If National wins ...

[elZorro]

You'll have to get a bigger doll - that one must look like a hedgehog with all the pins Still no answer about how Labour or the greens will cure the country of all the ills it doesn't have.

I'm alongside Daytr on this one. Where do we start? I had a listen to both Q&A and The Nation this morning. There was even an F-bomb in there, they got quite animated. Look at the Health & Safety Bill. Compared with GST, which is virtually across the board and National supporters didn't want it taken off veges, OK, but what about this Health & Safety policy that was agreed on across parties. Now it's to be watered down so it doesn't apply to very small businesses, or to operations below an artificial previous events threshold. Which excludes farming operations just a bit bigger than your one, and up, Craic. We all heard how you had a near death experience with some trees.

If industries with less than 20 staff are in categories which have on average have had less than 25 deaths per 100,000 workers since 2008, or 25 serious injuries per 1,000 workers reported per year, they are off scot free from this part of the legislation. Farms are apparently below the cutoff, although dairy farms have a fatality rate of 16 per 100,000 workers since 2008, and (unknown) serious injuries per 1000 workers per year.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farm...ives--minister

It's important to note that only about 8% of farm-based serious injuries get reported.

A survey carried out in 2014 showed that it looks like 20% of agricultural workers have a serious workplace injury every year. Every year. As most go unreported, that would mean 1.6% of workers show up in stats each year (the cutoff now is 2.5%), so for 5 years that's 8 workers per 100, or 80 per 1,000 workers, but the real figure could easily be 1,000 workers per 1,000 workers over a five year period. So now, does anyone think farms should be excluded?

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-...uggests-q07048

This is a clear case of a farmer lobby getting in the face of MPs, and there are also a few farmers in caucus, notably Bill English. Woodhouse would seem to prefer that farmers did get included in the requirement to appoint a health and safety officer if one was asked for. Heck, it could be one person trained up in each area, called on as needed by local farms.

That redneck far-right commentator, Matthew Hooton, reckoned that farmers don't want the opportunity for union reps to be appointed on every farm in the country, which of course is outright BS, which sounds good on TV. But it would have been a great leap forward for safety in the farming industry if workers could have a bit more of a say in health and safety practices, and be more informed.

So now it'll be very interesting to see if National will indeed railroad this stupid looking amended bill through because of a well-heeled farmer lobby (not Federated Farmers by the sound of it) or if they'll revert to common sense. Either way, they don't look too bright.

[winner69]

Who got Eagub mad enough to sat F real?

One comment floating around is 'Jeez he talks real sense that he should be in charge' ...of Labour?

[elZorro]

Who got Eagub mad enough to sat F real?

One comment floating around is 'Jeez he talks real sense that he should be in charge' ...of Labour?

Shamubeel Eaqub doesn't think too much of Winston by the sound of it.

He is more at liberty to say what he likes now, than when he was at NZIER. He probably regrets the outburst, but it shows that behind the cultured thinking and speech, he's also sincere in pointing out flawed thinking and attitudes.

Andrew Little, on the other hand, has to be careful not to do any damage to the Labour vote, and everything he says will be put under a microscope by National and the press, so it's no wonder he's taking a while to warm up.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farm...24+August+2015

John Key was on TV1 just now trying to justify the Safety and Health Bill changes, again repeating Matthew's idea about unions on farms, and how farms will always look after their family members and staff anyway.

In that case, why have any safety and health rules? They are needed because good intentions don't always work. So now the government sees fit to impose those extra rules on industries at the fringes of the cutoff, but not to small farms, because the former have a lower lobbying power, and they haven't checked the data they're using for accuracy. In much the same way, farmers get out of jail in paying for on-farm GHG emissions. Again, the government pretends there aren't already practical ways of reducing the emissions, they just repeat that farmers will pay once there are ways to reduce emissions. So then govt throws a few million at scientists for research, so they can show something is happening.

These are not small issues. They all matter. The National Govt is determined not to leave any trace of their three terms in good policies that will improve the lives of most New Zealanders. That is something that Labour Governments consistently achieve.

