DOCSLIB.ORG

“None of the Above” Or Did Not Support Any of the Four Options Presented in the Consultation Document

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

All Submions that selected “None of the Above” Or did not support any of the four options presented in the Consultation Document Submitter ID pg 11 ........................................................... 234 509 ......................................................... 240 1923 ....................................................... 250 2518 ....................................................... 260 2941 ....................................................... 270 3141 ....................................................... 280 3350 ....................................................... 290 3406 ....................................................... 299 3400 ....................................................... 311 3511 ....................................................... 321 No commentary ..................................... 326 Option Chosen None of the above Submitter Commentary Nick Van haandel I believe retaining full ownership while not increasing rates. Currently in the Submitter #11 information you have provided you have not explained how adding additional wharves help The region as a whole rather than just in the context of the port. Having worked To be heard? No with the port, there needs to be some serious hard look at how port efficiency helps sustain economic growth. yes, there is an issue with cruise ships and log ship cross over it does not appear that the containers need to be increased. Has a proposal such as a dolphin(?) been looked for cruise ship berthing. Has the economy looked at as a whole rather than just in terms of port growth, Larger ships does not always mean better for the region! For example in Canterbury at Lyttelton port currently acts as a bottleneck this actially increases the economic activity of the region as more logs are processed in the region currently there are 8 domestic sawmills supplied from a forestry resource that is quarter of the size. Currently there are only 4 sawmills in the Hb. Having the port as the bottleneck means this resource is processed in the Canterbury region which employees people in local jobs, rather than exporting jobs to overseas. If you are keen to go for the growth (which seems you are from the proposal)why don’t you just ask for a loan from the provincial growth fund or lobby the government for the ability to have bonds at a regional level, HB is not the only region which requires funding for infrastructure. Rachel Chong I would prefer that the port be user pays. Submitter #33 To be heard? No Wendy Milne Relinquishing any shares in our port is to give away the crown jewel which belongs to Submitter #35 the ratepayers. A seat on the board to port users is a sound inclusive idea, but control must remain with ratepayers. The council should run as guarantor on a loan to be paid To be heard? No off in the medium term from earnings/users. To fund totally from rates is short sighted and shows limited comprehension of the pressures ratepayers have already been placed under by other council initiatives which have been funded by rate increases. The port is a stand alone company, allow it borrow and develop in a commercial way guided by a focused commercial minded board. Options B,C and D show a gutless lack of commercial objectiveness to sell off assets to take an easy way out and have nothing to preside over in 10 years. Why else do commercial investors invest after all? Tony Andrews 6 wharf user pays as Bailey says Submitter #40 To be heard? No Patrick Greene I prefer wharf 6 to be user pays funded. I agree with councillor Paul Bailey’s views as Submitter #47 set out in his article in Hawke’s Bay Today on 15 October. Once an asset like this is sold in whole or in part it is gone forever. To be heard? No J Cawston Option E user pays Submitter #87 To be heard? No Aaldert Verplanke Dear Team. Option B would be the best option if the shares stay in NZ , preferably Submitter #91 Hawkes bay owners. Definitely not sold to companies with oversees ownership! I suggest to set up a HB Port Investment company. This would be option C but with a To be heard? No secure HB ownership. A preferred shareholders would be Unison. I would be prepared to forgo my dividend for a couple of years to fund this. Option: None of the Above pg 234 Submitter Commentary John Kent The option 6 put forward by Councillor Paul Bailey has the best outcome for the Submitter #103 Ratepayers and the Regional Council and should be the Councils recommendation . The Council should also use the $50 million left over from the dam disaster and borrow the To be heard? No balance to offset the money owed by the Port. The Port can then pay the interest to the council as a supplementary dividend each year. This puts the port in the financial position of making around $20 million per year. I would suggest that a crew of competent Engineers would be able to easily sheet pile and backfill the wharf 6 with this sort of budget and once its built the ratepayers will be getting a rebate of $30 million per year off their rates . You should also drop the ridiculous earthquake insurance which is costing the port $5 million per year and form a consortium with all the other ports to self insure D W (Joe) Boyce Submitter #125 To be heard? No If you feel so strongly about retaining port ownership through the HBRC then do so. I would seriously doubt any future forecasts on expor growth. ALL countries in the world are in huge debt. FORESTRY PRODUCTS always FICKLE esp LOGS. If you don't want to take any risk allow an investor to build a huge wharf out into the sea at AWATOTO - LAND AVAILABLE - Right by RAIL LINE. They build it and operate it - Benefit Westshore? Allow rights to dredge. Shingle, silt etc will all go North. Probably able to operate 300 or 320/365 days. Tolaga Bay has had an existing wharf for over 140 years (probably more protected and sand) Conditions can be placed on what exported - can provde OVERFLOW. You have all the data to research this. Information added from his second submission: Share float 45% of Port to NZ investment portfolios (ACC, Superfund, Kiwibank etc) No way is Regional Council or other Councils in this district able to finance what is needed. Regional Council should divert $10m from $60m invested into financing innovative ideas from forestry, farming, horticulture - Water Treatment - Ozonation not fluridation or cholirination. Grow 20 million Manuka seedlings for planting - put into all reserve areas and back hill farms instead of forestry. Large saws to cut up fruit trees instead of burning. Set up hard fill area. Option: None of the Above pg 235 Submitter Commentary Daniel Unknown I support option E. Retain full ownership of the port and increase user fees to finance Submitter #141 the expansion. Further no decision on funding should be made until all resource consents are gained. Why even discuss this until you know if it can even go ahead. To be heard? No Thomas O'Neill I support user pays Submitter #190 To be heard? No Lynn Waugh I am in favour of retaining full ownership of Napier's port. It belongs to the people of Submitter #193 Napier, and is a vital part of our infrastructure. Selling any asset involves the loss of revenue and the loss of control. I believe those who use the port should pay towards To be heard? No any further development, not ratepayers. Di Petersen I agree we need a strong port and that expansion is needed, but I would not like to see Submitter #229 45% - 49% sold off. I believe a maximum of 35% could be sold without it being too big a burden on rate payers. I would like to see an investor being part of the scheme as there To be heard? No is always risk with the Stock Exchange. Also please consider that the cost of borrowing is the lowest for many years which can be quite attractive. Karl Jager Option E as per NZ Hearld article on Monday !! Selling the port will be a HUGE mistake - Submitter #241 small "per tonne" levy will provide long-term income to Napier and wider region. To be heard? No Option: None of the Above pg 236 Submitter Commentary Graeme Chapman how much impact has the earthquake which hit the port of wellington had on business Submitter #244 at port of Napier. Once Wellington has come back fully on line how much business will Napier port lose. If the port is going so well why not use the profit to do the capital To be heard? No works and borrow against the port itself. put our rates up at your peril as I and many others will speak with our votes at next election. Patrick Harting Too raise capital the council should sell as little as possible to do the job. The council Submitter #263 doesn't need a $130m slush fund and raising $85m to reduce debt and self fund the rest with new debt is all it should do. To be heard? No Rudolf Cooyenga We must retain control. HBRC must get dividends to lower rate payers bill. Submitter #265 To be heard? No Glen Culver Option E - Leave as it, Napier does not have the infrastructure to cope with increased Submitter #269 passenger ships or roading for increased truck movements. Forecast population growth in Napier will increase demand for existing roading. To be heard? No R. Girvan NEVER, unless there is no alternative, sell assets, especially one that provides an Submitter #284 income. My preference is option E proposed by Paul Bailey. Even though John Palairet (New Zealand Herald 17 Oct, 2018) pointed out 'serious flaws' in this proposal, if the To be heard? No obligation to the Regional Council is eliminated as speedily as port profits will allow, then the small risk is worth taking to retain this valuable asset.
Recommended publications
  • Solidarity Forever? Unions and Bargaining Representation Under New Zealand's Employment Contracts Act

