Angela Merkel has come out and said she was prevented from from having a dialogue with the Russian President , before leaving the post of German Chancellor.
In an interview with Der Spiegel, she said that the start of the special operation was not unexpected, because the Minsk agreements were destroyed.
Russia's strategy now seems to be to hold the territory they've gained and force the Ukranians to the negotiating table. To this end they are trying to make the rest of the country unlivable in. Given that Ukranian aggression sees no signs of abating, it would seem to be the Russian's only sensible strategy. Tough on Ukranian civilians, of course, but latter seem to be showing no signs of wanting a ceasefire and negotiations, any more than the military.
Describing Ukraine's defence of ITS own country and attempts to regain ITS territory as "aggression" is quite clearly victim blaming, whether you realise it or not.
At present Luhansk, Donetsk, Mariupol etc. belong to Russia, and I don't think Ukraine will be getting them back, so they had best come to terms with Russia before the latter does even more damage to the rest of their country. As I say the ball is now in the Ukranian court. Time, I think, to start negotiations, rather than continue with their aggrefssion.
Well, yes. But you didn't think that Ukraine would gain any territory back following the Russian invasion. So your prediction that Russia will retain those territories is somewhat .. suspect.
Given that Russia attacked a sovereign nation – and is continuing to deliberately bomb civilian infrastructure (and, is apparently unworried by the collateral loss of lives) – I know who I would characterise as the "aggressor"
If you've been fooled once about a maternity hospital, what's to say you've been fooled again? Have a read, keep an open mind.
"A key witness to the widely publicized incident at the Mariupol maternity hospital has punctured the official narrative of a Russian airstrike on the facility, and raised serious questions about Western media ethics. Meanwhile, news of a massacre in the city of Bucha contains suspicious elements."
I've been watching since the Vietnam War and what I've found out is that the media lines we are feed are mostly a constant inversion of the truth, anyone who took any notice of the middle east wars in the last 20yrs will know that. The question I have to ask is why would they suddenly be telling the truth after 70yrs of lying.
The entire civilized world is behind the Ukraine. The fact you seem to want to make common cause with the theocratic monsters of Teheran, the butchers in Beijing, the tinpot despots in Russia, the punctilliously murderous regime in North Korea and the BJP chancers in India is, I guess, a matter for you and your conscience.
The Ukranians are not going to stop their aggression..
Russian mobiks offered up in full-frontal assaults by brutal, corrupt commanders continue dying. Hypothermic Russian mobiks at the tail end of a corrupt logistics chain, denied adequate winter attire, kit, shelter and food continue dying.
There are dozens of videos on telegram channels showing mobs of freezing and apathetic Russian mobiks being killed by AFU drone attacks and artillery strikes. They are untrained, poorly equipped with no warm clothing in sub-zero temperatures and have been basically abandoned by their officers.
The Russian 155th Naval Brigade apparently lost 450-500 men KIA and about the same woulded in just two days frontally assaulting the town of Pavlivka (Donetsk Oblast) – almost all it's infantry, and all it's tanks and AFVs – for zero gain.
This is what happens when a regime run by criminal desperadoes who have no regard for human life fight a war.
Everyone suffers, but at least the AFU sooldiers are dying for the noblest of causes – to defend their homeland from an invader.
Snow on the ground and some of the poor buggers appear to have no gloves. Another fortnight and night temperatures will be below -10°C and not rise until late February, the ground will be frozen solid so they won't be able to dig in, artillery will be more effective, Kälteidiotie, cold idiocy, will set in and a night out in the open will be unsurvivable.
And Poots knows it, hence the must negotiate talking point pushed by hishasbarists.
TBH it seems clear the Russian high command is simply sacrificing some of the first wave of mobiks as speed bumps while other units get better training and equipment. A criminal waste of life, but who would notice another crime from Putins gangster state?
Yup, one rifle, two men. There's a short video of a Chehcen, apparently identified by the red trainers they wear, NVKD like barrier troop blocking a Russian serviceman on a rural road and beating him around the head as he was sending him back to wherever he'd come from.
Well, no. Russia's sensible strategy would be to withdraw behind the previous frontier – and declare a cease-fire & request negotiations. Of course, Putin shows no signs of 'sensible' in any of his communications.
I fail to see how conducting some kind of scorched earth policy – self-proclaimedly against civilian targets – is in any way admirable.
This type of 'attack the civilians' policy would be condemned – and very rightly so – by the left across the world – if just about any other country were conducting it.
Why on earth would you support it as in any way admirable?
Well, no. Russia's sensible strategy would be to withdraw behind the previous frontier – and declare a cease-fire & request negotiations. Of course, Putin shows no signs of 'sensible' in any of his communications.
That would not be sensible. The ball is in the Ukranians’ court: they need to negotiate.
A brutal and genocidal Fascist enemy from a despotic country run like a giant criminal enterprise launch an unprovoked invasion of New Zealand. Only after a most desperate and valiant defense they are repelled from seizing Auckland and Wellington in coup-de-main.
After heavy fighting, they retreat to Northland, Taranaki and the King Country after looting anything of vlaue and destroying everything they can't steal – leaving behind tales of torture, rape and mass graves of anyone who dared to say they were a proud New Zealander.
After months more of fighting, they are driven out of Northland in a brilliant counter attack and forced to retreat from the King Country. The enemy is on the backfoot, our Allies have supplied us with heaps of weapons. Just Taranaki and bits of Whanganui remain held by the invaders. The invaders respond by annexing all of the territory they’ve occupied and constantly repeating maximalist war aims that include the complete destruction of the New Zealand stae and it’s absorption into their country.
Thousands and thousands on New Zealand soldiers have died to liberate their country. We are united in our determination to drive out the invader. The enemy responds to defeat by mercilessly bombing our hydropower stations, and blowing up the Cook strait cable. They begin attacking our cities indiscrimantely with hundreds and hundreds of cruise missiles in a deliberate attempt to terrorize us into submission, weapons against which we have little initial defense and whose bombardment our citizens must endure.
mikesh says we should negotiate, because to continue to defeat the invader to liberate all our land and free our people would be unnecessarily aggressive.
You seem to me to be the sort of Quisling who would welcome your new overlords and take every opportunity to inform on the resistance because you want to be on what you assume to the winning side, and you didn't like the government anyway.
A brutal and genocidal Fascist enemy from a despotic country run like a giant criminal enterprise launch an unprovoked invasion of New Zealand. Only after a most desperate and valiant defense they are repelled from seizing Auckland and Wellington in coup-de-main.
How awful. When did that happen? Are any of our cities still standing. I would hope that we did not mount a defense on the basis that Uncle Sam would assist us, and then found that he let us down, being only interested in supplying weapons.
You missed out the rather important part of the story where New Zealand was shelling enemy territory for 8 years prior, and not allowing some of the enemy territories any independence. Just the main precursor for the war… don't worry though it sort of ruins a good piece of fiction.
You missed out the rather important part of the story where New Zealand was shelling enemy territory for 8 years prior,
That is a selective simplification of a much more complex matter. And rather leaves out the small matter of Russia invading and annexing Crimea at the same time. Hardly a gesture that was going to assure the Ukrainians of Putin's fine brotherly intentions.
Hmm, that's a written history of a war that relies heavily on references from the BBC and a Ukrainian newspaper. Would I be right to question that history?
The other point I would make is that it makes no mention of the ongoing shelling in the Donbass, that has been reported by countless independent media, and seems to have a lot to do with why Russia got involved.
I appreciate there a lot of reasons not to unthinkingly trust any media source these days maui. I think most of us struggle with making sense of the world one way or another. I don't expect perfection from anyone, but I do try to understand what direction they are heading in – up or down?
Setting aside the politics, perhaps one good measure of this is the resolve and morale of the Ukrainian people themselves. Their courage and sacrifice has meant their military has completely outperformed all pre-war expectations – and on that undeniable basis I give them them my support.
Oh, so Russia doesn't need to negotiate…. because they hope that they can sufficiently destroy civilian life in Ukraine, so that Ukraine will offer an unconditional surrender.
And, you, apparently, feel this is a worthy strategy. My contempt is deep.
Luckily, your opinion doesn't seem to be widely shared on the left – judging from the spectacular lack of support on TS – (or in the centre, or, to be fair, by much of the right).
This style of jackbooted militarism seems to be out of favour with most civilized countries.
Tell me, if this was the US – launching an attack on Mexico – and raining down missiles on the civilian infrastructure to force a surrender – would you still be so supportive of the military strategy? I somehow, think not.
So the situation is hopeless. Neither side wishes to negotiate. So the mayhem continues. Do you think that is a good thing?
It is not Russia's cities being bombed, so the ball is in Ukraine's court.
It is not that I approve of any of of this. I’ve simply resigned myself to the fact that Russia will not relinquish her gains willingly. It’s just not going to happen.
It's Russia doing the bombing. The ball is in Russia's court. They can stop any time they please.
You haven't answered my question BTW.
"Tell me, if this was the US – launching an attack on Mexico – and raining down missiles on the civilian infrastructure to force a surrender – would you still be so supportive of the military strategy? I somehow, think not."
Exactly. If Russia removed all of it's troops back to the widely recognised 2014 borders and stopped bombing Ukraine – the war would be over tomorrow. (The converse – Ukraine invading and bombing Russia being exceedingly unlikely in the current circumstances.)
Unfortunately because nothing the Russians sign up to can be relied upon – Ukraine would also have to become a full member of NATO. As have Sweden and Finland.
just because youre a quitter, dont expect the ukrainians to do the same. and if you any sort of student of history, you will know that once invited, the russians stay and expand.
Tell me, if this was the US – launching an attack on Mexico – and raining down missiles on the civilian infrastructure to force a surrender – would you still be so supportive of the military strategy? I somehow, think not.
I don't know. I could only answer such a question if it happened, and I was able to look at the surrounding circumstances. Unlike you I first of all apply the the "little grey cells" (to plagiarize Agatha Christie).
"The ball is in the Ukranians’ court: they need to negotiate."
They are negotiating – on the battlefield, which is the only negotiation that will work. Russia has proven entirely unreliable in all agreements previously. Not to mention being murderous, looting, raping war criminals.
Every democratic country should assist Ukraine with their "negotiations" to the maximum extent possible.
“Every democratic country should assist Ukraine with their "negotiations" to the maximum extent possible.”
Every democratic country should have made clear right from the start – even before the invasion started – that Ukraine would not be accepted as a member of NATO, and they should not have pledged support for Ukraine against Russia. As Kissinger pointed out at a recent conference countries in the area, such as Ukraine and Finland, should follow a policy of strict neutrality.
As for “sovereign rights”, rights come with obligations.
Ukraine gets to decide who they want to play with on the international stage. Russia doesn't get a veto – just because they *used* to be the imperial power.
The parallels with Czechoslovakia and Nazi Germany are too stark for anyone with even a modicum of historical knowledge. Which is why Europe pledged support against Russia.
Ukraine gets to decide who they want to play with on the international stage. Russia doesn't get a veto – just because they *used* to be the imperial power.
Fine. So they accept the consequences. Russia's alarm at their joining N'ATO is understandable.
If the consequences of exercising your sovereignty is your neighbour declaring war on you (because we all know that's what it is despite Putin's fig-leaf of a "special military operation") – then one can see why Ukraine would seek support from other countries.
Your metaphorical rabbit hole is getting very dark.
"Might makes right" is a philosophy – but not one I'd expect to see espoused on TS.
Sovereignty does not give them the right to threaten a neighbouring country. Clearly, their joining NATO is a threat to Russia, as also is their stated intention to obtain ownership of Crimea, presumably by invasion as Russia is not going to give it up.
Russia also has a fear of fascists, which is understandable given their experience of WWII.
You mean the Crimea – which was outright stolen from Ukraine in 2014 – in a military annexation!
Ukrainian fascists are Ukraine’s problem. Not Russia’s. That’s what sovereignty means.
Eastern Europe also has a fear of Russians, which is understandable, given their experiences in the latter half of the 20th century – considerably more recently than WWII.
“You mean the Crimea – which was outright stolen from Ukraine in 2014 – in a military annexation!”
Both Crimea (and Ukraine were part of Russia prior to the early nineties, when Ukraine gained independence. This had been the case since Tsarist times. When Ukraine became independent the Crimean population, who were mostly Russian anyway, made it clear that they did not wan to be part of Ukraine, preferring to be either completely independent or part of Russia. So Ukraine effectively 'stole' Crimea at that time.
"When Ukraine became independent the Crimean population, who were mostly Russian anyway, made it clear that they did not wan to be part of Ukraine, preferring to be either completely independent or part of Russia. So Ukraine effectively 'stole' Crimea at that time."
Do you have any evidence that the overwhelming majority of the population in Crimea A) didn't want to be part of Ukraine in 1991 (at the time of independence); and/or B) still didn't want to be part of Ukraine in 2014 (when Russia invaded)?
Evidence, that is, other than Russian propaganda.
In any case, military annexation was a violation of Russian agreements to safeguard the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
"Do you have any evidence that the overwhelming majority of the population in Crimea A) didn't want to be part of Ukraine in 1991 (at the time of independence); and/or B) still didn't want to be part of Ukraine in 2014 (when Russia invaded)?"
Referenda were held on both occasions. And both indicated that the majority did not want to be part of Ukraine.
That video ("MAIMED In A PLAYGROUND") provides zero evidence of who deployed the mine in question. Curiously, it is the Russians who have been documented hitting playgrounds etc with missiles.
Here is an article that discusses the presence of PFM ("petal") mines in Ukraine:
Human Rights Watch notes that Ukraine signed up to the Ottawa ban on anti-personnel mines, while Russia did not. The loudest accusations of Ukraine using PFM mines come from Russian government sources ('accuse the other side of that which you are guilty').
Russian forces have used at least seven types of antipersonnel mines in at least four regions of Ukraine: Donetsk, Kharkiv, Kyiv, and Sumy. This marks an unusual situation in which a country that is not party to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty uses the weapon on the territory of a party to the treaty
There is no credible information that Ukrainian government forces have used antipersonnel mines in violation of the Mine Ban Treaty since 2014 and into 2022.
Well maybe Human Rights Watch reckons "no credible info " that Ukraine has used petal mines etc but ive seen lots of video showing widespread dissemination of 'petal 'mines in Donetsk .Tanks in one example running up and down city streets trying to explode as many as possible .Mines scattered accross rooftops ,verges ,streets ,parks etc even video of neighborhood kids deliberately detonating them with air rifles !!
Some months ago since their initial use but i'll endeavour to track some down by the way yr first link does'nt work just comes up 'Forbidden' !
That is another video reporting the presence of PFM mines in Donetsk (which is not disputed)….but the question is – who put them there?? Several times the video says "Ukrainians" but provides no actual evidence that it was Ukraine at all.
Russia was notorious for widespread use of PFM mines in Afghanistan and have refused to sign treaties banning them. Ukraine on the other hand signed the treaty in 1997 and have been destroying their old stocks of them.
Other banned anti-personnel mines have been scattered in Ukraine (POM-2, POM-3), and these are mines that Ukraine has never possessed but which Russia has plenty of.
What possible reason would Russia have to deliberately over time pollute the cities of its allies and countrymen with antipersonnel mines ???
Seems to me that the idea of Russia shelling its own infrastructure or that it controls is inherently flawed although that is exactly what we are ever increasedly expected to believe !!
So following Ukraine's warped logic Russia shells its own pow facility ,was plotting to blow the dam across the Dnipro river in order to drown its own soldiers and wash away the pontoon bridges that were the only supporting structures of a precariously held bridgehead !!??Likewise we're expected to believe they'd shell a nuclear power station that they are guarding ?!!Do you not get the impression that we are getting bullshitted to by Ukraines ott propaganda dept ?
Perhaps Ukraine's signature on the landmine agreement signifies good intent but its by no means clear how much ordinance it has left undestroyed and the fact that it has been shelling civilians in Donetsk for a very long time would tend to support the contention that it was Ukraine that spread the petal mines imo.