[craic]

Today - and every other day - I will lug a couple of chainsaws and a couple of axes up the hill and cut up whichever tree I have felled or fell another tree and the only person who might be concerned for my safety is my wife. I am not concerned because I never do anything nasty to myself - does anyone? There is no safety officer. There is no law that says a seventy-seven-year old cannot use a 95cc chainsaw. There is no law that says I shouldn't use axes - the hill is too steep to consider mechanical splitters. The other day I sought out and bought a helmet, a skid-lid of the type used by skate boarders, largely because old people fall over more than others. I'm sure my Safety Officer would not approve of the type, if I had one. A Police report once described me as a "respectable local farmer" which I thought was hilarious at the time because I had two goats and about forty chickens on ten acres. If a Labour Govt. ( God forbid) insists that a safety officer must be appointed, I will retire - but I will be n my mid-eighties by then anyway.

[winner69]

Today - and every other day - I will lug a couple of chainsaws and a couple of axes up the hill and cut up whichever tree I have felled or fell another tree and the only person who might be concerned for my safety is my wife. I am not concerned because I never do anything nasty to myself - does anyone? There is no safety officer. There is no law that says a seventy-seven-year old cannot use a 95cc chainsaw. There is no law that says I shouldn't use axes - the hill is too steep to consider mechanical splitters. The other day I sought out and bought a helmet, a skid-lid of the type used by skate boarders, largely because old people fall over more than others. I'm sure my Safety Officer would not approve of the type, if I had one. A Police report once described me as a "respectable local farmer" which I thought was hilarious at the time because I had two goats and about forty chickens on ten acres. If a Labour Govt. ( God forbid) insists that a safety officer must be appointed, I will retire - but I will be n my mid-eighties by then anyway.

Way to go craic

Kim Kurdishan pretty handy with an axe I believe .......she could help with the splintering while you do the boy bit with the chainsaw.

Good for her to get a bt of fresh air as well

[Daytr]

Safety laws are their to protect workers against employers who aren't so thoughtful in regards their workers wellbeing Craic.
If all people did the right thing we wouldn't need laws full stop.
Unfortunately that's not the case.

Today - and every other day - I will lug a couple of chainsaws and a couple of axes up the hill and cut up whichever tree I have felled or fell another tree and the only person who might be concerned for my safety is my wife. I am not concerned because I never do anything nasty to myself - does anyone? There is no safety officer. There is no law that says a seventy-seven-year old cannot use a 95cc chainsaw. There is no law that says I shouldn't use axes - the hill is too steep to consider mechanical splitters. The other day I sought out and bought a helmet, a skid-lid of the type used by skate boarders, largely because old people fall over more than others. I'm sure my Safety Officer would not approve of the type, if I had one. A Police report once described me as a "respectable local farmer" which I thought was hilarious at the time because I had two goats and about forty chickens on ten acres. If a Labour Govt. ( God forbid) insists that a safety officer must be appointed, I will retire - but I will be n my mid-eighties by then anyway.

[Major von Tempsky]

Well EZ if you are automatically lining up behind DayTr you ought first to make sure he's not an oxymoron....

Further back he says that the US were responsible for the 2 Gulf Wars. So I commented so the US was responsible for Saddam invading and occupying Kuwait and its oil? I'm ROTFL and he then says Nope, not at all, you have a vivid imagination.

Then he claims that the US was responsible for installing Saddam (you should recall that it was an Iraqi military coup with Saddam overthrowing his older Iraqi military mentor and if you look at Saddam's history you'll see he spent some time in Russia being trained by the Putin's lot the KGB).
There was no US involvement in Saddam coming to power and you won't find any credible historian who says there was.

Obviously when there are several mutually antagonistic enemies involved things get a little complicated and difficult for bears of very little brain (Daytr and EZ) to follow. So both Saddam and Iran were US enemies, Iran is much bigger and stronger than Iraq so when Saddam mad headedly invaded Iran the US helped him a little, for a while. But Kuwait is a democracy and an independent country so when Saddam invaded Kuwait naturally the US (and lots of other democracies) came to Kuwait's aid just as when Hitler invaded Poland. You have the same situation in Syria, Bashar Assad = Saddam, ISIL = pure extreme evil, the moderate Moslem rebels = the best hope. So the US etc tip Bashar the wink when they are going in after ISIL and his forces stay out of the way. But at the same time they are backing the moderate rebels, and the Kurds, to knock Bashar off. Ok? No, too much for your tiny little prejudiced left wing brains...

