Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I read s6(5) of the ERA as allowing a judicial determination as to the status of a person who is purportedly in an employer/contractor relationship, regardless of what is or isn't defined in s1. I don't see language in the Bill that would negate the availability of that option, and in any case removing the option of judicial review of a contract is a very significant imposition.
I can't see how s6(5) could be used to determine that a film worker is an employee in a situation where s6(1)(d) expressly states that they are not. Surely in making a declaration a judge has to apply the law, which will now clearly state that certain types of workers are not employees. That's how I read it anyway.
Would be interested if anyone else reads it in a similar way.
-
I enjoy Maps when it's debunking a mad conspiracy theorist or savaging the delusions of some nutter racist. Not so much when class warfare is the topic.
But then I'm probably one of them Chardonnay Socialists as well. Even though I can't stand the stuff. A Reisling Revolutionary might be a more appropriate insult. Or a Pinot Noir Picketer.
-
The Bill is a blunt instrument. I honestly thought they might try something more subtle than “if we agree you’re a contractor then you are one.”
A precedent is being set. I imagine other industries will now be clamouring to have similar exemptions.
and contrary to Helen Kelly's musings it doesn't make PJ's secretary a contractor
Well it doesn’t change the status of anyone who’s already signed up. But if PJ gets a new secretary he/she may well be simply a contractor if that’s what they agree at the time of hiring. “Film production work” is extremely broadly defined in the bill.
It doesn't, however, put an end to a Bryson situation arising again. Makes it less likely, by legislating a presumption of contractor status, but doesn't remove judicial recourse.
What judicial recourse would there be if the parties have agreed that a person is a contractor? Isn’t that the end of the matter under the new bill? The exclusionary wording in the new subsection 6(1)(d) seems to take the matter out of the scope of subsection (2), which allows the ERA or court to look at the substance of the relationship.
-
If you apply the right statistical filtering to the Bangladesh series (i.e. eliminate the losses) then we were unbeaten. Our boys are heroes.
-
I just caught up with this thread. I'm not particularly interested in paranoid conspiracy theories, but this did make me laugh:
The Government ( or parliment if we want to split hairs )
This rather proves that someone doesn't actually know anything about the government or state, wihich rather diminishes the power of his observations.
-
I've been blogging for over 14 years and have never (knowingly) incurred the wrath of an MP.
You can't be doing it right! :)
This review is pretty much standard stuff from Simon Power. He's reacting to a couple of cases - in this case probably the Slater case.
When the Waihopai trio were acquitted he rushed about demanding reports and law changes to prevent a further spate of vandal priests damaging intrastructure.
And after the Weatherson case he rushed through changes to the law on provocation.
Power seems like a man in a hurry. Never a good thing in a politician in my book.
-
Chris Trotter has now weighed in and helpfully compared Chris Finlayson to the Mouth of Sauron.
-
I'm not sure if anyone ever claimed that it would solve obesity, or any such miracles.
Indeed, but Labour have made it clear the measure is designed to tackle an obesity epidemic. I was merely pondering whether the removal of GST from healthy foods in Australia had made any difference.
-
If enforcement is the problem, we have a judicial system that doesn't require money for representation. We have CAB. Google it.
I used to do volunteer consultations for the local CAB some years ago. If someone had come in with a tax problem I would have stared blankly at them before telling them I couldn't help. Tax law is highly specialised, and most lawyers don't go near it.
If this policy is all about tackling obesity, why then does Australia still have such an obesity problem? They've had exemptions on food for years. Most stats I've been able to locate on Google rank Australian obesity levels on a par with our own.
-
Interesting that Brian Neeson is describing himself as an independent, and playing up his HRC role.
Well he used to be National, but left the party in 2002 when he was defeated in his bid for selection for the Helensville seat. Some money-trader guy got the job, as I recall.
So he is independent, in the sense that he's not National-affiliated.