             /  December 1, 2017

            I concede that it could be simpler PDB … The devil’s in the detail.

            But does that rule out the principle of asset or wealth tax?

            Reply
      • David

         /  December 1, 2017

        I agree somewhat Blazer in that rates in Auckland on undeveloped land where it could be developed should be rated as if they had been developed. Too easy to land bank there with the left wing councils restricting development.

        Reply
        • High Flying Duck

           /  December 1, 2017

          It was a retrograde step when the council derided to rate on full CV instead of just the land value as it had previously been.
          I’m not sure why the change was made.

          Reply
  2. Gezza

     /  December 1, 2017

    The National government paid for my fibre broadband & insulation. Not bad for righties.

    Reply
    • High Flying Duck

       /  December 1, 2017

      You must be part of the 1% Gezza – there is no other explanation…

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  December 1, 2017

        🤔Not unless their annual income is also only around $25k. 😳

        Reply
        • High Flying Duck

           /  December 1, 2017

          Tongue firmly in cheek Gezza – just making a point of the futility in mentioning anything National did that wasn’t lining the pockets of the wealthy.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  December 1, 2017

            aonther subsidy to Chorus shareholders like…Dave.

            Reply
            • David

               /  December 1, 2017

              Hope you dont mean me Blazer as I am out of the NZ market now the socialists are running the place I am in the US making money with Trump, its boom times.

            • Blazer

               /  December 1, 2017

              no Dave1924….smart alec …Dave.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  December 1, 2017

        The Key Government were opportunists first, righties second. Sir Gerald is one of the undeserving poor – opportunists first, lefties second. They had a lot of common ground.

        This law will make an already tight rental market worse. More people will be crammed into smaller spaces and get sicker. Serious unintended consequences are inevitable.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  December 1, 2017

          🤔 Actually – I possibly am one of the 1% – just sadly the 1% at the less desirable end of the income scale.

          Reply
        • Blazer

           /  December 1, 2017

          take away the accommodation subsidy…direct welfare for landlords…and they are out of…business.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  December 1, 2017

            So landlords won’t build houses and homelessness and overcrowding will rise, B?

            The Left always look for tax and welfare solutions. The Right look for efficiencies, incentives and innovations.

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  December 1, 2017

              Landlords don’t build,they buy,and keep leveraging ,denying home buyers stock to…purchase.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 1, 2017

              I think we will now demonstrate that few renters are prepared to buy with the consequences I have predicted.

            • Blazer

               /  December 1, 2017

              the Right look for a taxpayer funded handouts…accommodation subsidies of …billions…and now they want a couple of hundred mill…for a fuckin yacht..race.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 1, 2017

              How many billion do the Left want for doing nothing, B?

            • High Flying Duck

               /  December 1, 2017

              Nice point Al – The left want billions for doing nothing, the right want it for doing something, and only if CB is shown.
              The Greens find it abhorrent and demeaning to put any caveats on Government handouts.
              The cost of all the infrastructure and the hosting fee for the America’s Cup, which will bring in huge overseas funds to NZ businesses and the Government would pay for about 1 day of benefits.

            • Gezza

               /  December 1, 2017

              So the government should encourage businesses who’ll benefit from it to fund it. With their equivalents of sausage sizzles – charity dinners for the glitterati & the moneyed classes etc. Not the taxes of the poor sods who make nothing from these wankers.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 1, 2017

              They usually do, don’t they, Sir Gerald? Where permanent civic amenities are required there is a role for Government funding in support.

              Should Governments promote tourism?

            • PartisanZ

               /  December 1, 2017

              @Blazer – “the Right look for a taxpayer funded handouts …accommodation subsidies of … billions …”

              Would it be more correct to say the Right don’t “look for” these things. Like you don’t hear them pleading and begging. Instead, as the power brokers, they simply organize them for themselves?

            • Gezza

               /  December 1, 2017

              Should Governments promote tourism?
              Absolutely, Sir Alan. Ministers travelling overseas should always do it, & as the government has diplomatic missions around the world they may as well have a role in promoting tourism as well for diplomatic & economic reasons. But promoting your country generally is what any government does anyway.