    Solidarity Forever? Unions and Bargaining Representation Under New Zealand's Employment Contracts Act

    Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review Volume 18 Number 1 Article 1 12-1-1995 Solidarity Forever? Unions and Bargaining Representation under New Zealand's Employment Contracts Act Ellen Dannin Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ellen Dannin, Solidarity Forever? Unions and Bargaining Representation under New Zealand's Employment Contracts Act, 18 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 1 (1995). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr/vol18/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 18 DECEMBER 1995 NUMBER 1 Solidarity Forever? Unions and Bargaining Representation Under New Zealand's Employment Contracts Act ELLEN DANNIN* I. Introduction .............................. 2 II. Bargaining Representation and the ECA: Some Initial Considerations ............................ 3 III. Basics of Representation Under the ECA ......... 12 A. Employer Opposition to Union Authorization 14 1. Treatment of Bargaining Representatives 14 2. Union Access to Employees ............ 17 3. Union Party Status ................... 20 4. Withdrawal of Authorizations ........... 22 B. Bargaining with Authorized Representatives ... 33 1. Direct Dealing ....................... 38 2. Dealing with Nonauthorized Representatives 44 3. Pressure to Revoke Authorizations ....... 46 C. Representation Authority as a Procedural Hurdle 52 1.
  • Unions and Right-To-Work Laws the Global Evidence of Their Impact on Employment