For the most part Merkel seems to have been guilty of believing that trade alone could be a path toward unity and peace. Sadly for her that was never a sufficient condition. In my view until both the Kremlin and the CCP fully repudiate their marxist heritage – neither can be trusted.
With the RBNZ manufacturing a recession to reduce consumer spending those who rent are going to find that difficult as landlords pursue increased passive income:
Trade Me property data shows rental prices have returned to a record high.
The national median weekly rent was $580 last month, matching the record prices recorded in April.
It was an increase of $20 per week, or 4 percent compared with October last year.
That was despite the oversupply of rental properties on the market.
…
He said in particular the official cash rate hike was likely to flow on to rental prices.
“It’s a cost for a landlord out there, and unfortunately in some cases what we do see is that cost does come across to rents.”
…
Lloyd said the trend of high rental prices was expected to continue over the next year.
Rent is an unavoidable cost that is seemingly completely disconnected from traditional supply/demand price fluctuation. The Government must reinstate the Rent Freeze.
It's difficult to accuse landlords of pursuing passive income – when their costs (rates, mortgage, insurance, maintenance, improvements (healthy homes stds), etc.) are also increasing.
Passing these costs on, in the form of rent increases is the way the market operates.
Unless you want the Government to nationalize all rental housing (in which case, bye-bye to any chance of a left government in 2023) – there is little the government can actually do about this.
Perhaps you can point to a successful long-term rent freeze – which has not resulted in 'unintended outcomes'.
What this graph appears to actually show is that inflation is out-stripping wages. Which is not news.
Passive income is any that is generated by capital rather than labour. This is definitionally what property income is. Landlords ‘earn’ profit above and beyond the costs you mention merely by ownership.
The graph is demonstrating that fixed costs for over a million NZers are diverging further and further from affordability. In a functioning market an oversupply of rental properties would result in lower cost rentals, but this is not the case as people have to live somewhere. Landlords are able to make increasing profits from this need for housing, a human right.
Rent controls exist all over the place, can you point to our housing and rental market and say its working for anyone other than Aussie banks and those already owning multiple properties?
In that case, all investments – even your $100 in the bank for a rainy day – is passive income.
Well, yes. Landlords are *running a business* – if they don't make a profit (either in income stream or capital value) – then they exit the market.
If the Government wants to have an 'oversupply of rental properties' – then they need to adjust the costs of construction and supply – as well as making owning rental property an attractive proposition.
I hope this isn't news, but *no one* apart from the government (or those supplying to the government) is building for the lower end of the rental market – because there is literally no money in it. All of the development going on (and most of that is coming to a halt) is at the mid- and upper- end.
If rent controls exist all over the place, perhaps you can point to one working successfully, in a market similar to NZ (i.e. with the majority of the rental stock privately owned).
Yes, all investments are passive income. Most forms of investment aren’t just about rent-seeking though. For the majority of people their only significant source of income is earned income, that which they acquired from their labour.
It’s got nothing to do with what the government wants, there is currently an oversupply of rentals but rental prices have reached record highs despite this. This is isn’t a functioning market.
Until relatively recently both local and central government built and rented low cost housing in significant numbers. Those assets were sold. It was a decision that a less-regulated market would provide what is needed but as you state there is no incentive for businesses to provide for those in need; there’s literally no money in it. One of the major problems of applying ‘market-solutions’ to providing for people.
If we believe that housing is a human right then the government must substantially alter the balance of the current market so that it can perform it’s basic function of housing everyone. As NZ previously demonstrated, and weka’s link explains, social housing is necessary for a more equitable and healthy housing market for everyone. Leaving it to capitalism has demonstrably failed.
It’s got nothing to do with what the government wants, there is currently an oversupply of rentals but rental prices have reached record highs despite this. This is isn’t a functioning market.
Too many have borrowed heavily to get into the market. Now that interest rates have risen their investments have turned bad. To recover they are, by passing on their mortgage costs as part of the rent, trying to make the tenant pay for their "mistakes".
The increase in mortgage costs doesn't mean their investments have turned bad – it means that the cost of operating their 'business' has increased – and they need to increase income (in this case, rent) Just as if you're running a delivery business – the increase in petrol/diesel costs means you have to increase delivery fees; or if you're running a restaurant – the increase in staff costs means you have to increase prices.
The higher LVR means that they have quite a cushion in terms of property price before they'd be in negative equity territory. Remember that a 20% drop (which is what the RB is signalling) just puts prices back where they were in early 2020.
it means that the cost of operating their 'business' has increased – and they need to increase income (in this case, rent)
It is only the interest component of the mortgage that has recently become non deductible. The principal was never deductible. However the mortgage, both principal and interest, represents the cost of the house to the landlord, and has nothing to do with the tenant. The tenant should not have to pay for the landlord's property, so the mortgage should not be a determinant of how much rent he pays. If the cost to the landlord of operating his business has increased and that increase is due to an increase in mortgage costs, then so be it: he has simply made a bad business decision and he is being "punished" by the market. That's what capitalism is all about.
AFAIK – there isn't a political party in NZ which has this rather radical policy – to prevent landlords from recouping interest costs or even capital repayments from rental income.
And, no. No business owner makes the decision to just give up because costs have increased. They first look to see if they can increase their income.
Do you also propose that trucking firms should somehow absorb petrol/diesel price rises? And that restaurants should somehow absorb the increased cost of staffing? Should they, too, be "punished by the market" for making bad business decisions?
Of course, if it is not possible to increase income to offset increased costs, then the landlord goes out of business – and sells up – potentially at a loss; just as the trucking firm and restaurant also go broke.
Your argument seems to be that, like Weka, you regard rental housing as a public good – and that, therefore it should not be commercialized (i.e. it should all be government owned, or owned by non-profit entities; and rents should be controlled by the ability to pay.)
Well and good – but not practical in NZ. Unless you have a realistic pathway to get there from here.
“Do you also propose that trucking firms should somehow absorb petrol/diesel price rises? And that restaurants should somehow absorb the increased cost of staffing? Should they, too, be "punished by the market" for making bad business decisions?”
No, I do not. I instance interest because, unlike diesel, etc, it is not a true 'business cost'. since businesses don't borrow. Proprietors borrow and the cost of their borrowing, ie interest, is a personal expense. It makes no difference to a business whether or not interest is paid on the capital invested in it.
Some have argued that it was unfair of Grant Robertson to single out landlords for this treatment and I would agree. Non deductibility of interest should apply across the board; but I guess that's another story
AFAIK – there isn't a political party in NZ which has this rather radical policy – to prevent landlords from recouping interest costs or even capital repayments from rental income.
Raf Manji, leader of the Opportunities Party has mentioned the possibility of preventing banks from lending for the purpose of financing residential rental investments. I don't know whether this was just an off the cuff remark or whether it is TOP policy. If it isn't then I think it should be.
The additive "(sic)" seems entirely appropriate. The author of the link, presumably the RBNZ, seems to have been a little loose in their description of what actually happens. A business is not a person so it cannot walk into a bank and ask for a loan. Only a person, usually the proprietor, can do that.
Accountants have a convention they call the "entity convention". This asserts that the proprietor and his business are separate entities for business and accounting purposes. Interest is an expense incurred for by the proprietor for the purpose of raising capital. It is of no concern to the business.
The Income Tax Act says that an expense is deductible if it is incurred for the purpose of gaining "taxable income". Capital, as any accountant will tell you, is not income, taxable of otherwise, so expenses relating to the raising of capital should not be deductible.
As usual, you concoct your own narrative twisting ordinary language into sophistry and techo-gibberish that only you seem to believe in. Sadly, it doesn’t stop there and you seem to have your own ‘unique’ view of reality that, unfortunately, sucks up a lot of oxygen here.
I would have more respect for your comments if you explained them. For instance, why do you call my comments "sophistries and techno-gibberish"? Do you have an argument to support that claim? If not, then you may as well stop your blathering.
As a matter of interest I took a look at TOP's housing policy as per their website, these are the relevant parts:
introduce a land value tax of 0.75% – a small annual tax paid on the value of urban residential land.*
Remove the current Bright Line Test and allow tax deductibility of interest for landlords, which is replaced by the land value tax.
Require a deposit of 100% of the value of an existing home when purchased for investment purposes.
The third item would seem to prevent borrowing for private rental purposes, so the question of tax deductibility mentioned in the second item would not arise, except for current rentals. The only reason for borrowing would then be to carry out renovations after purchasing, but this would be covered by the new builds provisions presumably. Or for normal business expenses such as rates, insurance, repairs, etc, for cash flow purposes.
This, the third item aside, would bring the business more into line with normal businesses. I still think that all interest should be non deductible, but that, as I said somewhere else in the comments to this blog, is another story.
Same issue with this outrageous 'manufactured recession'. If the market working as it should, screws us over to protect others' "wealth", then it's not fit for purpose as a governing philosophy.
The manufactured recession is a consequence of having to constrain inflation due to lowered interest rates,increased money supply,and keynsian fiscal stimulus that create asset bubbles,that implode leaving both debt,unemployed politicians,and distressed consumers with buyers remorse.
It is an expectation of MPS tightening,why it surprised politicians,shows ignorance rather then discovery,the inability to be able to suggest policy that removes cost,show an inability to govern.
Not all of the inflation is caused by stimulus, some comes from supply chain (foreign and domestic) disruption, including to international logistics (containers etc).
And reducing demand by higher interest rates is not the best way to encourage investment in labour replacement (crop harvesting machines, machine milking and the like). Some of price escalation is caused by monopoly (gib board) practice.
Actions such as lower petrol taxation and a rent freeze also lower inflation.
PS Orr held interest rates down too long, he also allowed investors off the deposit ratio to buy property with cheap money (rather than directing them to new investment to reduce price pressures caused by rental shortage) to increase our collective debt.
Freight rates have been decreasing since March,they are now down to pre covid levels.A substantive portion of the imported inflation is from the depreciation of the NZ dollar,due to capital flight and the appreciation of the US$ as a safe haven,with higher debt liquidity,without the forex hedge costs.
There is no shortage of rental properties,there is a shortage of suitable tenants due to policy changes,and the difficulty in removing poor performing tenants,
"two-thirds of Viennese citizens live in municipal or publicly subsidised housing. "
Which certainly doesn't apply in NZ – and can't, in the near – or even mid- term, without massive Government acquisition of rental property either by paying market price or compulsorily (cf above comment on one quick way to ensure there is no left government in 2023)
"Where rent controls do work, many Viennese agree, is in tandem with Vienna’s vast offering of unghettoised, social housing and an aggressive policy to add more of these homes."
The market doesn't care whether you approve or not. If there is a shortage of housing – and/or increasing provision costs – the price will go up. Whether that's 'officially' or the plethora of ways that a landlord can move out tenants (renovations to meet standards is a current favourite), and re-let at a higher price.
If you want to have massive amounts of government subsidised housing in NZ – then you have to find an effective pathway (i.e. one which can gain electoral support) to get there from here. I've yet to see one which is even vaguely achievable.
The (phased) end of mortgage interest deductability will, with a higher OCR, lead to more sales by landlords (and at lower values than now) to first home buyers.
A rent freeze and the option of 5 year loans (lower than the floating rate of the next year or two) to these first buyers would help. An alternative is for government to buy off landlords and on-sell to first home buyers later when the mortgage rates fall back.
Where do you think the money for the Government to buy from existing landlords is going to come from?
Kainga Ora are well over their current budget for builds both underway and in the planning phase. And, are well behind their targets for getting their current rental stock to meet healthy homes standards.
With the Government being told by the RB to restrain their spending – I doubt a big new property acquisition income stream is going to magically appear.
It's not spending if it is buying and on-selling. It's just a transaction. And Orr is not boss of government, and governments can borrow on the bond market anytime they want.
It most certainly is spending. If you (the government) purchase something, then you need to have the income stream to do so (it has to be in the budget somewhere).
You (the government) may later sell off part of your assets – and that then becomes positive cash balance in a later budget cycle.
I really don't think that the government want Orr to be telling the country that increased spending in their 2023 budget will increase inflation even further – so, they will be listening very closely to what he has to say.
Kainga Ora is already using bonds – and, as you can see, it's reported as a liability against the government accounts
One has an income stream from rent to pay the cost of the debt and then the money from selling the property (to those who would buy once the OCR comes back down) to pay the debt back.
Whether the government, or first home buyers borrowing from banks with 5 year loans, buy up property makes no difference to aggregate spending in the economy.
Different budget cycles. Unless you are postulating that prices would crash significantly within a year.
It also postulates a capital loss on every sale (government selling for significantly less than they bought the property) – so you would never recover even the base price from sales – let alone the borrowing costs.
Rental income might cover the borrowing costs (maybe…) – but wouldn't do a thing to cover the capital cost.
Orr is commenting on the *government* needing to restrain spending. And, is also predicting a fall in house prices of around 20% (don't rejoice too soon, that would get us back to about 2020 price levels – hardly sustainable)
A rent freeze would assist house price fall. The government would determine the timing of its buy in.
Rental income might cover the borrowing costs (maybe…) – but wouldn't do a thing to cover the capital cost.
Re-sale would, and there will be more businesses looking at buying into this market with the end of interest deductablility for investors speculating for untaxed CG using borrowed money.
Housing corp has both a budget deficit ( 344 m at 1 july) an increased debt 9.8b 1 July,increasing again ( by 2.3 b in nov) as it now needs to borrow on the government account due to the lack of interest in the secondary bond market.
It now has no ability to repay debt,due to now borrowing for operations and maintenance.A revaluation downwards of 10% in its asset valuations,how does it provide a sustainable income?
"Re-sale would, and there will be more businesses looking at buying into this market with the end of interest deductablility for investors speculating for untaxed CG using borrowed money."
There is no possible way this can be true. If the government buys and then waits for the market to fall before re-selling – as you postulate – there is no possible way that they can recoup even the capital cost – let alone the cost of borrowing.
If the government buys at 1 million – and sells, 3 years later at 750K – they've made an absolute lost of 250K + whatever the borrowing costs might be.
If the government buys and then waits for the market to fall before re-selling – as you postulate
I said
A rent freeze would assist house price fall. The government would determine the timing of its buy in.
Government policy leads to a price fall and then the government buys in and then on sells to first home buyers (they would be still be waiting for mortgage cost to fall).
A devaluation in Housing Corp assets (with a downward correction in the market value) has no impact on its operational finances (just more difficulty borrowing against its assets – which is sorted out via new government input as is the case at present).
The period of greater cost – increasing property to the required standard is a one time thing. And inevitably required government input. Another impost will be sufficiency of disability housing with aging tenants.
People don't spend money, they spend incomes. A money tree does exist: it's called the "velocity of money". As money moves through the economy it creates income, and the faster it moves the more income it creates. If we wish to avoid demand inflation we need to ensure that the flow of goods and services matches that increase in income.
Which certainly doesn't apply in NZ – and can't, in the near – or even mid- term, without massive Government acquisition of rental property either by paying market price or compulsorily (cf above comment on one quick way to ensure there is no left government in 2023)
You didn't ask for an example that could be used by NZ without NZ having to change much. You asked for an example that,
Perhaps you can point to a successful long-term rent freeze – which has not resulted in 'unintended outcomes'.
Which is the standard line from people who believe in TINA. But TINA is something that neoliberals made up. We have choices and TINA basically says fuck off poors, we don't really care about you.
The market doesn't care whether you approve or not. If there is a shortage of housing – and/or increasing provision costs – the price will go up. Whether that's 'officially' or the plethora of ways that a landlord can move out tenants (renovations to meet standards is a current favourite), and re-let at a higher price.
The market is a system that humans created. It doesn't have opinions of feelings. Humans can change that system.
Your example of how the market works fails in two fundamental ways.
we intervene in markets all the time, there is no such thing as free market. The argument is about how we intervene.
Landlords can only move tenants out because the state is intervening in some ways and not others. That's a choice.
