Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: A news site where you can find the news!

113 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

  • giovanni tiso,

    I get a message saying "This is video is for New Zealand viewers only." I still consider myself a New Zealander but there you go.

    Well, New Zealand viewer is not the same as New Zealander, you've got to give them that. Although on the old site I used to be told routinely that I wasn't a New Zealand viewer, in spite of the fact that I was. Haven't bothered to check the new one on the account of the Flash thing.

    It's basically outrageous that something like this doesn't go through a select committee.

    Makes for a lovely headline pushing the buttons of just the right people, and the Herald (online edition - but I'm not into giving them money) dutifully opens today with "Truancy Parents Face Fine of $3,000".

    The logic of punishing economically families that we already know to be under financial stress escapes me, but there you go.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7386 posts Report Reply

  • Rachel Prosser,

    I heard some of the debate on the 90-day bill, and recall the point was strongly made that the 13-week stand-down won't apply if you are terminated within the trial period. "To enourage beneficiaries to take the risk", or some-such phrasing.

    Christchurch • Since Mar 2008 • 225 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    it's not like the system is suddenly going to start offering real options to those families

    And that's the crux of my and Hilary's recent posts on the Attitude thread - unless the actual resources and political context are acknowledged, calls for more "personal responsibillity" or an excessively individualised focus are just making complex problems worse, and usually for those with the least power. This should come as no surprise.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16771 posts Report Reply

  • James Harton,

    Watch out parents of kids with autism - they will be open to prosecution if their kids can't cope with all the stress of school and refuse to go.

    Or for parent's who can't get a school to take their child --- one of the families at our playcenter has an older son with AS, he's been going to a private catholic school in our area, but they can no longer afford to pay the huge tuition fees and have been trying to find a school to enrol him in. One local principal stated flat out that he doesn't want any special needs kids at his school because they cost too much money. What's amazing is that this is not a minority position amongst the schools in our area - and all the schools in our area are decile one schools.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2007 • 51 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    I watched a bit of the fire-at-will debate last night and both Lianne Dalziell and Sue Bradford raised substantial fishhooks in the space of minutes - which would normally be dealt with during the select committee stages. They generously characterised those problems as unintentional, but again it's hardly a surprise that abuse of process produces deficient results, is it?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16771 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    One local principal stated flat out that he doesn't want any special needs kids at his school because they cost too much money.

    And that's a direct consequence of the daft bulk-funding arrangements that incentivise schools to turn away as many disabled students as they can. It's easily fixable as the previous government was told for many years. The theme of the day seems to be "what a surprise".

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16771 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    BTW, if you want to see the rest of the bills National has been tryign to keep secret, the Greens have put them up here.

    Good on the Greens for pushing a little bit of openness in government.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6205 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks,

    I heard some of the debate on the 90-day bill, and recall the point was strongly made that the 13-week stand-down won't apply if you are terminated within the trial period. "To enourage beneficiaries to take the risk", or some-such phrasing.

    Yes, that point is made in this Herald article too. It's one of the changes they made to make the legislation "gentler".

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1156 posts Report Reply

  • DeepRed,

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 4355 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    and all the schools in our area are decile one schools.

    umm, surely you mean decile ten? Devonport != t3h slums

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3909 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    I heard some of the debate on the 90-day bill, and recall the point was strongly made that the 13-week stand-down won't apply if you are terminated within the trial period. "To enourage beneficiaries to take the risk", or some-such phrasing.

    Yes, I'm sure many of us heard it. But it's not in the legislation. Welcome to the pitfalls of rushed drafting that doesn't get examined before being passed. This hole is large enough to drive a 747 through, and if National were half as bloody smart as they think they are they would've seen it.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3909 posts Report Reply

  • dave crampton,

    Matthew Poole said :If you resign, or get fired for misconduct, s60H of the Social Security Act 1964 mandates a 13-week stand-down period before payment of a benefit may commence.

    That's rubbish, If you get fired, s60H does not apply.Unemployed means resigning from or otherwise leaving employment, other than by dismissal. Firing is dismissal.

    welli • Since Jan 2007 • 143 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    That's rubbish, If you get fired, s60H does not apply.Unemployed means resigning from or otherwise leaving employment, other than by dismissal. Firing is dismissal.

    Not quite, dave, but your (implicit) conclusion is pretty much correct. The 13-week stand down applies if a person:

    (a)Has voluntarily become unemployed without good and sufficient reason; or
    (b) Has been in receipt of payments under a scheme and has voluntarily ceased to be part of that scheme without good and sufficient reason; or
    (c) Has lost his or her employment because of misconduct as an employee; or
    (d) Has ceased to be part of a scheme by reason of any misconduct.

    It therefore includes dismissal for misconduct, but would not include dismissal for 'not fitting in'.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3009 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.