    Unions and Right-To-Work Laws the Global Evidence of Their Impact on Employment

    Unions and Right-to-Work Laws The Global Evidence of Their Impact on Employment EDITED BY FAZIL MIHLAR The Fraser Institute Vancouver British Columbia Canada 1997 Copyright © 1997 by The Fraser Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. The authors of this book have worked independently and opin- ions expressed by them are, therefore, their own, and do not nec- essarily reflect the opinions of the supporters, trustees, or staff of the Fraser Institute. Printed in Canada. Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Main entry under title: Unions and right-to-work laws Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-88975-179-X 1. Open and closed shop--Law and legislation. 2. Right to labor. 3. Union security--Law and legislation. I. Mihlar, Fazil, 1966- II. Fraser Institute (Vancouver, B.C.) HD4903.U54 1997 344.01’8892 C97-910687-7 Contents Foreword: Closed-Shop Provisions Violate the Charters of Rights and Freedoms Roger J. Bedard xv Introduction Fazil Mihlar and Michael Walker 1 Canada’s Labour Laws: An Overview Dennis R. Maki 19 Unionization and Economic Performance: Evidence on Productivity, Profits, Investment, and Growth Barry T. Hirsch 35 Right-to-Work Laws: Evidence from the United States James T. Bennett 71 Economic Development and the Right to Work: Evidence from Idaho and other Right-to-Work States David Kendrick 91 The Process of Labour Market Reform in the United Kingdom John T. Addison and W. Stanley Siebert 105 Economic Impact of Labour Reform: Evidence from the United Kingdom Charles Hanson 137 Free to Work: The Liberalization of New Zealand’s Labour Markets Wolfgang Kasper 149 Critique of Alberta’s Right-to-Work Study Fazil Mihlar 215 About the Authors JOHN T.
  • The Struggle Over the Employment

    The Struggle Over the Employment

    In< THE STRUGGLE OVER THE siSI EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS ACT eas eX) /..,- 1987-1991 ~ - -.. is -- ofl Sarah Heal el( no Otago University n CO se 0\ Abstract T The introduction ofthe Employment Contracts Act was opposed by many workers and has subsequently been condemned S: by a number oforganisations . This paper attempts to address the question ofwhy, given the widespread opposition to Cl the proposed legislation, a general strike did not occur in an attempt to defeat the Employment Contracts Bill. It is argued e1 that the failure ofthe leadership ofthe Council of Trade Unions to take up the call for a general strike and then to lead p sue h an action was a key factor in the enactment ofthe Employment Contracts Act. Explanations for the unwillingness ~ ofthe Council ofTrade Unions to lead a general strike are provided both by the thesis ofbureaucrati c conservatism and 1 by the policy approach adopted by the Council of Trade Unions in the preceding years. ( t f In the aftennath of the enactment of the Employment Their conservatism is contingent because they are, to I Contracts Bill many New Zealander's were bitter and varying extents, underpressme to respond to their rank and t confused as to how such a fundamentally anti-union piece file union members and also under pressure to respond to of legislation, opposed by the majority of the population, the wishes of employers and the govenunent. 2 The ability came to be introduced. This paper represents an attempt to of union officials to manipulate the workplace situation is address that issue.
  • The New Zealand Employment Contracts Act

    The New Zealand Employment Contracts Act

    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Kasper, Wolfgang E. Working Paper — Digitized Version Liberating labour: The New Zealand employment contracts act Kiel Working Paper, No. 694 Provided in Cooperation with: Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW) Suggested Citation: Kasper, Wolfgang E. (1995) : Liberating labour: The New Zealand employment contracts act, Kiel Working Paper, No. 694, Kiel Institute of World Economics (IfW), Kiel This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/47243 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu Kieler Arbeitspapiere Kiel Working Papers Kieler Arbeitspapiere Nr. 694 Liberating Labour The New Zealand Employment Contracts Act von Wolfgang Kasper Juli 1995 Institut fur Weltwirtschaft an der Universitat Kiel The Kiel Institute of World Economics ISSN 0342 - 0787 Institut fur Weltwirtschaft Dusternbrooker Weg 120 24105 Kiel Kieler Arbeitspapiere Nr.
  • Research Commons at The

