Posts by Dismal Soyanz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Moving targets, in reply to Petra,
Forget about the salaries - I got sucked into that by Phil. :P
Given that the perk existed when a pre-1999 MP went into Parliament, they became an MP an the expectation that they would receive this perk. In fact, any MP who entered before its removal would be in the same position. What I am saying is that there was an implied contract where Parliament said "You can get this perk of an MP and in return you only have to remain an MP for a certain period of time."
Sure there is no real loss to MPs (hence I don't feel that bad about them losing it) but they were given an expectation. What Phil and nzlemming are saying is that the Speaker can remove it with no recourse on the part of the MP despite the fact that the MP would have had an expectation of having this perk all the time they were serving.
-
Hard News: Moving targets, in reply to nzlemming,
tectchy, are we?
McGee says there is no employment contract. That is because the salary-for-service exchange is covered by legislation.He does not say there is no contract at all between Parliament and an MP. If you can show me where McGee says there is no contractual relationship whatsoever, I will happily concede the point.
I only talked about the RA because Phil brought it up as an example of how MP's benefits may be arbitrarily changed. I agree that the RA can arbitrarily change MPs current salaries. And I am happy if the the Speaker removes MP's entitlement from this point onwards. (Actually I am personally not fussed in terms of whether they deserve the perk or not if it were removed retrospectively as well).
So no, I am not saying I know better than McGee - only you are.
-
Hard News: Moving targets, in reply to Petra,
lol.
yeah confusing.
The RA sets MPs salaries but it doesn't set their post-retirement travel entitlement. It has no say on this perk.
What Phil and nzlemming are saying is that there is no contractual relationship between MPs and Parliament, therefore the Speaker can arbitrarily remove the travel perk.
I am arguing that the "no contract" applies to the salary because it is explicitly legislated so but that as there is no legislation that says there is no contract between the Speaker and MPs on the travel perks there is an implied contract. Therefore if the Speaker were to remove the perk he would be effectively removing a perk that had been contracted when the MP entered Parliament some time ago.
-
Hard News: Moving targets, in reply to nzlemming,
No contractual obligations regarding their duties is what McGee is about. They cannot sue for a contractual obligation on the basis that they have fulfilled their duties as an MP in return for a salary. I agree on that.
What I am saying the contract is just simply about being an MP. They can be absolutely crap and do nothing. The only thing they need to do is breath and still be an MP and they have fulfilled their contract to be an MP.
Sorry but I have to disagree about cutting salaries being a strawman. The removal of the post-parliament travel entitlement is about removing a perk that was granted in history. The RA has the authority to cut the current salary of an MP. It cannot retroactively cut the salary and demand the MP pays it back.
But more importantly, the perks are not set by the RA but by the Speaker. So to use the legislated non contractual RA-salary relationship as a reason why the perk cannot have a contractual basis is a strawman.
-
Hard News: Moving targets, in reply to Phil Lyth,
Sure. And I make no excuses for Kelly. Never had much time for him when he was sitting on his bum in the House, as opposed to sitting on his bum in his house.
But it seems that there is expressly no contractual salary-duties relationship for MPs because it was too hard to say what exactly an MP needs to do to fulfill his/her duties as an MP. Not my focus here.
Besides, the cutting of salaries is an example of the here and and now. The proper analogy to draw here would be to say that the RA has the ability to retroactively cut MPs salaries. I sincerely doubt that it has.
-
Phil. Ok – so they aren’t employees as far as the law goes. But I think you are being selective in your interpretation. Let’s see the full quote:
A member of Parliament holds a statutory office. Members are not (except for certain tax purposes) employees in an employment relationship, nor are they subject to any contractual obligations in regard to their duties.
…
Taxation
While members are in law neither employees nor self-employed, for tax purposes they are treated as employees and income tax is deducted from their salaries at source. [152] They cannot claim tax deductions for expenses as if they were self-employed. [153] Expenses paid to members for travel, accommodation, attendance and communications services are exempt from income tax if they are determined by the Speaker (for members) and the Minister for Ministerial Services (for Ministers) [154] but fringe benefit tax is payable on any element of personal benefit involved in such expenses. [155]The section you cite is about taxation. Umm ok. Minor detail.
