Info message
Successful operation message
Warning message
Error message

RossGo

34 comments · +446 / −83 · rank #2849 of 40,276

As an employer I think this is ridiculous, if there is family abuse then the police should be involved, under those circumstances Id be more than happy to give them some time off to get back on their feet. To have a law where someone can say I have been abused I need two weeks off, then leave it to the employer to either pay up or investigate the claim, this leaves it open to abuse by both employer and employee. Someone who has been abused wont want their boss digging into their personal life to find evidence of abuse, they need support and help not investigation. Ive got a great relationship with my staff so if there is an issue I can just accept their word, but this law could open up a can of worms.

+79−1

A lot of our descendants didnt get treated the best in the UK and Europe, living in poverty and on the edge of the law to survive. Many were displaced from their homeland or forced into military service, a lot arrived in NZ with nothing and started life afresh. Ive moved on from what my relatives had to go through 150 years. Those of us who have some Scottish heritage could point back to many injustices that our ancestors endured, including land confiscation. It is time to move on.

+18−2

In the bible when it mentions the church its speaking about the people not the building, often the church gathered in someones house, there is nothing sacred about the building.

+11−0

I think you need to read the article again, youre blaming the insurance companies and the body corporate and asking the government to step in and make them pay. The fact is that it is EQC, therefore the government that has done this, not the insurance company.

+9−0

But the are not legitimate asylum seeker, they are economic refugees looking for a better life for their family. A legitimate asylum seeker is one whose life is in danger in their home country because they are being unlawfully targeted and hunted down, usually by corrupt authorities.

+20−11

There are about 600,000 houses being rented in NZ, someone has to be the investor and own them, only a small percentage of those renters would have an $80,000 deposit and $130,000 income to be able to buy. If you dissuade investors, all the small 1-5 house investors will pull out and you will only have the big multi house or corporate investors left. I dont think that will be a move that would be good for the renters. More taxes isnt the answer, we simply need more houses built.

+2−4