    Research Commons at The

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Research Commons@Waikato http://waikato.researchgateway.ac.nz/ Research Commons at the University of Waikato Copyright Statement: The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). The thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use: Any use you make of these documents or images must be for research or private study purposes only, and you may not make them available to any other person. Authors control the copyright of their thesis. You will recognise the author’s right to be identified as the author of the thesis, and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate. You will obtain the author’s permission before publishing any material from the thesis. STRATEGY AND VISION: THE INFLUENCE OF THE AMWU ON THE NZEU FROM 1987-1992 WITH RESPECT TO EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFORMS. By Gemma L. Piercy Monday, August 23, 1999 This thesis is presented in partial fulfillment of a Master of Social Sciences, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. TABLE OF CONTENTS: Abstract i Acknowledgements ii Table of Contents iii Acronyms v Chapter One: Introduction 1-16 Purpose 3 Central Arguments 3 Background 6 Research approach 13 Structure 15 Chapter Two: Historical and Theoretical Framework 17-42 The Demise of the Welfare State 18 The Changing Nature of Work 20 The Rise of Neo-liberalism 23 The resurgence of Human Capital Theory 27 Summary
  • Using Empirical Evidence to Assess Labor-Management Cooperation

    Using Empirical Evidence to Assess Labor-Management Cooperation

    Michigan Journal of International Law Volume 19 Issue 3 1998 Cooperation, Conflict, or Coercion: Using Empirical Evidence to Assess Labor-Management Cooperation Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Labor and Employment Law Commons Recommended Citation Ellen J. Dannin, Cooperation, Conflict, or Coercion: Using Empirical Evidence to Assess Labor- Management Cooperation, 19 MICH. J. INT'L L. 873 (1998). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol19/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COOPERATION, CONFLICT, OR COERCION: USING EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO ASSESS LABOR-MANAGEMENT COOPERATION Ellen J. Dannin* INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 874 I. ARGUMENTS CONCERNING LABOR-MANAGEMENT COOPERATION.. 875 A. Changing the Form and Function of Unions....................... 876 B. Allowing Employers to Choose the Form of Unionization.. 887 C. Employees PreferLabor-Management Cooperation........... 889 U1. NEW ZEALAND'S EXPERIENCE WITH A LABOR-MANAGEMENT COOPERATION REGIME ................................................................. 890 A. Are the United States and New Zealand Comparable?....... 890 B. The Employment ContractsAct (ECA) in the Laboratory...894 1. Union Focus on Productivity Issues ............................. 898 2. Labor-Management Cooperation .................................. 909 3. New Forms of Organization ......................................... 917 C. Assessing the ECA as a Model for US. Labor Law Reform ..............................................................
  • The Carmichael Vision and Training Reform: Some Insights from Across the Tasman

    The Carmichael Vision and Training Reform: Some Insights from Across the Tasman

    Law & Piercy The Carmichael vision and training reform: Some insights from across the Tasman Michael Law and Gemma Piercy University of Waikato This paper provides insights into aspects of trans--Tasman union influences in the 1980s and early 1990s. In particular, it examines Laurie Carmichael’s influence on New Zealand unions, especially with respect to education and training reforms. The paper traces how his influence grew as the relationship between the AMWU and the NZEU warmed through the 1980s. It also highlights the very major impact Australia Reconstructed had on thinking in New Zealand as unions struggled to respond to neo- liberal policies and practices of the Fourth labour Government. The paper finds that the New Zealand reception of Australian ideas reflected, at least in part, the limitations o he left intellectual tradition in New Zealand.. Introduction and purpose This paper is one of a series that examines unions and education and training reform in New Zealand (eg Law, 1996; 1998; Piercy, 1999). The overarching purpose of our project is to track and analyse, from a labour studies perspective, trade union approaches to education and training reform since the mid-1980s. One important facet of the research has been an attempt to document and understand better Australian union influences on key New Zealand unions and unionists. The context, of course, has been New Zealand neo-liberal experiment (Kelsey, 1993; Jesson, 1989), In education, economic and social restructuring resulted in radical changes to both schooling and ‘post-compulsory’ education. This ideologically driven push for a consumer oriented, market approach to lifelong learning has challenged fundamentally the democratic assumptions that have characterised the welfare state educational settlement that most working people and their unions took for granted (Olssen and Morris Mathews, 1997).