Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page »

And now we have Trevor Mallard with an explicit bill to raise it, but not index it.

by IdiotSavantIdiotSavant, 09 Feb 2010 22:34

Carmel Sepuloni is now advancing 90-day repeal.

by IdiotSavantIdiotSavant, 09 Feb 2010 22:33

It isn't a fixed date, and (per wikipedia) some iwi celebrate it on different days to others. I guess that would need to be allowed for?

by rich_d_richrich_d_rich, 27 Dec 2009 22:12

Actually, is (c) necessary? The last possible date for easter sunday is April 25th, so Anzac day can never overlap with good friday; its only easter monday we have to worry about.

by IdiotSavantIdiotSavant, 27 Dec 2009 21:44

Voted down 63-58. National and ACT voted for slavery. Can I call them rude names yet?

Re: by IdiotSavantIdiotSavant, 29 Jul 2009 11:56

May it be the first victory of many!

On a related tangent I thought this recent decision was interesting Some of the workers of Walmart's suppliers in other countries tried to hold Walmart legally accountable for abuses they'd suffered based on Walmart's "Standards for Suppliers". The Court rejected all their arguments & said the Code doesn't create any legal obligation for Walmart at all- which just goes to show that counting on voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility to further human rights objectives as the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee seems to be recommending on the Trade Aid petition, is a pretty feeble hope.

Re: by Amanda ReillyAmanda Reilly, 23 Jul 2009 20:57

The Maori Party have a bill along similar lines, which has just been drawn from the ballot.

by IdiotSavantIdiotSavant, 22 Jul 2009 01:10

And its been drawn. Our first victory!

Now to see if it gets passed…

Re: by IdiotSavantIdiotSavant, 22 Jul 2009 00:11

It might be worth adapting some of the language from the new Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill.

by IdiotSavantIdiotSavant, 21 Jul 2009 04:26

Easy enough to do; I'll draft it over the weekend.

And we can add the Intelligence and Security Committee to the list of things to do in an omnibus bill.

I'm not sure where this is up to, but removing the exemption for the IPCA should be on the list.

I'm not 100% sure but I think it needs a simple change to part 2 of the Ombudsmen Act to remove the parentheses (and contents) from this line:

  • Crown entities within the meaning of section 7 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 (other than the Independent Police Conduct Authority)

I can't see any good reason they're exempt, particularly as the Police are covered.

The IPCA finally got back to me, and they do investigate Police processes and can and do accept complaints about them. Their website has been updated, they have a new brochure and the new SOI looks clearer.

So this is no longer necessary, I'm not quite sure how to handle ending the life of a topic tho… :)

The whole process has, however, convinced me we need to extend the OIA to the IPCA (or remove their exemption) as it shouldn't've taken five months and this much chasing to get an answer, and the only mechanism to address their repeated non-responses was their Minister. I shall go add it to the Open Government topic.

Re: by AnitaNZAnitaNZ, 04 Jul 2009 05:03

Oh yes, I agree on the irony. OTOH, if the aim is to highlight the general problem…

I agree that it is the perfect time to push this issue. The question is whether any of the politicians think so.

Re: Simple and elegant by IdiotSavantIdiotSavant, 30 Jun 2009 07:12

I thought it wouldn't matter so long as you were forcing them to publishing the raw averages anyway, and there seemed a certain irony in assuming the male pay was the correct rate in all cases in a bill designed to fight sexism ;)

This concept is simple enough that I'd be tempted to push it now, especially given there's a lot of political capital in it. The Greens are all billed out at the moment, so they might have to wait… I'm sure Labour would love it though.

Re: Simple and elegant by Ari54Ari54, 30 Jun 2009 01:45

Not a bad idea, but that might make it potentially confusing, with some being female / male remuneration, and others the opposite. And given that the problem is almost always that female pay lags male pay, sticking it that way round gives consistency and focuses on the problem. Still, an option to consider when it comes time to push it at an MP…

And yes, making employers explain the gap was a major motivation for the UK version.

Re: Simple and elegant by IdiotSavantIdiotSavant, 30 Jun 2009 01:33

Allows for naming and shaming of bad employers, while employers who actually have an excuse for having different averages can publish more information to tell us why, and we get to criticise them still if it's a horrible excuse. Yay!

Small suggestion:

"(c) The difference between the two, expressed as a percentage of the average male remuneration of subsection (a)."

Make this:

"(c) The difference between the two, consisting of at least the lower average clearly labeled as a percentage of the higher average."

Simple and elegant by Ari54Ari54, 29 Jun 2009 00:50

NZ business demography

100 employees covers 1.5% of firms but 48% of workers, which is pretty good. 50 makes it 3% and 57% respectively.

by IdiotSavantIdiotSavant, 23 Jun 2009 14:38

Another relevant resource: report from the Equalities Office.

by IdiotSavantIdiotSavant, 23 Jun 2009 13:51

The sticking point is that this requires a referendum, or a supermajority

by IdiotSavantIdiotSavant, 18 Jun 2009 04:46

This is now in the ballot, fronted by Maryann Street.

by IdiotSavantIdiotSavant, 17 Jun 2009 23:42
page »
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License