Humans rights matter more that the ability of some people to make passive income. What would help change things if is we were honest about the fact that adhering to TINA = relinquishing the right to a healthy and meaningful life.
Apologies for not specifically stating that I was looking for an example of a rent freeze in a country which was comparable to NZ.
Because, right now, all the examples I can see – which are trying to resolve rocketing rents – rather than being long-term 'the way we do business' – have very significant unintended consequences.
If you want to argue for massive state intervention in the market – switching NZ to majority state ownership of rentals – go to.
I'd like to see your thinking on how to get there from here – other than handwavium. Because the budgetary implications are staggering.
However, I don't think a rent freeze is going to win an election for the left in 2023.
Humans matter in lots of ways. Our government doesn't support or fund lots of areas effectively (livable income for sickness beneficiaries, dental treatment, timely hospital care, routine medical treatment, etc.). Housing is just one instance.
If the answer is simple and obvious, then no doubt we'll see it as a central platform of the Left in 2023.
Housing isn't just one of many instances though. It's fundamental to everything. Because we all need a home, and because the cost of housing is now the main driver of poverty here. Anything else the government and NGOs do to alleviate poverty is undermined by the cost of housing. Even raising benefits will partially fail because landlords will raise rents in response.
If the answer is simple and obvious, then no doubt we'll see it as a central platform of the Left in 2023.
Snort, we don't have a left to adopt such a platform. And it's not simple or obvious, it's really fucking complex. TINA arguments make it that much worse.
There are no single, silver bullet solutions. A rent cap would need to be strategic and part of a broader overall plan. Which means not just housing but everything eg we cannot solve the housing crisis without looking at Accommodation Supplement and we can't look at that without looking at benefits and welfare.
Have a look at the GP policy to see where we might go on this.
Well if you are going to abandon market mechanisms altogether – or in your own words:
I don't give a flying fuck about how some people think the market should work. Human rights take precedence.
the alternative you seem to be espousing is that the govt provides housing as 'a human right'. This is your core jsutification.
Now given that human rights are universal, it is fair to ask why the govt would only provide some people with housing and not others. And why it might charge some people more than others. Or why it might provide some people with houses in more desirable places than others. Or newer ones for some people, but not others.
I have lived in such a housing system for a while – a standard Soviet apartment building – but I am not sure this is what you have in mind. Nor what I suspect most New Zealanders would choose either. So if we are to get past the handwavium – how about giving us some hard details as to how you think this human rights based universal state housing system would work please?
As for the Green Party policy – again long on handwavium with multiple contradictions around keeping rents and mortgages less than 30% or 25% – but then nothing on keeping costs down. Quite the opposite a long whole wish list that demand more capital and costs. Even if you want to reject markets altogether I am not sure how anyone can square that circle.
Fuck off Red. I've told you so many times that you are making shit up about what I believe, there's no point in engaging with you seriously. Basically you just take what I say, shift it out of context and/or misrepresent it, and then use that to push your own barrow.
For the benefit of others reading,
I didn't advocate abandoning market mechanisms altogether (and I don't believe in such)
I don't believe that the state should be the sole provider of housing.
I don't give a flying fuck about how some people think the market should work.
That statement is a repudiation of market mechanisms if I ever read one.
If you are going to base your argument that on the idea that housing is a human right – again your words precisely – then they have to be universal. Or do you think some people get different rights to housing depending on intersectionality or something?
yes you quoted my words and completely misunderstood what I meant. This is what I have been saying for ages, you actually don't understand my arguments, politics or position. And you almost never ask for clarification.
And here you are doing it again, thinking you know what I meant when I’ve already told you you don’t and you still don’t ask for clarification.
Combine your statement that emphatically appears to repudiate markets, with your reference to Green Party policy that seems to demand both rental reductions and cost increases at the same time – then you maybe could offer us ignorant ones some clarification about how you think markets should work.
And if you are going to base your argument squarely on the claim that housing is a human right – then you also need to clarify how you think that will work. Because as I explained – there are some fairly obvious practical problems with this approach.
The property market in New Zealand was already overvalued because investment is directed into land ownership as there is no CGT.
And allowing people to speculate by borrowing money cheaply to own property made things worse.
Fortunately there is a plan – end deductability of interest to encourage sale to first home buyers or business ownership (subject to company tax on CG and can claim interest as a cost).
A way to improve on this plan would be a rent freeze and better regulation of property being up to standard. Thus increase the pressure to sell and thus take down property values – fix Orr's mess.
Nah – you resort to the 'you are just making shit up about my views' persecution ploy whenever I offer even the simplest and most obvious challenges.
If you do believe in markets – as you now claim – then how do you markets manage to decrease rental prices while increasing supplier costs at the same time?
And if housing is a universal human right – then how do you allocate it if – as you now claim – you do not think the state should be the universal provider?
These are really obvious questions that did not require me to make up anything.
Current prices are reducing because interest rates have increased.
But unless you happen to have the purchase price sitting around in cash, most people are going to need to borrow – and increasing interest rates will pretty much cancel out any gain from decreasing prices.
And in a falling market, banks quite reasonably tend to demand higher deposit equity – which does not help affordability either.
Worse still if the market falls far enough, as you seem to wish, a large fraction of existing homeowners will go underwater with their mortgage – ie the value of the property becomes less than the mortgage. Which means either they will not sell unless forced to, reducing supply on the market. Or if they do have to sell and wind up with no equity, they finish up back renting again and increasing demand in that sector.
And in Aus and NZ you cannot walk away from a mortgage if you have made a loss on it – the residual debt remains.
Lots of interacting factors your simplistic demand to collapse the property market does not really take into account.
First of all you say you don't give a flying fuck about how other people think markets should work, then you say you don't believe in abandoning market mechanisms altogether, and now you say you 'don't believe in markets'. No wonder no-one knows what you mean, because it seems to shift about from comment to comment.
And when asked how you think the housing market should work when you both reduce rental prices and increase rental costs at the same time – crickets.
Over the years I have contributed both at length and in detail on this topic – in essence arguing that if you are going to try and fix something as complex and important as housing in this country – it would be a good idea to demonstrate that you have a solid, well thought out idea of how it worked. Because in my experience, taking a simplistic blunt hammer to a complex mechanism rarely has the claimed result.
And again if you are going to base your argument on housing being a human right, then it has to be a universal human right. One that only the state can deliver on – universally. That you have not thought this through does not change the fact of it.
First of all you say you don’t give a flying fuck about how other people think markets should work, then you say you don’t believe in abandoning market mechanisms altogether, and now you say you ‘don’t believe in markets’. No wonder no-one knows what you mean, because it seems to shift about from comment to comment.
And again. The reason you don’t know what I think is because you spend all this time, every time, asserting what I think instead of asking. In this case, you are just plain wrong. As I said, I’m not going to talk politics with someone who does this so consistently. What would be the point.
You can also keep asserting your ideas about human rights, but without out referencing the work people have done on the rights to housing and what that means in a HR frame, all that’s happening is you are sitting in a room arguing with a bunch of straw men.
But unless you happen to have the purchase price sitting around in cash, most people are going to need to borrow – and increasing interest rates will pretty much cancel out any gain from decreasing prices.
Everybody has a right to a home, but no-one has an automatic right to own rental properties, Purchasing rental properties increases demand and presumably pushes up prices. Bank lending for that purpose is therefor counterproductive. To become a landlord it should be necessary to either have a spare freehold property that you can rent out, or sufficient dosh to be able, without borrowing, to purchase one. .
The leader of TOP has suggested that banks be prevented from lending for that purpose. I don't know whether this is TOP policy, but I think it probably should be. It would also probably lead to a lowering of rentals since landlords would then have no need to illicitly pass on mortgage costs to tenants.
Everybody? All New Zealanders or everyone on the planet? And do they get a choice of which home, or do you imagine some govt entity would allocate them on what basis?
Perhaps even if they had no income or savings and if this is going to be a proper meaningful right, then it would have to be a free home. But why then would some people get free houses and others have to pay? Maybe they should all be free?
This is the problem with making housing a right. Rights are an abstract universal and apply equally to all humans. Housing is not; they are in different locations, different sizes, styles and quality. Not to mention all differing ages. There is nothing abstract or universal about housing. Jamming the two concepts on top of each other results in an absurd mess the moment you look past the superficial slogan.
In any real world case whether you are borrowing from a bank directly, or indirectly via a landlord (who is effectively providing the equity and creditworthiness you do not have) – there is no such thing as free houses.
The problem extreme left wingers have is they are generally too poor to even qualify for the capital to own a home outright; and deeply resent the fact they have to ask others – either a landlord or a bank – to provide it for them. Hence the blind desire to smash capitalism – rather than make it work intelligently for everyone.
You can also keep asserting your ideas about human rights, but without out referencing the work people have done on the rights to housing and what that means in a HR frame,
Well about three comments ago would have been a good moment to provide a reference. Like how you insist other do all the time.
Everybody? All New Zealanders or everyone on the planet? And do they get a choice of which home, or do you imagine some govt entity would allocate them on what basis?
Oh, stop blathering. People have a right to a home, as distinct from an (automatic) right to own rental properties.
1. they only rose to those levels because Orr facilitated an abnormally low level of mortgage rates.
2. Orr wants an abrupt change to higher than normal mortgage rates to cause a recession.
The guy over-reacts to everything.
The government needs to assist in lowering inflation by freezing rents. If this means there are more landlords willing to sell (before fully impacted by the phasing out of interest deductability) but there is a lack of buyers (waiting for mortgage rates to fall to normal levels) then
1. the government can buy and later on-sell to first homeowners (when the mortgage rates ease)
2. the government and or Orr or the banks could manage this period with more 5 year loans to first home buyers.
Worse still if the market falls far enough, as you seem to wish, a large fraction of existing homeowners will go underwater with their mortgage
You cannot be serious, mortgagee sales only occur when someone cannot pay the mortgage.
Which means either they will not sell unless forced to, reducing supply on the market.
No it does not. How does someone staying in their property reduce the number of houses in the market?
Or if they do have to sell and wind up with no equity, they finish up back renting again and increasing demand in that sector.
If they have to. And not necessarily because if the property goes to a first homeowner, they move into the rental vacated by them elsewhere.
Lots of interacting factors your simplistic demand to collapse the property market does not really take into account.
Appreciate your comments Red, nice to have some logic to the discussions on here.
If housing is a human right, wouldn't food come before that ? Problem is someone else is required on the other side of the transaction to deliver the goods (at no cost ?)
By all means make an argument against the human right to food, I'd like to hear that. But please reference the actual right not what you are imagining.
If housing is a human right, wouldn't food come before that ? Problem is someone else is required on the other side of the transaction to deliver the goods (at no cost ?)
Are you telling that the human right to food is not being met. That's terrible. It's certainly something that should be rectified.
Landlords deduct those costs from rent income before tax on rent is assessed. Rents are higher here than overseas, not because of these costs, but because of seeking a rate of return on the land/property values (which were overvalued and are now falling).
Landlords are losing their right to deduct mortgage cost (where these are existing properties rather than new builds) against rent income. This encourages sales to first home buyers and purchase of new builds.
A rent freeze for a year, alongside the reduction in petrol taxation, is a way to reduce cost in the economy. It would assist the RB in reducing inflation and thus result in an earlier return to lower mortgage rates.
It's a no brainer. And given National would not do it, is an easy political win with renters.
But, also guaranteed to lose votes from all of the Mum and Dad investors (that's around 1/3 of the rental stock in NZ). A heck of a lot of them voted Labour last time. Do you really think Labour want to risk it?
They deserve to lose, if they do not. There are not that many such landlords either. And in any case they are already losing their right (being phased out) to deduct interest under Labour … .
It is dated from 2020 – so may have changed a bit – but I haven't seen anything in the news about the rental property ownership profile changing significantly.
Landlords know that they are losing the right to deduct interest. That's part of the reason that rents have been going up (it's one of the increased costs I mentioned above).
If Labour freeze rent for a year to reduce inflastion, the incentive to these landlords to sell will increase. Labour wants more first homeowners – thus earlier decision to end mortgage deductability. Landlords who own their property without mortgage, or run it as a business (thus can claim interest as a cost and thus pay tax on any sale CG) are not affected. And some investors will buy into 100% property ownership once values fall far enough, as will some companies.
Whereas, my pick is, that they will lose if they do put a rent freeze in place.
Too many middle NZ investors are tied into property. Governments meddle with this at their peril.
Labour would be putting a lot of 'soft' centre votes at risk. These are people who voted Labour in 2020, and like Ardern (or don't like Luxon) – but have no 'tribal' loyalty to Labour.
Put their economic future at risk (most Mum and Dad investors, are doing this to cover their retirement) – and they'll change their votes.
As you point out – rent-freeze policies going to be more popular with the renters – but how many of them vote National or ACT (or, vote at all, for that matter)?
The polls indicate they have already moved from Labour, and given National's offering the return of interest deductability (and threshold movement), for mine Labour's best chance is to hold down rent costs and make the chance of owning greater.
Currently our level of home ownership is lower than that of the UK and it is going down. Labour has to be seen to be acting.
And its actions need to also include houses to get people out of motels (before on-selling them later).
I don't think that would work. A "business vehicle" – company, trust, partnership, or whatever – would, or should, be subject to the same tax rules as an individual landlord.
The landlord shouldn't really be passing on mortgage costs. The tenant might be expected to pay a fair rent, but he shouldn't have to pay for the landlord's property.
I disagree. The reason is that housing is a basic need, and comes out of income before anything else. Landlords as a group are a monopoly, as social housing is the only alternative to living in your car. They can form cartels to push the cost up, and have been. Property managers, who earn a % of the rent, encourage increases as often as possible.
However, residential property investors are acting as if they carry no risk, despite the fact they are investors, and all investments carry risk. The property investors (and banks) expect renters to top up their extra costs, to retain a nice annual return, plus untaxed capital gains. But they, along with banks should carry the negative consequences of investment as well as the positive. I'd especially like to see banks have to eat loses in property value, as they did for the 20% drop in California residential property after the 2008 housing bubble crash. After all, the banks magic the money for mortgages out of thin air, and then charge us interest for the privilege.
The number of landlords/businesses lodging residential bonds is 120, 00 or so from the link below, for more than 500, 000 rentals. This small percentage of NZ is trying to convince the rest of us to suck it up for their benefit.
Once again, housing costs come first out of income, before food and power. If we can push rents down by making the banks and landlords take the hit for their investment risk, many more Kiwis would be in a stronger position to weather other inflationary costs.
Landlords as a group are a monopoly, as social housing is the only alternative to living in your car. They can form cartels to push the cost up, and have been.
Yet later on you state:
The number of landlords/businesses lodging residential bonds is 120, 00 or so from the link below, for more than 500, 000 rentals.
Obviously 120,000 landlords cannot be a monopoly – and claiming they are 'as a group' adds no meaningful information whatsoever. You might as well argue all farmers are a monopoly cartel because there is 'no alternative to eating'.
As for your quaint notion that landlords carry no risk, this really tells me you know nothing about the business – nor the slim margins it operates on.
In which case, you should argue (as others have above) that rental housing should only be provided by the government or other not-for-profit social agencies.
And provide a mechanism to get there from here.
ATM, rental housing is a business – just as running a restaurant or a delivery company is a business.
If you don't want it to be a business (with bottom line profitability a significant factor), then you don't want private landlords in the game, at all.
A house is capable of providing accommodation. The landlord did not create that capability, he merely purchased a pre-existing house and exploited it for his own gain. He cannot be deemed to be "providing a service".
A service would normally entail active participation such as, for example, when a barber gives you a “trim”.
So, according to your argument: the owner of a storage unit is not providing a service; the owner of a hire car is not providing a service; the owner of a for-lease post-hole borer is not providing a service.
None of those entail active participation. They involve ownership of a capital asset which is rented or leased out for a period of time.