              Tourism operators have the strongest possible incentive to promote it themselves anyway (profit), and do so. All the government really needs to do is make touring easy via its visitors visa policy. It doesn’t need to fund private ventures. Those businesses who see a profit in it for themselves will do it themselves. If they don’t they won’t & neither should the government with my taxes.

              If I had a choice I wouldn’t agree to my taxes funding the NZSO either.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 1, 2017

              I guess the counter argument to that, Sir Gerald, is that many businesses benefit from tourism but would get a free ride if their taxes were not used to promote it and that tourists pay taxes (eg GST) which benefit Government finances directly and therefore justify expenditure that promotes that. I haven’t seen any analysis of those cost benefits.

            • PartisanZ

               /  December 1, 2017

              @Gezza – “If I had a choice I wouldn’t agree to my taxes funding the NZSO either.”

              Oh no, not the Symphony Orchestra Gezza! Treason!

              It is therefore right and proper that you do not have the choice … and I don’t enjoy saying that.

              Someone actually wrote once in a Letter-to-the-Editor of the Northern Advocate – “Why should I have to pay to have other people’s children educated”

              This probably warrants a cost-benefit analysis.

            • Gezza

               /  December 1, 2017

              Well, PZ, I believe in state funded education for the benefit of the children & the country. But I believe in state-funded music only if they fund ALL performing musicians. If I want to hear a local rock band I have to pay them, or the pub has to pay them, or they don’t get paid. Calling music classical & thus art, & that thus any other band is not art, when both are playing for their supper, but paying the NZSO members from my taxes, when I don’t even go to hear them except on one or two very rare occasions, strikes me as inhererently unfair & inequitable.

          • PartisanZ

             /  December 1, 2017

            The ‘Left’ don’t do nothing Alan. Behind the scenes, people with social empathy, engagement and commitment – none of whom should really be labelled ‘Left’ or ‘Right’ because it isn’t an either/or situation – but who do not think in strictly economic terms, are keeping our communities going in ways unseen and sometimes almost indefinable – in what Maori might call ‘wairuatanga’ ways – striving for thrival, greater belonging and improved well-being, personal and collective …

            Just like to the forefront, many ‘businesses’ driven more [but not exclusively] by the economic mindset, are doing exactly the same …

            “We all do better when we all do better”

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 1, 2017

              Billions have been spent on welfare, PZ, with the claimed conseqiences that poverty and inequality are worse than ever.

            • PartisanZ

               /  December 1, 2017

              They may not be worse than ever because of ‘welfare’ Alan. Have you got evidence the two are mutually inclusive?

              Welfare has its corollary … unearned privilege …

              I hope we all get to agree one day on what might constitute ‘Well Fair” …

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 1, 2017

              Unearned privilege is not a corollary of welfare, it is a definition of it.

            • Fight4NZ

               /  December 1, 2017

              Exactly.
              Under right wing administrations the wealth have been the benefactors of billions in govt welfare.

            • PartisanZ

               /  December 1, 2017

              If I’m understanding you correctly Fight4NZ, and possibly you too Alan, that unearned privilege is not confined to beneficiaries and the Precariat, but includes middle-class and wealthy people too, then I agree.

              I wonder, given the numbers of bene’s and precaries compared to the implied ‘value demanded’ by the wealthier cohort, which ultimately gets the most ‘other peoples’ money’ spent on them?

  3. Blazer

     /  December 1, 2017

    its not a nice point at all…its hypocrisy…the much vaunted efficiency of market forces stripped bare and revealed as a tiny shrivelled…useless appendage…underneath…padding.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  December 1, 2017

      ?! So says a man whose entire life was and is maintained by what he denigrates. Self awareness is not your strong point, B.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  December 1, 2017

        you have no idea what you ..are talking..about.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  December 1, 2017

          I have an idea you did not fly in here from Mars, B. Possibly that is incorrect but I doubt it.

