Hard News: A news site where you can find the news!
113 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
I/S highlights abuse of urgency by the National government, then shoots at foot by saying that no comparable abuse took place in the previous Labour government. The Labour government undertook urgency to pass legislation immediately prior to the election, this was an unjustifiable abuse for party political ends as there were no impending deadlines that could not be met by a post-election government.
As I said: go away, read 15 years of Hansard, and come back when you have an informed opinion.
Those bills got select committee hearings. Using urgency to get bills through their final sages before a break - or an election - isn't an abuse. Using urgency to ram serious policy through without a select committee through is.
-
Isn't it too early to riot on the streets yet?
Yes. But its never too early to toast marshmellows.
-
I saw this on the COGS site:
The Grants Online website and web-based grant application will not work correctly in some browsers, including Firefox and Mac-based operating systems. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
So, online open Government is available only to IE users on Windows.
-
Could we burn effigies of John Key and Rodney Hide, too?
If you feel like it; it's a free country. Just remember to bring a fire extinguisher in case ti gets out of hand.
-
Yesterday there was a chicken on my drive (once it got over the fence past the gate the dogs got it real quick, scratch one chicken)
Those chickens need a to learn a bit from pukekos. But I'm impressed, a chicken! Closest I've come to that (in an urban setting) was coming across a rooster in the botanic gardens. The dog didn't get it.
-
Just remember to bring a fire extinguisher in case ti gets out of hand.
Don't get this guy
-
Not withstanding that I agree mostly with Idiot/Savant about select committees and so-on, I do think that using urgency in the dying hours is a bad thing.
Using urgency to get bills through their final sages before a break - or an election - isn't an abuse.
A minor abuse. But nothing much to get indignant about. There are other reasons why they're not so good however.
Bills strongly opposed by the opposition before an election passed in this way are likely to get repealed if the government changes, and will be continued if reelected. It can be useful however if the new Government decides it does not have the time or energy to undo all the changes, particularly minor ones.
It was also an inditement on the Labour Government's inability to get most of that legislation passed earlier, particularly the ETS. We've been talking about emissions reductions instruments since the early 1990s...
-
So, online open Government is available only to IE users on Windows.
Well, it looks OK in FF and Safari on this Mac. But it's possible there's stuff buried further into the site that doesn't work other than in IE. Which in 2008 is completely inexcusable. It was only barely excusable in 2001, and now that IE is the subject of a rapidly-shrinking share of the browser market it's just thoroughly ridiculous.
My favourite anti-portability application is the Java (yes, that cross-platform Java) app that IBM ship for administering their blade servers. It'll only work in some versions of Windows (XP and 2K3, nothing earlier) under IE. One's left wondering why they didn't just build an ActiveX control and make the lack of portability blatantly obvious.
-
The designers at AIM proximity come highly touted
I've always wondered whether AIM Proximity was a particularly good name for a communications outfit.
AIM=We're going to try
Proximity=to get close or next toSo their name tells me that they're going to try and get close to their targets but not that they're going to achieve them. Doesn't fill me with confidence.
[Their Wgtn offices are across the road from where I work, so I see that name every day...]
-
I believe its traditional to set fire to things as well. Maybe a protest BBQ?
I'll bring some beer.
-
Yep. And if I recall correctly, for people earning around that mark, and who don't have children (ie aren't getting WFF), you get a whole $10!
You'd have to save up for 3 weeks to buy a packet of Wrigleys. And at least a year to get a 1kg block of cheese.
-
[Their Wgtn offices are across the road from where I work, so I see that name every day...]
They're round the corner from Atech = 'without technology', a computer shop.
-
Okay, according to this article, I'll be getting nearly $47 if National stick to their policy.
"* Workers on $44,000 will receive $46.54 with the independent earner rebate - but only $31.54 if they already receive government assistance."
But notice how that varies from the impression created by the intro:
"National will deliver tax cuts worth $47 a week to workers on the average wage of $45,000 - most delivered in April 2009."...which I bet is how a lot of those who voted for National remember it.