The storage unit is subject to some sort of regulation I expect. Hire car definitely needs a WOF. Not so a rental property. If "provision of housing is a service", why do landlords and their bodies squeal like stick pigs when they are asked to provide a decent product?
The operator of a storage unit will have built the facility himself. He is renting out capabilities which he has created. A car hire firm has to hire car groomers, mechanics to check over cars, office and counter staff, drivers to drive cars to where they are needed. and quite independently of the cars themselves, they have hire or own premises. Both are clearly providing a service fromwhich the community benefits, in much same way that a shop owner provides a service although he does not actually create the goods he sells. These businessmen are providing locations where people know they can obtain specific goods or services.
Ah, so now your service definition has morphed to 'one where the community benefits'
I think that it's entirely arguable that the community benefits from the service of providing housing.
Landlords also hire lots of people (maintenance, cleaning, repairs, renovation, lawn care, etc.). And most owners of storage units certainly didn't build them, themselves.
Really. If you want to argue that the provision of housing is too important (and/or critical) to be provided by individuals – and should be a government monopoly – then stick to that argument.
Hmm. One was the result of (possible) institutional systems failure in the mine – and was an isolated event; the other was the result of a criminal act by an individual – which followed a pattern of multiple other similar criminal acts which (by luck) didn't result in deaths.
There's a strong element of 'I told you so' going on. Everyone could see that it was just a matter of time before someone was killed in one of these attacks on shops.
Failures in workplace safety and anyone to take responsibility is not an isolated event. We’ve had many industries where contracting out and avoiding responsibility is standard.
Even a Granny Weatherwax tribute act (at least in name) should be able to see that.
Ahh, workplace deaths are isolated incidents not at all related.
Whereas ram raids, where a feature of the crime is an empty shop, is part of a series of crime where death is inevitable?
I agree, very different reactions from David Seymour and his ilk. A preventable death is a preventable death. No one should face death as part and parcel of their regular duties at work.
Sandringham death wasn't the result of a ram raid – it was a robbery from a staffed shop – in much the same way that we've seen many others (in Auckland, at least – and I assume in the rest of the country).
The LGBTQ writer said 'groupthink' led her to believe the Harry Potter author was a transphobe
In the tread, EJ Rosetta wrote: 'Right, I'm done. 3 months ago, I was tasked with writing an article detailing '20 Transphobic JK Rowling Quotes We're Done With' After 12 weeks of reading her books, tweets, full essay & finding the context of these 'quotes', I've not found a single truly transphobic message.'
Rosetta concluded: 'You're burning the wrong witch. I stand with @jk_rowling.'
"Group think, brainwashing & listening unquestioningly to the voices of my LGBT peers over critical thought & doing my own research/thinking. 5 years I have spent nodding along while JK was buried, and for that I apologise [sic]. I’m glad to report I’m thinking for myself again now," Rosetta wrote.
Rosetta has previosuly called herself a reformed TERF, trans-exclusionary radical feminist, a term used to describe women who others believe is excluding trans rights from women's rights movements.
I haven't been onsite this past week to address the Incitement to Hatred and Discrimination legislation that has been drastically watered down as regards the rainbow community of Aotearoa. Various reasons; other commitments, shock, and grieving amongst them. But at least there are more solid details about the proposed reduced bill that will be presented to parliament before next election:
The Green Party said it sent a signal to gender, rainbow, and disability communities that they were less deserving of protection, worried that those communities were targets of extremism.
Executive director of Auckland Pride Max Tweedie welcomed the change for religious groups, but said it should not take a “heinous terrorist attack for hate speech laws with that affected community to take effect”. He was disappointed the proposal did not include the Rainbow community, gender minorities and people who were disabled. “It’s frustrating when issues are so clear-cut to our communities. Hate speech has consequences. I really hope it doesn't take another mass violence incident … for some action to be taken on this issue.”…
The Law Commission will undertake a review of “legal responses to hate-motivated offending, and of speech that expresses hostility towards, or contempt for, people who share a common characteristic”, Justice Minister Kiri Allan said. “It will include whether further protections should be afforded to specific groups, including the Rainbow and disabled communities.”
The public submissions to the select committees progressing this legislation are likely to have restricted terms of reference, and the Labour government has enough votes to pass it even without the Green party – who will likely vote for it, after a few speeches saying it should go further. But I will have to wait for specifics of the bill before working on my own submission, so don't have much to say about that yet.
Instead, I will focus on reasons for expanding the prohibition of Incitement of Hatred against not just the present; race, skin colour or national origin, not just to religion, but also; gender, rainbow, and disability communities. With particular LGBTQ+ emphasis; given recent events, plus my own familiarity with that community, and the all too frequent Incitement to Discrimination with which it is beset.
Under present NZ law; there is no Hate Crime against the LGBTQ+ community, which does not reflect the lived experience of Aotearoa's rainbow people. There is provision in the Sentencing Act (2002) for some regard to be paid to hate crimes as Aggravating and Mitigating factors:
In sentencing or otherwise dealing with an offender the court must take into account the following aggravating factors to the extent that they are applicable in the case…
(h) that the offender committed the offence partly or wholly because of hostility towards a group of persons who have an enduring common characteristic such as race, colour, nationality, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, or disability; and
(I) the hostility is because of the common characteristic; and
(ii) the offender believed that the victim has that characteristic:
However, this is not very useful for deterrence if the perpetrator has an effective lawyer, as:
In sentencing or otherwise dealing with an offender the court must take into account the following mitigating factors to the extent that they are applicable in the case:
(a) the age of the offender:
(b) whether and when the offender pleaded guilty:
(c) the conduct of the victim:
(d) that there was a limited involvement in the offence on the offender’s part:
(e) that the offender has, or had at the time the offence was committed, diminished intellectual capacity or understanding:
(f) any remorse shown by the offender, or anything as described in section 10:
(fa) that the offender has taken steps during the proceedings (other than steps to comply with procedural requirements) to shorten the proceedings or reduce their cost:
(fb) any adverse effects on the offender of a delay in the disposition of the proceedings caused by a failure by the prosecutor to comply with a procedural requirement:
(g) any evidence of the offender’s previous good character:
(h) that the offender spent time on bail with an EM condition
To see how this works out in practice, we turn now to an example from this year's Pride Month that has been wending its way through the courts:
On October 12, two of the four men appeared in court and were discharged without conviction.
A third man is due to be sentenced in December.
"The attack left me feeling shaken and vulnerable," victim Sam Duckor-Jones said…
On June 2, four men attacked his house with anti-Semitic and homophobic graffiti while he slept inside, and a burnt rainbow flag was left staked on the front.
"It is commonly known that I am a member of the LGBTQIA+ and Jewish communities," Duckor-Jones said.
"The four men planned the attack on my home for weeks, including a getaway driver and change of clothes." …
"I expressed to police that I was unconcerned about any damage to property but that rather I was concerned about the nature of the attack – a hate crime.
"I attended an effective Restorative Justice session with two of the men…
Duckor-Jones said he learned through the media that one of the men told the court at the sentencing he had made a $500 donation to a charity of his choice.
"This is untrue. I also learned that the men had all written letters of apology to me.
"At that time, I had not received, read or been made aware of the existence of any letters of apology. Following the discharge without conviction I was emailed said letters."
Duckor-Jones said it was "deeply concerning" to him that hate crime could be dismissed by the court in such a blase manner.
{The previous post was thrown together mostly from unposted writing last weekend (trimmed and updated). This second one dealing with more recent events needs more of a CONTENT WARNING for the references to a mass shooting (particularly in the links). Edit: also the colour stayed after I removed the in-text links, I can’t recall how to get around that.}
In understanding the need for Incitement to Hatred and Discrimination legislation to protect LGBTQ+ people in NZ, I turn now to overseas examples of where unchecked campaigns of incitement against Rainbow Communities can lead.
Firstly, I find this Stochastic Terrorism model a valuable lens. Here described by Brynn Tannehill (author of American Fascism) in a September 28th Salon interview with Chauncey Devega:
Tannehill:The right-wing propagandists and the others who are inciting violence will of course say that they are not responsible for it, or that it is all a hoax. That is the model of stochastic terrorism they are using. The next massacre is imminent. Tucker Carlson and other right-wing personalities and leaders across cable news and now online are targeting hospitals and other places that provide care to trans youth. They are lying about trans youth.
For example, there's the ridiculous lie that children are being mutilated. It's outright fear-mongering and hatred. The right-wing propagandists and hate-talkers are becoming ever more brazen about directly targeting specific people for violence. Eventually someone is going to walk into one of these hospitals or gender clinics, and they're just going to start killing people. They're going to kill as many people as quickly as they can. One of these terrorists is going to specifically target parents and medical providers. It is almost inevitable…
Devega:Tucker Carlson has literally been telling "neighborhood dads" to attack teachers if they dare to do their jobs by educating children about gender identity or human sexuality. What are the elements of the propaganda model that the right-wing opinion leaders are using?
Tannehill: This is what is known as the "firehose of falsehoods" model. It just needs to be high volume, repetitious and simple. What is being spread doesn't even need to be particularly consistent. It only needs to be loosely associated with reality, if at all. You can just make up whatever you want people to believe, as long as it confirms their pre-existing beliefs.
This was not just the opinion of a Trans Activist, but also shared by medical professionals at the time – from October 3rd:
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and the Children's Hospital Association (CHA) sent a letterto U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland urging him to "investigate the organizations, individuals, and entities coordinating, provoking, and carrying out bomb threats and threats of personal violence against children's hospitals and physicians across the U.S."…
"The attacks are rooted in an intentional campaign of disinformation, where a few high-profile users on social media share false and misleading information targeting individual physicians and hospitals, resulting in a rapid escalation of threats, harassment, and disruption of care across multiple jurisdictions," the groups wrote in the letter to Garland…
The groups noted that children's hospitals across the country have had to substantially increase security and are working with local and federal law enforcement to ensure the safety of patients and staff.
So with hospitals being less easy targets than previously, and the November midterms concluded, it looked almost like Tannehill might be wrong in her prediction, at least for this year. But then came November 19th in the USA (already the Transgender Day of Remembrance in Aotearoa):
{Grzecka}The co-owner of the Colorado Springs gay nightclub where a shooter turned a drag queen’s birthday celebration into a massacre said he thinks the shooting that killed five peopleand injured 17 others is a reflection of anti-LGBTQ sentiment that has evolved from prejudice to incitement…
Authorities haven’t said why the suspect opened fire at the club before being subdued by patrons, but they are facing hate crime charges…
Grzecka said he believes the targeting of a drag queen event is connected to the art form being cast in a false light in recent months by right-wing activists and politicians who complain about the “sexualization” or “grooming” of children.
Even though general acceptance of the LGBTQ community has grown, this new dynamic has fostered a dangerous climate, he said… “I would rather be spit on in the street than the hate get as bad as where we are today.”… “Lying about our community, and making them into something they are not, creates a different type of hate,” Grzecka said.
Grzecka, who started mopping floors and bartending at Club Q in 2003 a year after it opened, said he hopes to channel his grief and anger into rebuilding the support system for Colorado Springs’ LGBTQ community that only Club Q had provided.
Finally, Rebecca Shaw makes important points about the fragility of safety for vulnerable people, and the need for solidarity:
…conservatives, transphobes and “gender critical” forces have created a climate of scrutiny and fear around transgender and queer people.
It is almost impossible to wholly explain why LGBTQI spaces like Club Q and others are so sacred... the special feeling, the rare feeling, is that in those moments, we can thoroughly relax, like we can’t anywhere else. I don’t even mean just because we are protected from bigotry, or from people who don’t like us (although that’s great).
I mean that in those spaces weget a break. We get a break from noticing strangers seeing us, clocking our differences, thinking about us, discussing us. I can have some drinks and kiss my girlfriend on the dancefloor, without having to assess who might be noticing us. In those spaces, when I feel comfortable, looking around first doesn’t even have to enter my mind – that’s the break. It’s a beautiful, vital relief.
But these spaces are becoming fewer, and harder to find, even in a city like Sydney. Colorado Springs has a population of about 500,000 and, until recently, Club Q was the only queer bar in the city…
But it is not just an American problem – it is being imported to Australia. Drag brunches and storytelling events in Australia have already started being targeted by various groups…
The voices driven by hate are already trying to use this horrific incident to further their agenda. They are twisting things, blaming trans people for the attack, and trying to separate transphobia and homophobia – hoping the trans community will become even easier to target.
It can’t work. We cannot let it. An attack on some of us is an attack on all of us. It’s time to decide which side of history you are on.
This "firehose of falsehoods" technique has been adopted from Russian propaganda, and we see it in this thread in the nonsense being posted by the Putin fanbois who demand Ukraine negotiate or claim the Ukraine is somehow the agressor.
Adopted by Trump and US Fascists and disseminated here frequrently by pro-Russia posters, their claims are repetitive, lacks commitment to objective reality and they lack commitment to consistency.
My condolances to all the victims of this shooting. And all the victims of the countless shooting across the US.
The writer of the Guardian ariticle article speaks of how important it is for the LBGT community to have safe spaces such as the nightclub to go and I couldn't agree more.
I am puzzled though.. The writer of the Guardian article says
"Defence attorneys have since told the court that the alleged shooter is non binary, and that the motive for the shooting is yet to be determined"
Shouldn't we wait to verify that this person is non binary (not quite sure how you do that because it is afterall a declaration) and tease out the motives for the crime before we talk about it being a hate crime?
Because until we know that it was a hate crime,motivated by hate towards the LGBT community it is mischeif making to go on to do what the author does and I quote
"conservative, transphobes and Gender Critical have created a climate of scrutiny and fear around transgender and queer people". She is associating people who scrutinize gender ideology and queer theory with a mass shooter.
You mention the likes of Tucker Carlson and others who have made threats against gender clinics, all of which I condemn. And thats where our current hate speech laws serve us so well. Because my understanding is if anyone threatens or incites violence in NZ, it is a crime. And that's how it should be.
I will just talk about my impressions in NZ. Over the decades of the 70's 80s and 90s there were a small number of transgender people (transexuals or transvestites as they were known as). Three very prominant trans people over these decades were Carmen, Bob Moodie (a police commissioner who crossed dressed) and of course Georgina Beyer. All of them were publicly well known. Georgina of course was able to secure enough support to be voted in as Mayor and then an MP. All were judged on thier merits. Did these people have a hard life (undoubtedly). Were they generally accepted? Seem to be. Were they free of harrassment? Unlikely.
Gender critical feminists became concerned about the gender ideology for many reasons. Our concerns include the increase in young people identifying as trans and being fast tracked into a medical intervention (see Laura Lopezs excellent article about this published yesterday). We are concerned that medics are using drugs to treat gender dysphoria, that they are not licenced to do. (especially when the use of such drugs are being rolled back in other countries (Sabine also put a clip of Dr Marci Bowers in the comments section of Laura's article. In this Dr Bowers admits that children started on PBs at Tanner stage 2 cannot orgasm.
I would argue that the above situation with the medicalisation of children are deserving of scrutiny.
GC feminists are also concerned about laws such as self id that allows any male who identifies as a female access to womens change rooms, accomodation, sporting competitions etc. Women are entitled to feel protective of their spaces. Not everyone believes that because a man says he is a woman that makes it so. It is gas lighting to expect people to accept it as truth. It may be someones personal truth, but that doesn't make it so.
So I am not sure if you were hoping that the hate speech laws would shut down gender critical voices? Again I think it is essential that women's voices be heard around these issues.
Anker: There are, and have been, many more gender diverse people in Aotearoa than the three you mention. Many of them died at their own (or another's) hands, disappeared, or been forced to live inauthentic lives behind a socially acceptable mask. So it is hardly surprising that there is a bit of a backlog in trans people coming out now that some slight social acceptance is possible.
Our current "hate speech" laws do not serve us at all well, with very few successful convictions to the point where it is hardly worth the effort to lodge a complaint. Even if successful, the penalties are so low that that they wouldn't even prevent someone convicted of the offense of being elected to public office:
Section 131 states that a person who commits the criminal offence is "liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $7,000”.