          Reply
      • Fight4NZ

         /  December 1, 2017

        Entire life …
        No, I am pretty sure the neoliberal economic model that he denigrates has only been lining the pockets of the wealthy since the mid eighties.
        It is the efforts of generations before that all (as far as I can tell) here are relying on but have watched chipped away at for most of the decades since, including you.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  December 1, 2017

          Gross and appalling ignorance,F4. NZ’s earlier wealth depended on free market agriculture and transport, not socialism. And that goes back to the days of the sealers and whalers.

          Reply
          • PartisanZ

             /  December 1, 2017

            Exercise restraint Parti … you can do it …. Breath!

            Oh FFS … agriculture and transport pre-1984 were ‘free market’? Really?

            What about the *protectionist* subsidies and tariffs? What about the falsely deflated price of ‘colonised’ oil production? Conveniently *socialist* when you want it to be Alan.

            Sealers and whalers!? Jesus! Perfect examples of a ‘free market’. Rob the resources of another peoples’ land and seas, and pillage them until the resource is near extinction, destroying your own industry …. Great model! Let’s make up a name for it, shall we? I know, “disaster capitalism”.

            Aggravated burglars, rapists and murderers are good for the police, courts and prison ‘marketplaces’ too …

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 1, 2017

              Oh, you mean Muldoon’s wealth-destroying socialism that left a 20% devaluation legacy for the incoming Government, an imbalance in agriculture and a bunch of failed Think Big projects?

              Yes, the sealers and whalers were free market wealth creators of their time taking big risks and sailing halfway around the world into unknown territories to bring home and sell valuable products previously unattainable. And yes, the tragedy of the commons resulted demonstrating the need for property rights like fishing quotas.

            • PDB

               /  December 1, 2017

              PZ: “pillage them until the resource is near extinction, destroying your own industry …. Great model! Let’s make up a name for it, shall we? I know, “disaster capitalism”.

              So the Maori making Moa extinct means they were capitalists?

            • PartisanZ

               /  December 1, 2017

              PDB – Its barely worth talking to you. No, Maori making the Moa extinct means that, in relation to THAT RESOURCE ONLY, they MAY have been no better managers than Pakeha whalers and sealers were …

              There could be other factors? Humans and Moa may have been competing for food?

              On a similar subject close to your heart – or where your heart once was -I’ve recently heard, for instance, about the theory that a high birth rate and population growth among Northern Maori during the early 19th Century was a contributing factor (among others) in the so-called ‘Musket Wars’, since the ‘slave’ resource [which means a different thing in a non-moneyed society] needed to produce much more food could only be won by conquest …

              Speaking of currensied slaves. To paraphrase Alan: [This is Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard to a ‘T’] – “Yes, the slavers were free market wealth creators of their time taking big risks and sailing halfway around the world into unknown territories to bring home and sell valuable products previously unattainable”.

            • PDB

               /  December 1, 2017

              Considering you talk/post to yourself pontificating & unnecessarily cluttering up the place with long-winded posts do you really talk to anybody here?

              PZ: “Maori making the Moa extinct means that, in relation to THAT RESOURCE ONLY, they MAY have been no better managers than Pakeha whalers and sealers were …”

              Hate to break it to you but seals and whales are still about today – the Moa…isn’t.

            • Conspiratoor

               /  December 1, 2017

              parti, it seems pants may have a point. My good friend Muriel has been doing some research…

              “Although Maori tribal groups like to describe themselves as the ‘guardians’ of the environment, the details within the coastal applications shows something quite different – that their primary interest is in gaining the rights to exploit New Zealand’s coastline.

              In fact, it turns out that some of the Maori groups that are vociferously protesting against companies that are applying for offshore mining rights want to be able to do it for themselves, with many groups specifying the ‘extraction of minerals’ in their foreshore and seabed High Court applications. Those minerals listed include sand, peat, shingle, rocks, aggregate, stone, iron and ochre.

