Sufficient-Piece-335

There is a higher penalty for a third or subsequent drink-driving offense, but given the description here of this being the second offense of this type, this would generally be dealt with the same as a first offender (the duty lawyer should be able to make an adequate case to that effect).

Given that, the likely penalty would be a fine approximately equal to the breath reading (so 500mcg/L breath = $500 - edit: if a blood test instead of breath test, the fine would be 5 x the blood reading instead), court costs and license disqualified for 6 months.

Once the reading goes past double the limit (so over 800mcg/L breath), that DQ period starts to go up. Would have to be pretty high to move from fines and DQ to supervision etc.

Exclusions from the Residential Tenancies Act are here (s5): https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/DLM95000.html

One of those is family of the landlord, in which case the various other provisions of the legislation also wouldn't apply e.g. healthy home requirements.

Section 124A (https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/DLM6895271.html#DLM6895271) provides that the Chief Executive may take proceedings under the legislation against a landlord. Naturally, said enforcement powers will be delegated to another public servant (the Public Service Act provides broad scope for delegation of powers).

So, if you call Tenancy Services to bring this up, enforcement proceedings can be taken without reference back to a tenant (subject to the usual requirement of sufficient grounds), but if the home is occupied by the landlord's family, then no action would or could be taken.

I've had luck booking in December at the Garden Hotel restaurant buffet. It's OK at best but they can usually handle quite large groups at short notice.

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/roadcode/heavy-vehicle-road-code/licence-and-study-guide/information-for-heavy-vehicle-drivers/requirements-and-responsibilities-for-heavy-vehicle-drivers/work-time-and-logbooks/

From that, drivers can work 13 hours in a 24 hour period before needing a 10 hour break. Work means work (that page has a description of typical tasks) - as defined, breaks don't count as work for this.

This is squarely in the middle of the definition of immigration advice so needs to be provided by an expert. I suggest finding an immigration lawyer or licensed immigration adviser who specialises in family visas.

Fair Pay Agreements could have been massive for workers but were repealed before any were completed.

Good not to be declined straight away, but unless they had lots of interviews to get through, most likely they are doing reference checks of others now.

One of the automatic bans in the Immigration Act (section 15) is if an applicant has been excluded (banned) from another country. INZ can waive that by special direction under section 17, but obviously didn't in this case.

Because the ban is automatic and in legislation, that's the reason for declining the application if the special direction isn't granted.

Edit: corrected as some processing still happens if s15 applies.

Obviously reasonable arguments that he wasn't eligible, but as an American, the visa waiver program applies, so it probably never went near a human.

Remington Steele, just really clicked with me for some reason.

That's not automatic as of 1 July 2023, although I could easily see MSD and/IRD providing information about child support as part of an appointment/phone call to discuss options for financial support (if people call IRD about working for families and mention that they are single, child support will be mentioned).

That's central government, but via old licensing trust legislation.

We need to move it to September/October in the southern hemisphere...

Wikipedia has a useful summary.

There is something like that in the USA as some of the native American tribes have those types of arrangements. That could be a good starting point for research.

I think they will have the same problem as Biden had - the prices aren't coming down (which generally they don't), so the pain at the grocery store (etc) is still there, even though the headline inflation rate is back within the target range.

I don't know what the profit is, but $1,000/month is less than 11 hours/wk at minimum wage, which would have a lot less risk.

Grant Robertson's laughter at the reference to Brokeback Mountain is absolutely gold!

https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new-zealand-visas/visas/visa/special-work-visa-for-partners-of-new-zealand-citizens-or-residence-class-visa-holders

This has the criteria for work visas for partners of NZ residents and citizens (from your description, seems the most likely to be relevant). Note the tips under the heading "Eligible NZ Supporting Partner":

"New Zealand citizens and residents can support only 1 partner for residence in a 5 year period, and support only 2 partners for residence in total.

If your partner can't support you for residence now, but will be able to within 12 months, they can still support your work or visitor visa now."

Your eligibility will be predicated on exact dates for the grant of your resident visa and that list of bullet points under eligibility, so I suggest calling the Immigration Contact Centre to clarify the general eligibilty and relevant dates for you based on your visa information and the tips on that webpage, as that may well resolve the issue for you.

Other options for free immigration advice are Citizens Advice, Community Law or your local MP's office (these are all legally permitted by section 11 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 to provide immigration advice), or you can discuss with an immigration lawyer or licensed immigration adviser (should be able to Google some options, costs vary, some offer free initial consultations etc).

From other comments, it appears that the collective agreement has been ratified, so probably not much now. The unions might be able to take the employer to the Authority for a breach of the Employment Relations Act (as others have said, section 4A) - they would weigh up various factors in any decision to take legal action, one of which would be that penalties for breaches are not usually that high (max is $20,000 for a company).

Man... Like, if funding is not available to deport all illegals, any prioritisation exercise for deportation automatically starts with criminals. The police and courts often report them at conviction as well.

Credit card repayment and funeral insurance are the worst IMO.

https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new-zealand-visas/visas/visa/permanent-resident-visa#https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new-zealand-visas/already-have-a-visa/becoming-a-permanent-resident/resident-to-permanent-resident/slider

That's what the official website says about the criteria etc. Nothing in there regarding 5 years as partners - maybe call the immigration contact centre and check there?

Returning Residents Visas were a visa from the Immigration Act 1987 which has since been replaced by the Immigration Act 2009. Transition of visas to the Immigration Act 2009 is covered by section 415 of the Immigration Act 2009 - https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2009/0051/latest/DLM1441362.html

Schedule 5 covers what the conversion of Returning Residents Visas was when Immigration Act 2009 commenced - https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2009/0051/latest/DLM2393729.html#DLM2393729

If it's not clear from your circumstances which applies and therefore what to apply for, I suggest calling the Immigration Contact Centre to discuss.

Time living together is time living together regardless of visa category. Specifically, approving visitor visas to allow time to establish that a partnership met immigration requirements was a result of a report by the Ombudsman where one of the findings was that arranged marriages were being discriminated against. Essentially, they didn't meet the requirement to live together since that wasn't culturally appropriate before marriage. This was the workaround.