[elZorro]

Well EZ if you are automatically lining up behind DayTr you ought first to make sure he's not an oxymoron....

Further back he says that the US were responsible for the 2 Gulf Wars. So I commented so the US was responsible for Saddam invading and occupying Kuwait and its oil? I'm ROTFL and he then says Nope, not at all, you have a vivid imagination.

Then he claims that the US was responsible for installing Saddam (you should recall that it was an Iraqi military coup with Saddam overthrowing his older Iraqi military mentor and if you look at Saddam's history you'll see he spent some time in Russia being trained by the Putin's lot the KGB).
There was no US involvement in Saddam coming to power and you won't find any credible historian who says there was.

Obviously when there are several mutually antagonistic enemies involved things get a little complicated and difficult for bears of very little brain (Daytr and EZ) to follow. So both Saddam and Iran were US enemies, Iran is much bigger and stronger than Iraq so when Saddam mad headedly invaded Iran the US helped him a little, for a while. But Kuwait is a democracy and an independent country so when Saddam invaded Kuwait naturally the US (and lots of other democracies) came to Kuwait's aid just as when Hitler invaded Poland. You have the same situation in Syria, Bashar Assad = Saddam, ISIL = pure extreme evil, the moderate Moslem rebels = the best hope. So the US etc tip Bashar the wink when they are going in after ISIL and his forces stay out of the way. But at the same time they are backing the moderate rebels, and the Kurds, to knock Bashar off. Ok? No, too much for your tiny little prejudiced left wing brains...

MVT, surely a topic for another thread? This one is all about crap National policies vs sensible policies, and how National have been able to hoodwink NZ voters for three elections, so far.

Craic, you can rest assured that there will be no H&S officer appointed to your block, because you are below the SME size threshold. But I see that if one was appointed, you'd throw out the bath with the bathwater. That's not a great attitude, but one John Key knows only too well. It suits his policies.

[craic]

Granted elZ. you have worked tirelessly to make this a labour party propaganda thread. Your dedication has not been upset by the stupidity of the NZ voters who have failed to follow your lead and I'm sure you will be equally strong after the next election when the labour party is set to fail again. And even if there is nothing left of the party after that election, you will still be there with your banner and your John Key doll and a new packet of pins. As to the divergence, a little is good now and then. I didn't go up on the hill this morning. I instead I went to the funeral of a man who served his country and I did the honours - Last Post etc. on behalf of the nation - This afternoon, I may sharpen a saw or two.

[BlackPeter]

Thanks to the wisdom of the Australian treasurer can we now better understand the cause of all of our problems:

URL:http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/hockey-...acting-aussies

Our taxes are too low, and this causes a flood of Aussies to leave their shores and flock to ours. I guess this must be the ultimate reason for the Auckland housing crisis as well. The only thing we need to do to fix all this is to crank up taxes (thanks Mr Hockey) until nobody wants to live here anymore (well, but the beneficiaries). This will free up lots of Auckland houses, and market forces will make sure they are affordable again. Aussies and Kiwis alike will flee back across the Tasman to work for the lucky country ... and NZ can go back into hibernation.

Hold on - wasn't this the situation we had during the last Labour government? Lots of capable Kiwis left New Zealand to make their fortune in Australia (daytr - I think you have some personal experience in that regard .. fleeing to Australia, I mean). National even had an election slogan related to Kiwis leaving (when NZ was still under Helens iron fist) ... and hey, they turned the flood around and now everybody including the valued Australian treasurer complains about too many people wanting to go to NZ.

So maybe it is time to get Labour back holding the reigns to get rid of all these unwanted new dwellers Mr Hockey is envying us for (people with Australian sounding names and some Kiwis as well) ... and all our problems are solved.

Freedom for daytr's fishing spot!