              But their interests go well beyond minerals. Some claimants have stated that they want the right to “take” dolphins and whales, penguins and seals, even though they are protected species. Many want to harvest seabirds and their eggs, as well as all species of fish and shellfish. They want vegetation – including seaweed, which has commercial value as a liquid fertiliser. Some want control of the landing, launching, anchoring and mooring of all vessels, of all boatsheds, and of all aquaculture development. Most intend imposing rahui to protect their fishing spots and wahi tapu to prohibit public access – especially to sand dunes, which are not even part of the marine and coastal area.

              The claims that have been lodged are of two basic types – a Customary Marine Title and a Protected Customary Right. Most of the claimants are going for both, no doubt on the assumption that if they lose their claim for a Customary Marine Title, they may be awarded the lesser Protected Customary Right instead. That would give them the right to carry out specified ‘customary’ activities, without the need for consents. Local authorities would be prohibited from granting resource consents to anyone else that could have an adverse effect on that protected customary right.”

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 1, 2017

              @C, yes, going for welfare aka unearned privilege in a big, big way.

            • PDB

               /  December 1, 2017

              The inconvenient truth of Maori fishing rights & how jobs for Maori in the fishing industry hasn’t occurred;

              http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/latest-edition/4975596/Iwi-blamed-for-state-of-fishery

              “MAORI ARE losing their multimillion-dollar fishing industry to companies using Asian charter fishing boats.

              But tribal leadership is largely silent on how deep-sea fishing, once touted as an economic saviour for Maori, now depends on Asian and Ukrainian foreign charter vessels, many of which are little more than high sea sweatshops.

              One leading operator had admitted Maori fishing would close down without the boats, which iwi sell quota to, with the operators shipping the catch to China for processing.

              About 2500 men from Third World countries work ageing boats, and many are beaten and forced to work for days without rest to earn as little as $260 a month, according to government documents previously reported in the Sunday Star-Times.”

            • Blazer

               /  December 1, 2017

              @Con…you forgot to mention that they want…to return puha..and pakeha to..their diet.

            • PartisanZ

               /  December 1, 2017

              @PDB – “cluttering up the place with long-winded posts do you really talk to anybody here?”

              You are replying PDB …

              Its that ‘need to win’ thing, isn’t it?

              There’s no comparison PDB. Moa was a species isolated to parts of these islands. Seals and whales live in the vast oceans …

              I’ll reword it for you. They may not have been AS GOOD … there, how’s that? And the resource may not have been ANYWHERE NEAR as numerous and widespread?

              Of course, there may have been other factors? A mini-ice-age or ‘cooling event’ or something from about 1500 AD for some time? I’ve read about it but I’m not going to waste my time researching it so you can come back with some pedantic, pathetic ‘point of order’ …

            • PartisanZ

               /  December 1, 2017

              @PDB – ““MAORI ARE losing their multimillion-dollar fishing industry …”

              I reckon a proper and thorough investigation of the issue could only conclude the primary culprit is ‘globalization’, which shelters nations that exploit their people as workers in modern-day wage-slavery.

              You don’t seem to care about that?

              Maori enterprises, no doubt like numerous Pakeha fishing operators, simply can’t compete if they have to pay Kiwi wage rates or even contract rates to their workers … or wish to pay themselves a living wage …

              So clearly YOUR motive is to blame Maori, as indeed the stuff headline implies their’s is too …

              It’s that institutional racism thing … the need to dominate …

  4. PDB

     /  December 1, 2017

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/03/why-did-new-zealands-moas-go-extinct

    “The paper presents a very convincing case of extinction due to humans,” says Carles Lalueza-Fox, an evolutionary biologist at the Institute of Evolutionary Biology in Barcelona, Spain, who was not involved in the research. “It’s not because of a long, natural decline.”

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  December 1, 2017

      Not even due to global warming? Or the Sixth Great Extinction? Or to overpopulation? Or to Capitalist greed?

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  December 1, 2017

        Which, gentlemen, is why I said “MAY” … as in “might have been” … [question mark]

        It’s that need to win thing …

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s