I had been avoiding referencing the (alleged) mass murderer, as they are more of a symptom than a cause. But waiting until all the details have been ironed out in court is not far removed from ignoring the event entirely. The (alleged) shooter's past does not seem to back up their lawyer's claims (for whatever reason) of their client being nonbinary. The name change seems to be more so the mother could cut contact with the (proportedly) violent meth-head of a father:
Included in the court documents, the suspect’s defense team noted: “Anderson Aldrich is non-binary. They use they/them pronouns, and for the purposes of all formal [court] filings, will be addressed as Mx. Aldrich.”
The Gazette reported District Attorney Michael Allen said following the advisement hearing, that Aldrich’s identity as nonbinary would not impact how the District Attorney’s Office prosecutes the case.
“His legal definition in this proceeding is ‘the defendant,’” Allen said…
“Just expressed he didn’t like the LGBTQ community,” said Xavier Kraus, a neighbor of the accused shooter, said he and his girlfriend lived across the hall from Aldrich and his mother until September. “And pretty sure at one point he expressed he hated the LGBTQ community, he hated gays.”
Kraus said he specifically remembered one time “Aldrich vocalized verbally using a derogatory term for them [LGBTQ people].” He added that many other “outbursts” were “racial.”
“This is not the type of person I would take around my gay friends,” he said.
Kraus told NBC 9 News he and Aldrich became close friends last year. They bonded over tech and video games. Kraus added that Aldrich never mentioned being nonbinary in their times together…
KFMB-TV CBS News 8 San Diego spoke with the biological father of the suspect, a former federal inmate and adult porn actor Aaron Brink, 48, who told News 8 “we’re Mormons, we don’t do gay!” He added that his ex-wife called him from Colorado in 2016 to tell him their son, Nicholas Brink, had changed his name to Anderson Aldrich, and had killed himself…
Brink, who currently works as a mixed martial arts coach says he taught his son how to fight.
“I praised him for violent behavior really early. I told him it works. It is instant and you’ll get immediate results,” Brink said.
The transtwittersphere is having multiple meltdowns over that. One side is "he is lying to get off the hate crime charges", the other side is "how dare you challenge their identity" and the "third side" is sniping in with "I thought you folx always say that nobody will ever lie about their gender identity for nefarious purposes". Much popcorn consumed on the sidelines.
the thing about blaming UK feminists bears examination. Not because it's daft (it is in the extreme), but because we probably should be figuring out how someone's thinking can be like that. I get that some people believe that GC feminism somehow convinces people to be transphobic and act out on it, but it's such a vague idea with no substance to it. Which leads us to the problem of genderists not being able to make even a halfway decent argument for their position. It was the same in the Cambridge debate that Stock was in. The genderists had very little in the way of rationale for what they were saying (some were better than others, and I've only listened to the first half so maybe it go better).
He is not only lying to get of the hate crime charge, being a non binary allows him to identify into a female prison with the born women who are of course not allowed to say a thing in protest to having an entire male locked up with them lest they are happy with loss of privileges and such for misgendering.
And lets also not discuss the amount of dead women that litter the ground of the US, or the amount of dead kids that litter the US, or the amount of native american women that recorded as missing but never found, or the amount of men that get shot in mass shootings or police killings as quite a few blokes of all colors/creed/identity get shot down quite routinely and so on and so forth.
I pity all those that go out for a night of fun, go to school, go to work, go shop in a grocery store and do so without even thinking of having a right to be free of shootings cause it is the US and every dick and john have a gun or a whole collection thereof.
Sabine how can you possibly say the criminal is lying about being non binary to get out of being prosecuted for hate crimes and to go to a women's prison. That would never, ever, ever, ever happen. Its sounds like you are being transphobic
Of course there have been many more gender diverse than the three I mention Temp. I was merely using them to illustrate how NZders are a pretty accepting bunch and will take people how they find them. This isn't to say that there is a small minority of a..holes who will bully and torment anyone who is different or vulnerable.
I don't think you can account for the exponential growth of young girls identifying as trans nowadays is that it is because there is now "slight social acceptance". If there was we would be seeing a comparable rise in women in their 30s, 40s, 50s and 60's coming out as trans and that is not happening.
I agree that many have been forced to live inauthentic lives behind a mask. These would be the male to female cross dressers who often married women who had no idea they liked to cross dress. A lot of this group are made up of autogynophiles.
How do you mean they "disappeared"? Sounds a little 1984ish
I mean that they disappeared; one day they were there, and the next they weren't. Given that it's a community that is almost defined by their difficulty in getting their names on official documents and often lacking traditional families, it has been difficult to get police to take an interest. That's if anyone was keen to interact with police in the first place, which has historically had its own dangers. Best case scenario is they left town and set up under a new (or old) name elsewhere. But that is a bit optimistic.
"Autogynephiles"? I have no more time for Blanchard and his discredited pseudoscience, than I do for Freudian; "penis envy".
Well then – where is the "discrediting"? They are all around you – middle aged men with wives (usually ex-wives) and kids – littering lesbian dating services. I personally know at least 2 of them right here in Auckland.
You may have no time for Blanchard and his "discredited pseudoscience" but in this article Blachard and his colleague Lawrence quote trans who idendify with autogynophilia and the concepts Blanchard was proposing. It describes their experiences of cross dressing and sexual arousal.
God I thought you queer theorists were all for breaking down the charmed circle (as in Gabrielle Reubin's term for hetero sexual monogamous sex).
People get aroused by all sorts of things. As long as it isn't children or animals, degrading women or violent porn. What is your problem with the idea that some men get arounsd at the thought of themselves being and dressing as women. TBH it absolutely isn't my thing and I wouldn't want to be part of it, but in the privacy of one's own home and all that?
By denying autogynephilia you are the one making it shameful. As I say, I dont care if this is what some men get off on (as long as it doesn't involve my knickers or clothing or me in anyway). The problem I have with it is they are wanting me to agree with the idea that they are women and can access my spaces.
The problem with Blanchard's transsexualism typology is that it rests upon a dichotomy of homosexual and autogynephilic transsexuals. Which is insufficient to explain the spectrum of gender diversity even within white trans women in north America, let alone trans men and nonbinary people of differing cultures and ethnicity. Leaving aside the issue of generalizability of Blanchard's notions, there are still the problems of his research lacking; control groups, and replicability by others. Still, better than Freud I guess.
Here Serano refers to Feminine Embodiment Fantasies (FEFs) rather than AGP, because research that used a control group of cis women to the trans women found similar patterns of reported behaviour in both groups to the same questionnaires that had Blanchard used previously to posit his typology.:
Amongst the most prevalent objections to the theory were:
Blanchard was a clinician who was attempting to make sense of the patterns he was seeing amongst his clients. It is common for research to start with observation, case studies and the RCTs.
I agree the trans umbrella encompasses many variations. AGP being one of them.
As for teenage girls presenting as trans, their pathway is often through chat rooms. Girls who have body disatisfaction who then develop a trans identity on line. There is a huge social contagion factor here. prior to 2012 which happens to be when the smart phone was introduced, that number of teen girls presenting as trans was extremely low. The exponential increase is a new cohort. They have high rates of other mental health issues including anoerexia. This new cohort has appeared not because it is now more socially acceptable to be trans. If it was as I previously wrote we would see middle age women presenting in increased numbers as trans.
The ideology has hijacked the needs of the very, very small minority of people who suffer from gender dysphoria and it is clouding the work of clinicians such as Blanchard who are trying ot make sense of peoples suffering
"Which is insufficient to explain the spectrum of gender diversity even within white trans women in north America, let alone trans men and nonbinary people of differing cultures and ethnicity."
It refers to a specific group that resides under the current trans definition, it doesn't claim to define all.
The Government in 2020 promised to make changes after the RC Inquiry into the Christchurch mosque terror attacks found the law failed to “appropriately capture” hate-motivated offending, or deal with hate speech.
After public submissions on proposals to strengthen the incitement provisions of the Human Rights Act 1993, the Government has announced it will amend the law to address incitement towards religious communities.
It first announced reforms last year, but they were largely unpopular.
Justice Minister Kiri Allan said any further change will “face a battle” against ACT, National and other groups outside Parliament who oppose the idea, she said.
Meanwhile, members of the Muslim community have told the commission it’s unfair other groups aren’t covered, and that they did not want any other community to suffer what they have.
“The Government has forgotten its fundamental human rights duty to protect vulnerable groups,” he said.
“Sometimes the Government has to do the morally right thing, it has to stand with vulnerable groups and not the majority.”
… Paul Hunt said fears legislating against speech which incites hostility and hatred based on disability, sexual orientation and gender would infringe on free speech have been “greatly exaggerated”, and based on a misunderstanding.
This was because the threshold for hate speech was never up for debate, only who can be affected by it. There have only been three cases of hate speech prosecuted in the last 40 years, he said.***
”The threshold is high, and it should be,” he said.
The Government has referred to the Law Commission for a “fundamental review” (of incitement, discrimination and hate crimes), but Hunt said this could take years, and in the meantime it could “get cracking” with expanding the scope of who is covered by hate speech laws.
For mine, the essential problem was that hate speech law – incitement of hate was too nebulous (too easy to connect to taking offence at what others say). If they had toughened it up to an "incitement to hate crimes "standard, then few would have seen it as a limitation of free speech to include birth sex, gender ID, sexuality along with religion.
Then leaving the matter of speech that incites hostility and hatred to the review as to regulation of social media etc.
***There have been only three prosecutions because the police and courts have applied a higher threshold than stated in the legislation (there is no guarantee that would continue).
SPC, The wording on the; Proposals against incitement of hatred and discrimination, were not at all nebulous. Though it may be over a year since you read the discussion document, the pdf is still available through
Proposal 1 This proposal would change the wording of the criminal (currently section 131 but see Proposal 2 below) and civil (section 61) incitement provisions in the Human Rights Act so that they applied to more groups protected from discrimination by section 21 of the Human Rights Act (see Appendix One for this section)…
Proposal 2 This proposal would create a new criminal provision in the Crimes Act that has the same purpose as section 131 of the Human Rights Act but would be clearer and simpler. This proposal would maintain the requirement that there be the mental element of intention. In other words, the person would need to intend to incite hatred. This is appropriate for a criminal provision with the level of penalty that is being proposed. The terms “hostility”, “ill-will”, “contempt” and “ridicule” would be replaced by “hatred”. The Royal Commission noted that this would mean that the new offence would be more narrowly expressed than the current section 131. This proposal would prohibit speech which “maintains or normalises” hatred, in addition, to speech which incites or stirs up hatred.
The section 131 offence currently requires the following elements:
1. A person publishes or distributes or broadcasts speech or written matter which is threatening, abusive, or insulting
2. With intent to excite hostility or ill will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule
3. Against any group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons, and
4. The words or written matter are likely to excite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any such group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons.
A new provision would be added to the Crimes Act, which would create a new offence with four key elements. It would be a crime to:
1. intentionally incite/stir up, maintain or normalise hatred
2. against any group protected from discrimination by section 21 of the Human Rights Act
3. through threatening, abusive or insulting communications, including inciting violence
4. made by any means.
The exact wording of this provision will be determined following consultation. This includes whether to use the term “incite”, “stir up” or some other term with the same meaning. 31 Detail of proposal Current wording of Human Rights Act Proposed change to Human Rights Act or Crimes Act The proposal would also include incitement through ‘explicit or implicit calls for violence’. The Royal Commission stated ‘that this would further pre-empt reliance on a defence along the lines that the defendant was only “only” preaching to the converted’. This proposal does not include the requirement that the communication must be “likely to” incite, maintain or normalise hatred. This exists in the both section 61 and 131 currently (and is not proposed to be removed from section 61). The Royal Commission did not think it was a necessary element of a new offence. We are interested in feedback on this. The proposal would cover all methods of communicating speech. The current provision does not clearly cover communication by electronic means (unlike section 61). This new offence would be placed in the Crimes Act 1961. 32 Detail of proposal Current wording of Human Rights Act Proposed change to Human Rights Act or Crimes Act The current requirement in section 132 that the Attorney-General consent to any prosecution for the criminal incitement provision is intended to be retained…
Proposal 4 This proposal would change the wording of section 61 of the Human Rights Act to include “inciting/stirring up, maintaining or normalising hatred” alongside the existing wording…
Section 61 is focused on speech that is “likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons in or who may be coming to New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons.”…
Proposal 5 This proposal would add “incite others to discriminate against” certain groups protected by section 21 of the Human Rights Act to the behaviour of exciting hostility or bringing into contempt in section 61 of the Human Rights Act.
Yes, as noted in the Proposal 4 excerpt: "The exact wording of this provision will be determined following consultation", so not every detail was specified in advance. And there will be public submissions yet to the select committee on whatever text is presented to parliament next year. However, it seems fair to assume that the final text will be less, rather than more; nebulous, than the current asystematic mishmash of legislation. For example (from proposal 2); "The terms “hostility”, “ill-will”, “contempt” and “ridicule” would be replaced by “hatred”".
because the threshold for hate speech was never up for debate, only who can be affected by it. There have only been three cases of hate speech prosecuted in the last 40 years, he said
Nebulous refers to the difference between legislation and applied standard. In the same period there were no blasphemy law cases in courts.
This Parliament quite cheerfully passed legislation about Conversion Therapy and the ability to change the SEX marker on a Birth Certificate without having the slightest idea of what "gender identity" or "gender expression" actually means.
There is no agreed definition of "gender" as opposed to "sex" and there will not be because gender is an ideology – a belief system. Therefore it is what you say it is, the minute you say it is – and it is something else 5 minutes later if you change your mind.
Writing legislation on any other basis for this belief system is almost impossible.
There are agreed definitions of the words sex and gender amongst biological scientists, though you might not agree with them yourself Visubversa. There is always academic debate, of course; some of it more sincere than others. Here is the WHO definition – as it was quick to google, and a good nontechnical summary:
Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.
Gender is hierarchical and produces inequalities that intersect with other social and economic inequalities. Gender-based discrimination intersects with other factors of discrimination, such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, age, geographic location, gender identity and sexual orientation, among others. This is referred to as intersectionality.
Gender interacts with but is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs. Gender and sex are related to but different from gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth.
Gender influences people’s experience of and access to healthcare. The way that health services are organized and provided can either limit or enable a person’s access to healthcare information, support and services, and the outcome of those encounters. Health services should be affordable, accessible and acceptable to all, and they should be provided with quality, equity and dignity.
Gender is to sex what astrology is to astronomy. We don't make laws based on astrology. Astronomy got us to the moon.
And nobody is designated a sex at birth. Your sex is determined at the second of your conception. It is with you all your life – every drop of your blood tells the truth about your sex. The truth is in your bones, and even in your cremains.
The things described as "gender" are just the usual sexist stereotypes that most of us moved on from decades ago.
Your "gender identity” shares a room in your head with your immortal soul. Nobody in a civilised society should be forced to believe in either of them.
Sex relates to biological reality, and remains significant in a number of ways. (Gender sometimes used historically for the genteel, which lead to conflation later).
2. Gender – a different meaning and application, was used when speaking around issues that related to societal manifestations due to sex, eg. gender pay gap, gendered violence;
3. Gender stereotypes – societal/cultural expectations regarding presentation, behaviour, interests achievements based on someone's sex,
4. Gender identity – someone's self-declared personal identity.
Your excerpt above mixes gender 2. and 3., and conflates all in the final paragraph:
Gender influences people’s experience of and access to healthcare.
Actually, sex is very important in healthcare delivery, much more significant than 2., 3. and 4. Yet is not mentioned.
The term "hatred" is impossible to define in a legal sense, and so is difficult to discuss pre-legislative change.
There is no sense of what the intended outcome is.
Is it preventative, or punitive as a means of reducing harm?