The “contract” in the first quote refered to is an employment contract.
MPs are not subject to an employment contract. The contract I refer to is more akin to a contract between two parties in exchange for services. Like a builder and a homeowner. Or between two businesses.
So you are saying that the implied contract of “I will be an MP” in exchange “I will receive the entitlements of an MP” does not exist?
[edited to remove a non sequitur]
-
Much as I deplore what Pansy Wong (and by extension, her husband) has done and think she should get thwown wuffly to the fwoor, the removal of the post-Parliament entitlement reeks of retrospectivity. So because someone has been caught abusing a perk, the contractual basis on which MPs entered Parliament is torn up? Then if it's good enough to apply to our MPs, why not Joe Citizen? Most of us lesser mortals would scream blue murder if we were told by government that we had to, say, pay higher taxes on past income.
-
Just read your asianz.org link, Petra. the fact, that I seem to be agreeing with an academic worries me that I may be wrong.
Independent corroboration? Pffft.
-
Hard News: Moving targets, in reply to Petra,
In which case, you may have to get the land off the colonists before they sell it off to the Chinese. ‘Cos you know they will dig it up and send it back to China.
But seriously, you are right that China is an emerging power. And yes, I would be nervous about how it exercises its power in the sense that it is a big unknown But for the foreseeable future I am a helluva lot more nervous about how the US exercises its power. The few times China has exercised its military muscle in the post-liberation era, it has had its nose fairly bloodied. And while it is undoubtedly modernising its capabilities, its going to be some time (decades?) before it can maintain the same forward projection capabilities as the US has now. But even before one starts to think about that (and why on earth would China want to send people to die to take land that it wouldn’t be able to hold), your links do ask the question of what is in it for China.
Interestingly, I can’t see where those links suggest that there is a significant threat. Of course, China is in it for the influence but to what end? Lee’s article fails to make the connection that for China, politics is ultimately economics. The only way the Communists can stay in power is if they keep the populace happy – that means jobs, money and rising living standards. China Uber Alles doesn’t really fit into that and there really is no point in China having territorial control in the Pacific. The point about supply chain security, I can see to some extent but I don’t see what supplies are going to ever be that important. Energy? Yes, China will have a big demand for it but how secure is shipping uranium from Oz going to be if it has to contend with US subs?
Balance of power is soooo cliche in a kinda proportional representation way. Balance between who and who? Power over what? IMHO, there never has been a balance of power in history or geographically – it’s always been imbalanced. The only way a balance can be rationalised is if you believe in the MAD doctrine – always a great prism through which to view the world (not).
I think you are right to be wary of China. But by the same token I would be just as wary of any other country as their interests are unlikely to coincide with ours (which after all, should be primarily about the well-being of NZers). It would be more productive to understand what it is that motivates the Chinese (Communist) government than to be afraid that lil ol’ Kiwi(fruitvine-less)land is gonna have its lunch money stolen.
-
Hard News: Moving targets, in reply to Petra,
Hmmm. Given the extent to which the Ockers, Yanquis and Nips already own NZ Inc, I'm not sure what the additional harm is going to be.
Petra, I'd be interested to hear how exactly you think China is screwing us?
China owning "our" (not sure some of the Tangata Whenua would quite agree on that term) land? Not wanting to threadjack, I'll just note that I have yet to see a convincing argument that a) foreign ownership of NZ land is ever going to be significant and b) that the effect is going to be detrimental.
China can, of course, have our politicians. So long as they don't send them back.
I'm fairly ambivalent about foreign investment into NZ. Probably the only thing of merit I think to come out of the Natural Dairy fiasco is the question of reciprocity.
As for the IP issue with China, you have to be blind Freddy not to realise that any investment into China is going to carry a huge risk that IP will be stolen. The counterfeit trade in China is huge and has been significant from the time that Deng opened China to foreign investment.