And notice how much of a difference it makes if you earn just $4k less:
"* People earning up to $40,000 will have an extra $10 a week provided they don't receive any extra income from the government, such as Working for Families." -
an all leave, on a random Tuesday.
When you next take a holiday or work trip overseas, check the box for "leaving permanently". This will boost the net migration and make the Nats look bad.
How much effect this has depends if they reconcile arrival and departure forms. I bet they don't.
-
Thanks Matthew -- good points. I'll ask Tom Cotter today about how the new site meets the government web guidelines.
TVNZ, as an SOE, is not required but is encouraged to adhere to the (now) Web Standards
The Radio New Zealand site has demonstrated that you can run an attractive site while still making it as accessible as possible.
RNZ get the web, or at leat Richard Hulse does. His work there has been inspirational in terms of the right way to do rich media.
[Disclaimer: I edited the original Govt Web Guidelines in 2001 and managed them till 2005, but no longer have any connection]
-
The Press has picked up where the Herald may have remained silent - a few choice quotes from their editorial this morning if anyone was evr in any doubt as to where their sympathies lie:
Some of its rapid action is partly motivated by a desire to try to make up for what it rightly called in the Speech from the Throne Labour's "decade of missed opportunities".
...the sea of red ink in the Government accounts that Labour has left for the new administration to cope with.
And the rest of it is basically a puff-piece for the 90-day "trial period" as it calls it. Apparently it will encourage employers to hire those at the bottom of the employment heap, rather than those who can, you know, actually do the job?
-
Apparently it will encourage employers to hire those at the bottom of the employment heap, rather than those who can, you know, actually do the job?
That sounds like an excellent reason to bring in the legislation under urgency .... so I look forward to seeing the significant and material up-tick in employment within (say) 90 days of the bill being rushed through. 'Cos if this really is the heartland business issue that Phil O'Reilly is claiming, then there must be an overhang of demand to give jobs to the barely-employable that is being held back by the current restrictive rules.
So I'm willing to take bets on what the next household employment survey shows .... how much will the workforce participation rate rise? Or - as everyone with a brain knows - will it simply result in the casualisation of existing jobs?
-
Sadly, the bill won't apply to national's MPs. But they wouldn't dare subject themselves to the same standards they want to impose on everybody else.
-
Be fair, I/S - if Labour was doing it the same would apply. No MP will subject themselves to the requirements they demand from the populace
-
3410,
Also, the MyFreeview HD PVR (officially, they're calling it a "DTR" or digital television recorder, because that's the name that came up best in consumer research)
Maybe because DTR has been advertising TV related stuff on TV for the last 30 years. Always trust a market research company to miss the bleeding obvious.
-
Be fair, I/S - if Labour was doing it the same would apply. No MP will subject themselves to the requirements they demand from the populace
Sure. But I think we both agree that its arrogant and hypocritical.
If National believed in this bill, they'd let the public sack them at any time in their first 90 days in office. But that's about as likely as them recusing themselves for a conflict of interest when voting on their own tax cuts.
-
3410,
RB,
It seems so long ago when you said you didn't mind if the Nats won. ;) -
Sadly, the bill won't apply to national's MPs. But they wouldn't dare subject themselves to the same standards they want to impose on everybody else.
MPs can be dismissed from their party at any stage and may be constructively fired at 3 year intervals by demotion on their party list. Disciplinary action may be taken for expressing dissenting opinion, even if it has no direct impact on job performance. And all this is without recourse to any employment tribunal.
I do not feel your "sadness" that this isn't how all workers are governed.
-
3410,
If National believed in this bill, they'd let the public sack them at any time in their first 90 days in office
Don't forget that it only applies to businesses with fewer than 20 employees (which is to say that they're looking after the stuffed-shirt businessmen types whether they be employees or employers.)
-
3410,
I do not feel your "sadness" that this isn't how all workers are governed.
So disingenuous, Angus. The hypocrisy is the point, and you know it.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.