And what level of harm is considered legally harmful? IIRC – existing laws prohibit an incitement to genocide – a high bar, but a necessary distinction.
Humans are messy, imperfect, intolerant and obnoxious. While these aspects are not welcomed, should they be criminalised – is one of the discussion points – and how will this be practically managed – is another.
We know increased punishment for violent crime is unsuccessful at persuading those who commit it to restrain themselves. (Sometimes, it increases the violence as they don't want any witnesses). It is unlikely to be a preventative measure here. UNLESS, the threshold is lowered to the point that people are unwilling to speak or challenge orthodoxies for fear of prosecution, or the fear that there may be negative impacts on their livelihood, families and well-being.
In which, case, this legislation should not go ahead.
If it is intended to be punitive, there is also a problem. ANY crime of violence and harm to a person, should have a level of punishment associated with that crime that is applied after successful prosecution.
We should not have a two-tier system of victim, that considers that it is the victim's protected characteristics that increase the level of punishment.
This is disrespectful in two ways: one, that the victims' most important characteristic was in the protected category to which they belonged, two: victims not so categorised do not require the same diligence and outcome, and the impact of their loss or harm on their family and friends is not so great.
For example, taking the conversation above regarding landlords. There is a lot of rhetoric and shaming being directed to landlords as the primary reason (unsubstantiated) for people being unable to find secure, affordable housing.
If someone developed a "hatred" of landlords due to their own housing crisis, and decided to break into a Property Investors meeting and committed violence, would this be a "hate" crime?
This legislation proposal is performative, and as such is vague and does not identify the level of need for it, the intended outcomes, and the measures by which those outcomes will be achieved.
Due to this, a full and frank discussion is unable to take place. But this method has worked previously – unfortunately we may end up with further legislation that was well-intentioned but badly conceived, written and implemented.
Molly; any word can be given a strict legal definition, though it may not correspond well to conventional usage within a given portion of the society subject to those laws. The definition of; "Hatred", and whether any other terminology might be preferable instead of, or as well as, this; was one of the main foci of the public consultation last year. And once we finally get to see the draft legislation next year, will be the subject of submissions to the relevant select committee.
Laws not being perfect instruments seems a poor reason for a government to not introduce new laws. As for results, I would appreciate that those found to be guilty of; incitement to hatred and/or discrimination, be barred from public office in the future. Which under our present system takes an offense with a maximum jail term of over 2 years – whether or not they receive that sentence.
England fans dressed as crusaders have been banned from entering World Cup stadiums at the risk of upsetting locals.
Two supporters were seemingly led away by security this week after turning up at the Khalifa International Stadium donning chain mail and helmets depicting the Patron Saint of England. Footage appears to show Qatari officials ushering the duo away from the turnstiles though it is unclear as to whether the fans were later allowed to watch the Three Lions' opening Group B fixture.
This guy! I always suspected there was more to his Twitter 'purchase'. He didn't care about the cost – how could he as a centi-billionaire – but control. He will now have direct insight into our transport habits, buying habits and philosophical leanings. And use them to change our behaviour, not just respond to it.
More fool us; the guy is a doof but he's far from stupid.
The latest labour market statistics, showing a rise in unemployment. There are now 134,000 unemployed - 14,000 more than when the National government took office. Which is I guess what happens when the Reserve Bank causes a recession in an effort to Keep Wages Low. The previous government saw a ...
Three opinion polls have been released in the last two days, all showing that the new government is failing to hold their popular support. The usual honeymoon experienced during the first year of a first term government is entirely absent. The political mood is still gloomy and discontented, mainly due ...
National's Finance Minister once met a poor person.A scornful interview with National's finance guru who knows next to nothing about economics or people.There might have been something a bit familiar if that was the headline I’d gone with today. It would of course have been in tribute to the article ...
Rob MacCulloch writes – Throughout the pandemic, the new Vice-Chancellor-of-Otago-University-on-$629,000 per annum-Can-you-believe-it-and-Former-Finance-Minister Grant Robertson repeated the mantra over and over that he saved “lives and livelihoods”.As we update how this claim is faring over the course of time, the facts are increasingly speaking differently. NZ ...
Chris Trotter writes – IT’S A COMMONPLACE of political speeches, especially those delivered in acknowledgement of electoral victory: “We’ll govern for all New Zealanders.” On the face of it, the pledge is a strange one. Why would any political leader govern in ways that advantaged the huge ...
Bryce Edwards writes – The list of former National Party Ministers being given plum and important roles got longer this week with the appointment of former Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett as the chair of Pharmac. The Christopher Luxon-led Government has now made key appointments to Bill ...
TL;DR: These are the six things that stood out to me in news and commentary on Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy at 10:06am on Wednesday, May 1:The Lead: Business confidence fell across the board in April, falling in some areas to levels last seen during the lockdowns because of a collapse in ...
Over the past 36 hours, Christopher Luxon has been dong his best to portray the centre-right’s plummeting poll numbers as a mark of virtue. Allegedly, the negative verdicts are the result of hard economic times, and of a government bravely set out on a perilous rescue mission from which not ...
Auckland Transport have started rolling out new HOP card readers around the network and over the next three months, all of them on buses, at train stations and ferry wharves will be replaced. The change itself is not that remarkable, with the new readers looking similar to what is already ...
Completed reads for April: The Difference Engine, by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling Carnival of Saints, by George Herman The Snow Spider, by Jenny Nimmo Emlyn’s Moon, by Jenny Nimmo The Chestnut Soldier, by Jenny Nimmo Death Comes As the End, by Agatha Christie Lord of the Flies, by ...
On February 14, 2023 we announced our Rebuttal Update Project. This included an ask for feedback about the added "At a glance" section in the updated basic rebuttal versions. This weekly blog post series highlights this new section of one of the updated basic rebuttal versions and serves as a ...
Have a story to share about St Paul’s, but today just picturesPopular novels written at this desk by a young man who managed to bootstrap himself out of father’s imprisonment and his own young life in a workhouse Read more ...
The list of former National Party Ministers being given plum and important roles got longer this week with the appointment of former Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett as the chair of Pharmac. The Christopher Luxon-led Government has now made key appointments to Bill English, Simon Bridges, Steven Joyce, Roger Sowry, ...
Newsroom has a story today about National's (fortunately failed) effort to disestablish the newly-created Inspector-General of Defence. The creation of this agency was the key recommendation of the Inquiry into Operation Burnham, and a vital means of restoring credibility and social licence to an agency which had been caught lying ...
Holding On To The Present:The moment a political movement arises that attacks the whole idea of social progress, and announces its intention to wind back the hands of History’s clock, then democracy, along with its unwritten rules, is in mortal danger.IT’S A COMMONPLACE of political speeches, especially those delivered in ...
Stuck In The Middle With You:As Christopher Luxon feels the hot breath of Act’s and NZ First’s extremists on the back of his neck and, as he reckons with the damage their policies are already inflicting upon a country he’s described as “fragile”, is there not some merit in reaching out ...
The unpopular coalition government is currently rushing to repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. The clause is Oranga Tamariki's Treaty clause, and was inserted after its systematic stealing of Māori children became a public scandal and resulted in physical resistance to further abductions. The clause created clear obligations ...
Buzz from the Beehive The government’s official website – which Point of Order monitors daily – not for the first time has nothing much to say today about political happenings that are grabbing media headlines. It makes no mention of the latest 1News-Verian poll, for example. This shows National down ...
It Takes A Train To Cry:Surely, there is nothing lonelier in all this world than the long wail of a distant steam locomotive on a cold Winter’s night.AS A CHILD, I would lie awake in my grandfather’s house and listen to the traffic. The big wooden house was only a ...
Packing A Punch: The election of the present government, including in its ranks politicians dedicated to reasserting the rights of the legislature in shaping and determining the future of Māori and Pakeha in New Zealand, should have alerted the judiciary – including its anomalous appendage, the Waitangi Tribunal – that its ...
Dead Woman Walking: New Zealand’s media industry had been moving steadily towards disaster for all the years Melissa Lee had been National’s media and communications policy spokesperson, and yet, when the crisis finally broke, on her watch, she had nothing intelligent to offer. Christopher Luxon is a patient man - but he’s not ...
Chris Trotter writes – New Zealand politics is remarkably easy-going: dangerously so, one might even say. With the notable exception of John Key’s flat ruling-out of the NZ First Party in 2008, all parties capable of clearing MMP’s five-percent threshold, or winning one or more electorate seats, tend ...
Bryce Edwards writes – Polling shows that Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau has the lowest approval rating of any mayor in the country. Siting at -12 per cent, the proportion of constituents who disapprove of her performance outweighs those who give her the thumbs up. This negative rating is ...
Luxon will no doubt put a brave face on it, but there is no escaping the pressure this latest poll will put on him and the government. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: These are the six things that stood out to me in news and commentary on Aotearoa-NZ’s political ...
This is a re-post from The Climate Brink by Andrew Dessler In the wake of any unusual weather event, someone inevitably asks, “Did climate change cause this?” In the most literal sense, that answer is almost always no. Climate change is never the sole cause of hurricanes, heat waves, droughts, or ...
Something odd happened yesterday, and I’d love to know if there’s more to it. If there was something which preempted what happened, or if it was simply a throwaway line in response to a journalist.Yesterday David Seymour was asked at a press conference what the process would be if the ...
Hi,From time to time, I want to bring Webworm into the real world. We did it last year with the Jurassic Park event in New Zealand — which was a lot of fun!And so on Saturday May 11th, in Los Angeles, I am hosting a lil’ Webworm pop-up! I’ve been ...
Education Minister Erica Standford yesterday unveiled a fundamental reform of the way our school pupils are taught. She would not exactly say so, but she is all but dismantling the so-called “inquiry” “feel good” method of teaching, which has ruled in our classrooms since a major review of the New ...
Exactly where are we seriously going with this government and its policies? That is, apart from following what may as well be a Truss-Lite approach on the purported economic “plan“, and Victorian-era regression when it comes to social policy.Oh it’ll work this time of course, we’re basically assured, “the ...
Hey Uncle Dave, When the Poms joined the EEC, I wasn't one of those defeatists who said, Well, that’s it for the dairy job. And I was right, eh? The Chinese can’t get enough of our milk powder and eventually, the Poms came to their senses and backed up the ute ...
Polling shows that Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau has the lowest approval rating of any mayor in the country. Siting at -12 per cent, the proportion of constituents who disapprove of her performance outweighs those who give her the thumbs up. This negative rating is higher than for any other mayor ...
Buzz from the Beehive Pharmac has been given a financial transfusion and a new chair to oversee its spending in the pharmaceutical business. Associate Health Minister David Seymour described the funding for Pharmac as “its largest ever budget of $6.294 billion over four years, fixing a $1.774 billion fiscal cliff”. ...
Bryce Edwards writes – Many criticisms are being made of the Government’s Fast Track Approvals Bill, including by this writer. But as with everything in politics, every story has two sides, and both deserve attention. It’s important to understand what the Government is trying to achieve and its ...
TL;DR: Here’s my top 10 ‘pick ‘n’ mix of links to news, analysis and opinion articles as of 10:10am on Monday, April 29:Scoop: The children's ward at Rotorua Hospital will be missing a third of its beds as winter hits because Te Whatu Ora halted an upgrade partway through to ...
span class=”dropcap”>As hideous as David Seymour can be, it is worth keeping in mind occasionally that there are even worse political figures (and regimes) out there. Iran for instance, is about to execute the country’s leading hip hop musician Toomaj Salehi, for writing and performing raps that “corrupt” the nation’s ...
Yesterday marked 10 years since the first electric train carried passengers in Auckland so it’s a good time to look back at it and the impact it has had. A brief history The first proposals for rail electrification in Auckland came in the 1920’s alongside the plans for earlier ...
Right now, in Aotearoa-NZ, our ‘animal spirits’ are darkening towards a winter of discontent, thanks at least partly to a chorus of negative comments and actions from the Government Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: These are the six things that stood out to me in news and commentary on ...
You make people evil to punish the paststuck inside a sequel with a rotating castThe following photos haven’t been generated with AI, or modified in any way. They are flesh and blood, human beings. On the left is Galatea Young, a young mum, and her daughter Fiadh who has Angelman ...
April has been a quiet month at A Phuulish Fellow. I have had an exceptionally good reading month, and a decently productive writing month – for original fiction, anyway – but not much has caught my eye that suggested a blog article. It has been vaguely frustrating, to be honest. ...
A listing of 31 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, April 21, 2024 thru Sat, April 27, 2024. Story of the week Anthropogenic climate change may be the ultimate shaggy dog story— but with a twist, because here ...
Hi,I spent about a year on Webworm reporting on an abusive megachurch called Arise, and it made me want to stab my eyes out with a fork.I don’t regret that reporting in 2022 and 2023 — I am proud of it — but it made me angry.Over three main stories ...
The new Victoria University Vice-Chancellor decided to have a forum at the university about free speech and academic freedom as it is obviously a topical issue, and the Government is looking at legislating some carrots or sticks for universities to uphold their obligations under the Education and Training Act. They ...
Do you remember when Melania Trump got caught out using a speech that sounded awfully like one Michelle Obama had given? Uncannily so.Well it turns out that Abraham Lincoln is to Winston Peters as Michelle was to Melania. With the ANZAC speech Uncle Winston gave at Gallipoli having much in ...
She was born 25 years ago today in North Shore hospital. Her eyes were closed tightly shut, her mouth was silently moving. The whole theatre was all quiet intensity as they marked her a 2 on the APGAR test. A one-minute eternity later, she was an 8. The universe was ...
Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. This fact brief was written by Sue Bin Park in collaboration with members from our Skeptical Science team. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline. Is Antarctica gaining land ice? ...
Images of US students (and others) protesting and setting up tent cities on US university campuses have been broadcast world wide and clearly demonstrate the growing rifts in US society caused by US policy toward Israel and Israel’s prosecution of … Continue reading → ...
Barrie Saunders writes – Dear Paul As the new Minister of Media and Communications, you will be inundated with heaps of free advice and special pleading, all in the national interest of course. For what it’s worth here is my assessment: Traditional broadcasting free to air content through ...
Many criticisms are being made of the Government’s Fast Track Approvals Bill, including by this writer. But as with everything in politics, every story has two sides, and both deserve attention. It’s important to understand what the Government is trying to achieve and its arguments for such a bold reform. ...
Peter Dunne writes – The great nineteenth British Prime Minister, William Gladstone, once observed that “the first essential for a Prime Minister is to be a good butcher.” When a later British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, sacked a third of his Cabinet in July 1962, in what became ...
Ele Ludemann writes – New Zealanders had the OECD’s second highest tax increase last year: New Zealanders faced the second-biggest tax raises in the developed world last year, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) says. The intergovernmental agency said the average change in personal income tax ...
We all know something’s not right with our elections. The spread of misinformation, people being targeted with soundbites and emotional triggers that ignore the facts, even the truth, and influence their votes.The use of technology to produce deep fakes. How can you tell if something is real or not? Can ...
This video includes conclusions of the creator climate scientist Dr. Simon Clark. It is presented to our readers as an informed perspective. Please see video description for references (if any). This year you will be lied to! Simon Clark helps prebunk some misleading statements you'll hear about climate. The video includes ...
It is all very well cutting the backrooms of public agencies but it may compromise the frontlines. One of the frustrations of the Productivity Commission’s 2017 review of universities is that while it observed that their non-academic staff were increasing faster than their academic staff, it did not bother to ...
Buzz from the Beehive Two speeches delivered by Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters at Anzac Day ceremonies in Turkey are the only new posts on the government’s official website since the PM announced his Cabinet shake-up. In one of the speeches, Peters stated the obvious: we live in a troubled ...
1. Which of these would you not expect to read in The Waikato Invader?a. Luxon is here to do business, don’t you worry about thatb. Mr KPI expects results, and you better believe itc. This decisive man of action is getting me all hot and excitedd. Melissa Lee is how ...
