Posts by slarty
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'd love to see something like this done on our own economy.
-
I'm feeling all empathetic - 15 years in Suffolk... dairy farmers
-
So nice to know I'm not alone.
Wedding #1 Registry office, UK. Bride wore a nice semi transparent blue thing so that lingerie clearly visible. Registrar struggled to keep eyes on the paperwork. 2 strangers as witnesses off the street [lasted 10 years].
Wedding #2 Piss up at a vineyard. Bride wore very slinky scarlet number that showed things off beautifully, if I do say so myself. Celebrant struggled to keep eyes on the paperwork. 12 years so far (doesn't time fly).
-
Utter rubbish. If you're negligent as a business, you face the very real risk of prosecution.
It's not a very real risk. It's a fairly minor risk for the near misses and long-term impact. We have about 60 workplace deaths a year. How many get prosecuted?
For any statutory regulatory system to function, the risk of prosecution for non-compliance has to be very real. And when we are talking about peoples health, it has to be very very real.
Lets say I injure you in a car accident. A minor mistake on my part, but I'm at fault.
Under the present system I'm charged with causing an accident and fined.
Very unlikely. You'll probably get away with it, unless you've really drawn some serious blood. Of the 400+ deaths (let's not even go into the serious injuries) how many are prosecuted? And how many people notice those prosecutions? Don't you think there may be a small link with the fact that we have a road death rate twice as high as the UK?
You might even be able to sue the government for the "give way to the right" rule, which LTNZ admit in published research causes around 40 deaths a year.
In our system your victims niggling injury that they may live with for the rest of their life gets covered under ACC. You think "phew", and they have no alternative but to find an alternative approach to managing their life...
-
slarty, does it need to be an either/or thing? ACC was introduced partly to deal with the case where there was no obvious party to sue, or where that party had no ability to pay.
Yep, I'd kinda got to here about 4 years ago.
Then I went to work for a big, well funded government department.
I like the concept of ACC. I think I'd like the compromise you suggest. I'm thinking consequential loss, retraining etc. that is very poorly managed by ACC. Maybe I'm biased because my beloved basically gave up on ACC, and we funded her rehabilitation plan ourselves. And the organisation that caused the issue is still Tier 1, so they get a rebate for having a reference to Health & Safety in all their job descriptions...
I reckon some sort of insurance should be compulsory, with a levy to catch the no-fault element. Just like the British car insurance system in fact...
-
I can't actually understand why FHP as you call 'em aren't free. How is it a choice to consume such items?
Up the revolution brother.
Food isn't exactly optional, but I still have to pay for it!
-
After a huge amount of consideration, elimination of ACC (I've come to the conclusion that, on balance it tends to reward bad behaviour)
I am so, so confused by this. So confused. What?
Can't sue for personal injury = risk spread via what is in effect a tax on everyone.
You being bad / lax / negligent <> arse sued into the ground with punitive damages = you carry on with your bad safety behaviour.
Such as... NZ's high industrial accident rate, Insurance cheap(ish) for young drivers in big cars.
Theoretically you are dealt with by the criminal code, but let's be honest... who has time?
-
That isn't about picking winners; it means making sure that all businesses have what they need to perform better, including real broadband and export support like NZTE already seems to be delivering. We already have one of the easiest economic environments to do business in, so I don't see much room for improvement there.
Oh yes!
I often despair at the lack of imagination with regard to just getting basic processes right. Part of the problem is the low wage rates: I have been in situations time and again where I can't make a case for automation because it's cheaper to just employ a bunch of cheap labour. But running a sweat shop doesn't encourage you to develop a smarter way of doing stuff that can be sold overseas...
The NZTE overseas initiatives are widely held up as an example, so I wouldn't suggest touching them. I get more worried about the bunch of govt. people who will be deciding what constitutes a valid innovation for research credit purposes, or the blatant subsidies to keep jobs on shore.
-
Kevin Rudd has an astonishing ability to speak at great length saying nothing specific
Define oxymoron.
Australian Diplomat?
-
slarty, I just tore up that ballot, sorry pal...
Aww shucks - I was just starting to think about baubles.
But I'm precluded from public office, on account of not being independently wealthy.
Actually, can you guess which ones I threw in my list fo identity protection purposes? ;-)