…it has a restricted jurisdiction which must not be abused: it is not an inquisitionNOTE – this article was published before the High Court ruled that Karen Chhour does not have to appear before the Waitangi Tribunal Gary Judd writes – The High Court ...
Lindsay Mitchell writes – One of reasons Oranga Tamariki exists is to prevent child neglect. But could the organisation itself be guilty of the same?Oranga Tamariki’s statistics show a decrease in the number and age of children in care. “There are less children ...
David Farrar writes: Graeme Edgeler wrote in 2017: In the first five years after three strikes came into effect 5248 offenders received a ‘first strike’ (that is, a “stage-1 conviction” under the three strikes sentencing regime), and 68 offenders received a ‘second strike’. In the five years prior to ...
Bryce Edwards writes – Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has surprised everyone with his ruthlessness in sacking two of his ministers from their crucial portfolios. Removing ministers for poor performance after only five months in the job just doesn’t normally happen in politics. That’s refreshing and will be extremely ...
TL;DR: These are the six things that stood out to me in news and commentary on Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy in the two days to 6:06am on Thursday, April 25:Politics: PM Christopher Luxon has set up a dual standard for ministerial competence by demoting two National Cabinet ministers while leaving also-struggling ...
Hi,Today I mainly want to share some of your thoughts about the recent piece I wrote about success and failure, and the forces that seemingly guide our lives. But first, a quick bit of housekeeping: I am doing a Webworm popup in Los Angeles on Saturday May 11 at 2pm. ...
It is hard to see what Melissa Lee might have done to “save” the media. National went into the election with no public media policy and appears not to have developed one subsequently. Lee claimed that she had prepared a policy paper before the election but it had been decided ...
Open access notablesIce acceleration and rotation in the Greenland Ice Sheet interior in recent decades, Løkkegaard et al., Communications Earth & Environment:In the past two decades, mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet has accelerated, partly due to the speedup of glaciers. However, uncertainty in speed derived from satellite products ...
Buzz from the Beehive A statement from Children’s Minister Karen Chhour – yet to be posted on the Government’s official website – arrived in Point of Order’s email in-tray last night. It welcomes the High Court ruling on whether the Waitangi Tribunal can demand she appear before it. It does ...
Mr Bombastic:Ironically, the media the academic experts wanted is, in many ways, the media they got. In place of the tyrannical editors of yesteryear, advancing without fear or favour the interests of the ruling class; the New Zealand news media of today boasts a troop of enlightened journalists dedicated to ...
It's hard times try to make a livingYou wake up every morning in the unforgivingOut there somewhere in the cityThere's people living lives without mercy or pityI feel good, yeah I'm feeling fineI feel better then I have for the longest timeI think these pills have been good for meI ...
In 1974, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Nixon, finding that the President was not a King, but was subject to the law and was required to turn over the evidence of his wrongdoing to the courts. It was a landmark decision for the rule ...
Every day now just seems to bring in more fresh meat for the grinder.In their relentlessly ideological drive to cut back on the “excessive bloat” (as they see it) of the previous Labour-led government, on the mountains of evidence accumulated in such a short period of time do not ...
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Megan Valére SosouMarket gardening site of the Itchèléré de Itagui agricultural cooperative in Dassa-Zoumè (Image credit: Megan Valère Sossou) For the residents of Dassa-Zoumè, a city in the West African country of Benin, choosing between drinking water and having enough ...
Buzz from the Beehive Melissa Lee – as may be discerned from the screenshot above – has not been demoted for doing something seriously wrong as Minister of ...
Morning in London Mother hugs beloved daughter outside the converted shoe factory in which she is living.Afternoon in London Travelling writer takes himself and his wrist down to A&E, just to be sure. Read more ...
Mike Grimshaw writes – The recent announcement of the University Advisory Group, chaired by Sir Peter Gluckman, makes very clear where the Government’s focus and priorities lie. The remit of the Advisory Group is that Group members will consider challenges and opportunities for improvement in the university sector including: ...
Labour is calling for the Government to urgently rethink its coalition commitment to restart live animal exports, Labour animal welfare spokesperson Rachel Boyack said. ...
Today’s Financial Stability Report has once again highlighted that poverty and deep inequality are political choices - and this Government is choosing to make them worse. ...
The Green Party is calling on the Government to do more for our households in most need as unemployment rises and the cost of living crisis endures. ...
Unemployment is on the rise and it’s only going to get worse under this Government, Labour finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds said. Stats NZ figures show the unemployment rate grew to 4.3 percent in the March quarter from 4 percent in the December quarter. “This is the second rise in unemployment ...
The New Zealand Labour Party welcomes the entering into force of the European Union and New Zealand free trade agreement. This agreement opens the door for a huge increase in trade opportunities with a market of 450 million people who are high value discerning consumers of New Zealand goods and ...
The National-led Government continues its fiscal jiggery pokery with its Pharmac announcement today, Labour Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall says. “The government has increased Pharmac funding but conceded it will only make minimal increases in access to medicine”, said Ayesha Verrall “This is far from the bold promises made to fund ...
This afternoon’s interim Waitangi Tribunal report must be taken seriously as it affects our most vulnerable children, Labour children’s spokesperson Willow-Jean Prime. ...
Te Pāti Māori are demanding the New Zealand Government support an international independent investigation into mass graves that have been uncovered at two hospitals on the Gaza strip, following weeks of assault by Israeli troops. Among the 392 bodies that have been recovered, are children and elderly civilians. Many of ...
Our two-tiered system for veterans’ support is out of step with our closest partners, and all parties in Parliament should work together to fix it, Labour veterans’ affairs spokesperson Greg O’Connor said. ...
Stripping two Ministers of their portfolios just six months into the job shows Christopher Luxon’s management style is lacking, Labour Leader Chris Hipkins said. ...
Tonight’s court decision to overturn the summons of the Children’s Minister has enabled the Crown to continue making decisions about Māori without evidence, says Te Pāti Māori spokesperson for Children, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. “The judicial system has this evening told the nation that this government can do whatever they want when ...
It appears Nicola Willis is about to pull the rug out from under the feet of local communities still dealing with the aftermath of last year’s severe weather, and local councils relying on funding to build back from these disasters. ...
The Government is making short-sighted changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) that will take away environmental protection in favour of short-term profits, Labour’s environment spokesperson Rachel Brooking said today. ...
Labour welcomes the release of the report into the North Island weather events and looks forward to working with the Government to ensure that New Zealand is as prepared as it can be for the next natural disaster. ...
The Labour Party has called for the New Zealand Government to recognise Palestine, as a material step towards progressing the two-State solution needed to achieve a lasting peace in the region. ...
Some of our country’s most important work, stopping the sexual exploitation of children and violent extremism could go along with staff on the frontline at ports and airports. ...
The Government’s Fast Track Approvals Bill will give projects such as new coal mines a ‘get out of jail free’ card to wreak havoc on the environment, Labour Leader Chris Hipkins said today. ...
The government's decision to reintroduce Three Strikes is a destructive and ineffective piece of law-making that will only exacerbate an inherently biased and racist criminal justice system, said Te Pāti Māori Justice Spokesperson, Tākuta Ferris, today. During the time Three Strikes was in place in Aotearoa, Māori and Pasifika received ...
Cuts to frontline hospital staff are not only a broken election promise, it shows the reckless tax cuts have well and truly hit the frontline of the health system, says Labour Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall. ...
The Green Party has joined the call for public submissions on the fast-track legislation to be extended after the Ombudsman forced the Government to release the list of organisations invited to apply just hours before submissions close. ...
New Zealand’s good work at reducing climate emissions for three years in a row will be undone by the National government’s lack of ambition and scrapping programmes that were making a difference, Labour Party climate spokesperson Megan Woods said today. ...
More essential jobs could be on the chopping block, this time Ministry of Education staff on the school lunches team are set to find out whether they're in line to lose their jobs. ...
Te Pāti Māori is disgusted at the confirmation that hundreds are set to lose their jobs at Oranga Tamariki, and the disestablishment of the Treaty Response Unit. “This act of absolute carelessness and out of touch decision making is committing tamariki to state abuse.” Said Te Pāti Māori Oranga Tamariki ...
The Government is trying to bring in a law that will allow Ministers to cut corners and kill off native species, Labour environment spokesperson Rachel Brooking said. ...
Cancelling urgently needed new Cook Strait ferries and hiking the cost of public transport for many Kiwis so that National can announce the prospect of another tunnel for Wellington is not making good choices, Labour Transport Spokesperson Tangi Utikere said. ...
A laundry list of additional costs for Tāmaki Makarau Auckland shows the Minister for the city is not delivering for the people who live there, says Labour Auckland Issues spokesperson Shanan Halbert. ...
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi, and Mema Paremata mō Tāmaki-Makaurau, Takutai Tarsh Kemp, will travel to the Gold Coast to strengthen ties with Māori in Australia next week (15-21 April). The visit, in the lead-up to the 9th Australian National Kapa haka Festival, will be an opportunity for both ...
The Green Party has today launched a step-by-step guide to help New Zealanders make their voice heard on the Government’s democracy dodging and anti-environment fast track legislation. ...
From today, passengers travelling internationally from Auckland Airport will be able to keep laptops and liquids in their carry-on bags for security screening thanks to new technology, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “Creating a more efficient and seamless travel experience is important for holidaymakers and businesses, enabling faster movement through ...
People with an interest in the health of Northland’s marine ecosystems are invited to a public meeting to discuss how to deal with kina barrens, Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones says. Mr Jones will lead the discussion, which will take place on Friday, 10 May, at Awanui Hotel in ...
Kiwi exporters are $100 million better off today with the NZ EU FTA entering into force says Trade Minister Todd McClay. “This is all part of our plan to grow the economy. New Zealand's prosperity depends on international trade, making up 60 per cent of the country’s total economic activity. ...
There are heartening signs that the extractive sector is once again becoming an attractive prospect for investors and a source of economic prosperity for New Zealand, Resources Minister Shane Jones says. “The beginnings of a resurgence in extractive industries are apparent in media reports of the sector in the past ...
The return of the historic Ō-Rākau battle site to the descendants of those who fought there moved one step closer today with the first reading of Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara / The Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill. The Bill will entrust the 9.7-hectare battle site, five kilometres west ...
Energy Minister Simeon Brown has announced 25 new high-speed EV charging hubs along key routes between major urban centres and outlined the Government’s plan to supercharge New Zealand’s EV infrastructure. The hubs will each have several chargers and be capable of charging at least four – and up to 10 ...
The coalition Government will not proceed with the previous Government’s plans to regulate residential property managers, Housing Minister Chris Bishop says. “I have written to the Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee to inform him that the Government does not intend to support the Residential Property Managers Bill ...
The Government has announced an independent review into the disability support system funded by the Ministry of Disabled People – Whaikaha. Disability Issues Minister Louise Upston says the review will look at what can be done to strengthen the long-term sustainability of Disability Support Services to provide disabled people and ...
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has attended the Universal Periodic Review in Geneva and outlined the Government’s plan to restore law and order. “Speaking to the United Nations Human Rights Council provided us with an opportunity to present New Zealand’s human rights progress, priorities, and challenges, while responding to issues and ...
The Government and Rotorua Lakes Council are committed to working closely together to end the use of contracted emergency housing motels in Rotorua. Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing) Tama Potaka says the Government remains committed to ending the long-term use of contracted emergency housing motels in Rotorua by the ...
Trade Minister Todd McClay heads overseas today for high-level trade talks in the Gulf region, and a key OECD meeting in Paris. Mr McClay will travel to Riyadh to meet with counterparts from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). “New Zealand’s goods and services exports to the Gulf region ...
Education Minister Erica Stanford has outlined six education priorities to deliver a world-leading education system that sets Kiwi kids up for future success. “I’m putting ambition, achievement and outcomes at the heart of our education system. I want every child to be inspired and engaged in their learning so they ...
The new NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) App is a secure ‘one stop shop’ to provide the services drivers need, Transport Minister Simeon Brown and Digitising Government Minister Judith Collins say. “The NZTA App will enable an easier way for Kiwis to pay for Vehicle Registration and Road User Charges (RUC). ...
Whānau with tamariki growing up in emergency housing motels will be prioritised for social housing starting this week, says Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka. “Giving these whānau a better opportunity to build healthy stable lives for themselves and future generations is an essential part of the Government’s goal of reducing ...
Racing Minister Winston Peters has paid tribute to an icon of the industry with the recent passing of Dave O’Sullivan (OBE). “Our sympathies are with the O’Sullivan family with the sad news of Dave O’Sullivan’s recent passing,” Mr Peters says. “His contribution to racing, initially as a jockey and then ...
Assalaamu alaikum, greetings to you all. Eid Mubarak, everyone! I want to extend my warmest wishes to you and everyone celebrating this joyous occasion. It is a pleasure to be here. I have enjoyed Eid celebrations at Parliament before, but this is my first time joining you as the Minister ...
Associate Health Minister David Seymour has announced Pharmac’s largest ever budget of $6.294 billion over four years, fixing a $1.774 billion fiscal cliff. “Access to medicines is a crucial part of many Kiwis’ lives. We’ve committed to a budget allocation of $1.774 billion over four years so Kiwis are ...
Hon Paula Bennett has been appointed as member and chair of the Pharmac board, Associate Health Minister David Seymour announced today. "Pharmac is a critical part of New Zealand's health system and plays a significant role in ensuring that Kiwis have the best possible access to medicines,” says Mr Seymour. ...
Hundreds of New Zealand families affected by Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) will benefit from a new Government focus on prevention and treatment, says Health Minister Dr Shane Reti. “We know FASD is a leading cause of preventable intellectual and neurodevelopmental disability in New Zealand,” Dr Reti says. “Every day, ...
Regional Development Minister Shane Jones today attended the official opening of Kaikohe’s new $14.7 million sports complex. “The completion of the Kaikohe Multi Sports Complex is a fantastic achievement for the Far North,” Mr Jones says. “This facility not only fulfils a long-held dream for local athletes, but also creates ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters’ engagements in Türkiye this week underlined the importance of diplomacy to meet growing global challenges. “Returning to the Gallipoli Peninsula to represent New Zealand at Anzac commemorations was a sombre reminder of the critical importance of diplomacy for de-escalating conflicts and easing tensions,” Mr Peters ...
Ambassador Millar, Burgemeester, Vandepitte, Excellencies, military representatives, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen – good morning and welcome to this sacred Anzac Day dawn service. It is an honour to be here on behalf of the Government and people of New Zealand at Buttes New British Cemetery, Polygon Wood – a deeply ...
Distinguished guests - It is an honour to return once again to this site which, as the resting place for so many of our war-dead, has become a sacred place for generations of New Zealanders. Our presence here and at the other special spaces of Gallipoli is made ...
Mai ia tawhiti pamamao, te moana nui a Kiwa, kua tae whakaiti mai matou, ki to koutou papa whenua. No koutou te tapuwae, no matou te tapuwae, kua honoa pumautia. Ko nga toa kua hinga nei, o te Waipounamu, o te Ika a Maui, he okioki tahi me o ...
Paul Goldsmith will take on responsibility for the Media and Communications portfolio, while Louise Upston will pick up the Disability Issues portfolio, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced today. “Our Government is relentlessly focused on getting New Zealand back on track. As issues change in prominence, I plan to adjust Ministerial ...
Recreational catch limits will be reduced in areas of Fiordland and the Chatham Islands to help keep those fisheries healthy and sustainable, Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones says. The lower recreational daily catch limits for a range of finfish and shellfish species caught in the Fiordland Marine Area and ...
Energy Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed an important milestone in New Zealand’s hydrogen future, with the opening of the country’s first network of hydrogen refuelling stations in Wiri. “I want to congratulate the team at Hiringa Energy and its partners K one W one (K1W1), Mitsui & Co New Zealand ...
The coalition Government is delivering on its commitment to improve resource management laws and give greater certainty to consent applicants, with a Bill to amend the Resource Management Act (RMA) expected to be introduced to Parliament next month. RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop has today outlined the first RMA Amendment ...
Overseas models for regulating the oil and gas sector, including their decommissioning regimes, are being carefully scrutinised as a potential template for New Zealand’s own sector, Resources Minister Shane Jones says. The Coalition Government is focused on rebuilding investor confidence in New Zealand’s energy sector as it looks to strengthen ...
Emergency Management and Recovery Minister Mark Mitchell has today released the Report of the Government Inquiry into the response to the North Island Severe Weather Events. “The report shows that New Zealand’s emergency management system is not fit-for-purpose and there are some significant gaps we need to address,” Mr Mitchell ...
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith is today travelling to Europe where he’ll update the United Nations Human Rights Council on the Government’s work to restore law and order. “Attending the Universal Periodic Review in Geneva provides us with an opportunity to present New Zealand’s human rights progress, priorities, and challenges, while ...
Associate Agriculture Minister, Mark Patterson, formally reopened the world’s largest wool processing facility today in Awatoto, Napier, following a $50 million rebuild and refurbishment project. “The reopening of this facility will significantly lift the economic opportunities available to New Zealand’s wool sector, which already accounts for 20 per cent of ...
Hon Andrew Bayly, Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing At the Southland Otago Regional Engineering Collective (SOREC) Summit, 18 April, Dunedin Ngā mihi nui, Ko Andrew Bayly aho, Ko Whanganui aho Good Afternoon and thank you for inviting me to open your summit today. I am delighted ...
The Government is delivering on its commitment to bring back the Three Strikes legislation, Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee announced today. “Our Government is committed to restoring law and order and enforcing appropriate consequences on criminals. We are making it clear that repeat serious violent or sexual offending is not ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters has today announced four new diplomatic appointments for New Zealand’s overseas missions. “Our diplomats have a vital role in maintaining and protecting New Zealand’s interests around the world,” Mr Peters says. “I am pleased to announce the appointment of these senior diplomats from the ...
New Zealand is contributing NZ$7 million to support communities affected by severe food insecurity and other urgent humanitarian needs in Ethiopia and Somalia, Foreign Minister Rt Hon Winston Peters announced today. “Over 21 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance across Ethiopia, with a further 6.9 million people ...
Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Paul Goldsmith is congratulating Mataaho Collective for winning the Golden Lion for best participant in the main exhibition at the Venice Biennale. "Congratulations to the Mataaho Collective for winning one of the world's most prestigious art prizes at the Venice Biennale. “It is good ...
The Government is reforming financial services to improve access to home loans and other lending, and strengthen customer protections, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly and Housing Minister Chris Bishop announced today. “Our coalition Government is committed to rebuilding the economy and making life simpler by cutting red tape. We are ...
“China remains a strong commercial opportunity for Kiwi exporters as Chinese businesses and consumers continue to value our high-quality safe produce,” Trade and Agriculture Minister Todd McClay says. Mr McClay has returned to New Zealand following visits to Beijing, Harbin and Shanghai where he met ministers, governors and mayors and engaged in trade and agricultural events with the New ...
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has completed a successful trip to Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines, deepening relationships and capitalising on opportunities. Mr Luxon was accompanied by a business delegation and says the choice of countries represents the priority the New Zealand Government places on South East Asia, and our relationships in ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The Albanese government will introduce legislation to ban deepfake pornography and provide more funding for the eSafety Commission to pilot age-assurance technologies. The contribution of internet sites to gender-based violence was one major issue ...
Average ordinary time hourly earnings, as measured by the Quarterly Employment Survey (QES), increased 5.2 percent in the year to the March 2024 quarter, according to figures released by Stats NZ today. Annual wage cost inflation, as measured by the ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dimitrios Salampasis, FinTech Capability Lead | Senior Lecturer, Emerging Technologies and FinTech, Swinburne University of Technology Clem Onojeghuo/Unsplash In the digital era, the job market is increasingly becoming a minefield – demanding and difficult to navigate. According to the Australian Bureau ...
As of the March 2024 quarter, we can now look back on 20 years of data related to youth not in employment, education, or training (NEET), as collected by the Household Labour Force Survey (HLFS), according to figures released by Stats NZ today. "The ...
Thousands of workers attended public events in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch today to celebrate International Workers’ Day (May Day), but union representatives are urging caution and vigilance over the Government’s blatantly "anti-worker" ...
The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 4.3 percent in the March 2024 quarter, compared with 4.0 percent in the previous quarter, according to figures released by Stats NZ today. ...
The PSA is warning the Government that the sensitive information of New Zealanders held by various agencies will fall into the wrong hands if the latest round of proposed cuts goes ahead. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Talitha Best, Professor of Psychology, CQUniversity Australia Victoria Rodriguez/Unsplash How do sugar rushes work? – W.H, age nine, from Canberra What a terrific question W.H! Let’s explore this, starting with some of the basics. What is sugar? ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karinna Saxby, Research Fellow, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne MART PRODUCTION/Pexels Increasing income support could help keep women and children safe according to new work demonstrating strong links between financial insecurity and domestic violence. ...
ANALYSIS:By Olli Hellmann, University of Waikato When New Zealanders commemorate Anzac Day today on April 25, it’s not only to honour the soldiers who lost their lives in World War I and subsequent conflicts, but also to mark a defining event for national identity. The battle of Gallipoli against ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark A Gregory, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, RMIT University The telecommunications industry faces a major shakeup following the release of the post-incident report on last November’s 12-hour Optus outage. Telecommunications companies will have to share more information with customers during future ...
Welcome to The Spinoff Bookseller Confessional, in which we get to know Aotearoa’s booksellers. This week: Eden Denyer, bookseller at Unity Books Auckland.Weirdest question/request you’ve had on the shop floorA mother came in looking for anything we might have on Alaskan bison as that was her little boy’s ...
NZCTU Economist Craig Renney said new data released by Statistics New Zealand shows the need for Government to act now, with unemployment rising from 3.4% to 4.3%. ...
The outpouring of anger over Maiki Sherman’s hyperbolic presentation of this week’s ‘nightmare’ poll is itself an overreaction, argues Stewart Sowman-Lund. Politicians love nothing more than to pretend they don’t care about polls. This week, deputy prime minister Winston Peters said he didn’t give a “rat’s derriere” about a TVNZ ...
Asia Pacific Report Ngāti Kahungunu in Aotearoa New Zealand’s Hawkes Bay region has become the first indigenous Māori iwi (tribe) to sign a resolution calling for a “ceasefire in Palestine”, reports Te Ao Māori News. Reporter Te Aniwaniwa Paterson talked to Te Otāne Huata, who has been organising peace rallies ...
By Dale Luma in Port Moresby “We want grants and not concessional loans,” is the crisp message from Papua New Guinea businesses directly affected by the Black Wednesday looting four months ago. The businesses, which lost millions after the January 10 rioting and looting, say they need grants as part ...
Happy May Day. Join a union. Q: What’s worse than a staff break room where the only place to sit and have a cup of tea is on a teetering stack of old pornography magazines? A: Your boss replacing the magazine stacks with chairs that are “heartily encrusted with ...
By Koroi Hawkins, RNZ Pacific editor Former opposition leader Matthew Wale has been announced as the second prime ministerial candidate ahead of the election in Solomon Islands tomorrow. He will face off against former foreign affairs minister Jeremiah Manele, who was announced by the Coalition for National Unity and Transformation ...
We get but one birthday a year – why not make it last as long as possible by scheduling as many meals with friends and family as you can? This is an excerpt from our weekly food newsletter, The Boil Up. How do you celebrate your birthday? Do you celebrate at ...
A Koi Tū discussion paper released today proposes sweeping changes to New Zealand’s media industry. The principal’s key author, Gavin Ellis, explains how journalists have a key role to play in making others value their role in society. This is an abridged version of a piece first published on knightlyviews.com ...
The Government’s spending cuts are again targeting support for Māori with proposed reform of the agency charged with advising on Māori wellbeing and development. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Douglas, Honorary Senior Lecturer, UNSW Aviation., UNSW Sydney The history of budget jet airlines in Australia is a long road littered with broken dreams. New entrants have consistently struggled to get a foothold. Low-cost carrier Bonza has just become the industry’s ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rosalind Dixon, Director, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, UNSW Sydney Australia is finally having a sustained conversation about violence against women and what we can do about it. It is more than time. Australian women and girls continue to experience ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Duckett, Honorary Enterprise Professor, School of Population and Global Health, and Department of General Practice and Primary Care, The University of Melbourne stockfour/Shutterstock Preliminary bulk billing data released this week shows a 2.1% rise in bulk billing up to March. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samantha Schulz, Senior Lecturer, University of Adelaide Australia is once again grappling with how we can stop gendered violence in our country. Protests over the weekend show there is enormous community anger over the number of women who are dying and National ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Martin, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University AnastasiaDudka/Shutterstock What if the government was doing everything it could to stop thieves making off with our money, except the one thing that could really work? That’s how it ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Harrington, Senior Lecturer in English and Cultural Studies, University of Canterbury The Conversation It seems to be a time of old favourites. This month our experts have recommended two new seasons – the second season of Alone Australia (although ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonti Horner, Professor (Astrophysics), University of Southern Queensland A bright Eta Aquariid meteor photobombed this photo of comet C/2020 F8 (SWAN) in May 2020.Jonti Horner Meteors – commonly known as shooting stars – can be seen on any night of the ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Flannery, Honorary fellow, The University of Melbourne Shutterstock Current concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in Earth’s atmosphere are unprecedented in human history. But CO₂ levels today, and those that might occur in coming decades, did occur millions of years ago. ...
Winston Peters has been keen to dismiss speculation on our involvement in Aukus but will give a speech tonight on the direction of our foreign policy, writes Anna Rawhiti-Connell in this excerpt from The Bulletin, The Spinoff’s morning news round-up. To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patrick Usmar, Lecturer in Critical Media Literacies, Auckland University of Technology Getty Images With the coalition government’s ban of student mobile phones in New Zealand schools coming into effect this week, reaction has ranged from the sceptical (kids will just get ...
Hospitals around the country are not allowed to make a single hiring decision without the approval of Te Whatu Ora's head office, including for cleaners and administration staff. ...
A new report on protecting journalism and democracy in New Zealand recommends a levy be charged on global platforms like Facebook and Google to fund media firms undertaking public interest reporting. It also calls for the reinstatement of a powerful Broadcasting Commission to distribute public funding for journalism and other ...
On International Workers' Day, also known as May Day, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Te Kauae Kaimahi and the wider union movement are celebrating the proud history of the labour movement during a tough time for working people. ...
From bills to beards, a walk through the former Green co-leader’s time in politics. After close to a decade in politics, James Shaw is preparing to bid farewell to parliament. Tonight will see the former minister deliver his valedictory address, certain to be a speech filled with Shaw’s trademark wit ...
Two months ago, MPs unanimously voted to give themselves a week off in Efeso Collins’ honour. On Tuesday, most were too busy to give even an hour of their time. The day Fa’anānā Efeso Collins died, parliament felt different. In a building that operates at a breakneck pace, everyone stopped ...
India’s election involves hundreds of millions of people and is a months-long affair. Here’s how voting works and what’s at stake.The biggest-ever election in world history started on April 19, with more than 10% of the world’s population eligible to vote. Elections in India, the world’s most populous country ...
Opinion: A young Māori woman and her Pacific partner arrive at their local hospital by ambulance. She has gone into labour at just under 24 weeks, but the couple haven’t recognised the symptoms – and don’t know the risks of premature birth for their baby. By the time they arrive, ...
Behind closed doors, NZ First will be arguing fiercely against any watering down of the ministerial decision-making powers in the Bill The post Bishop backtracks after fast-track backlash appeared first on Newsroom. ...
Emotional scenes played out in the Invercargill courthouse on the first two days of the coronial inquest into the death of Gore toddler Lachlan Jones, in which the boy’s mother was accused of disposing of her son’s body. The second season of Newsroom’s award-nominated podcast The Boy in the Water ...
Opinion: The impression from the carpark is very inviting. The area is well fenced but barred so there is easy visibility of loved ones. Inside, the spaces are welcoming and clean and staff are friendly and clearly comfortable. I am greeted by ‘Kim’. She has worked here for three years, ...
After the Christchurch earthquake, the then-national civil defence boss compared his experience to “putting a team on the rugby field who have never ever played together before”. Now, eight years later – and following a damning inquiry into the emergency response of cyclones Gabrielle, Hale and the Auckland anniversary weekend floods – ...
“I had just come off the end of a major robbery case which I had been working on for six months when I got a call on the afternoon of September 1, 1992, that some remains had been found at a building site in Devonport, so I drove over with ...
Loading…(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){var ql=document.querySelectorAll('A,DIV,A[data-quiz],DIV[data-quiz]'); if(ql){if(ql.length){for(var k=0;k<ql.length;k++){ql[k].id='quiz-embed-'+k;ql[k].href="javascript:var i=document.getElementById('quiz-embed-"+k+"');try{qz.startQuiz(i)}catch(e){i.start=1;i.style.cursor='wait';i.style.opacity='0.5'};void(0);"}}};i['QP']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){(i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m)})(window,document,'script','https://take.quiz-maker.com/3012/CDN/quiz-embed-v1.js','qp'); Got a good quiz question?Send Newsroom your questions. The post Newsroom daily quiz, Wednesday 1 May appeared first on Newsroom. ...
Comment: Journalists are very good at telling other people’s stories, but they fall well short when writing about their own profession. Perhaps that is why it is so undervalued. Every successive poll on the public’s attitude toward journalism is more alarming than the last. In the last month we have ...
Asia Pacific Report A Pacific civil society alliance has condemned French neocolonial policies in Kanaky New Caledonia, saying Paris is set on “maintaining the status quo” and denying the indigenous Kanak people their inalienable right to self-determination. The Pacific Regional Non-Governmental Organisations (PRNGOs) Alliance, representing some 15 groups, said in ...
Koi Tū New Zealand cannot sit back and see the collapse of its Fourth Estate, the director of Koi Tū: The Centre for Informed Futures, Sir Peter Gluckman, says in the foreword of a paper published today. The paper, “If not journalists, then who?” paints a picture of an industry ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Foreign investment proposals with implications for Australia’s strategic or economic security will face tougher scrutiny, under a policy overhaul to be announced by Treasurer Jim Chalmers on Wednesday. At the same time, the government ...
A Waitangi Tribunal inquiry report has warned government that a repeal of Section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act could cause harm to children in care. ...
The Treasury has published today three new papers covering government consumption multipliers, automatic stabilisers and the impacts of global shocks on New Zealand’s economy. ...
Asia Pacific Report The Pacific state of Hawai’i’s House of Representatives has joined the state’s Senate in calling for a ceasefire in Israel’s war on Gaza, becoming the first state to pass such a resolution, reports Hawaii News Now. In March, the Senate passed a ceasefire resolution with a 24–1 ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Ferrie, A/Prof, UTS Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Research and ARC DECRA Fellow, University of Technology Sydney PsiQuantum The Australian government has announced a pledge of approximately A$940 million (US$617 million) to PsiQuantum, a quantum computing start-up company based in Silicon Valley. Half ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hunter Bennett, Lecturer in Exercise Science, University of South Australia Cameron Prins/Shutterstock If you spend a lot of time exploring fitness content online, you might have come across the concept of heart rate zones. Heart rate zone training has become more ...
SPECIAL REPORT:By Eugene Doyle He is the most popular Palestinian leader alive today — and yet few people in the West even know his name. Absolutely no one in Gaza or the West Bank does not know him. That difference speaks volumes about who dominates the media narrative that ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Will McCallum, PhD Candidate – School of Communication and Creative Arts, Deakin University Earlier this year, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton accused Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of not supporting Operation Sovereign Borders – the military-led border security operation that has “closed Australia’s borders ...
By Melyne Baroi in Port Moresby A Papua New Guinea MP, Peter Isoaimo, who had been ousted by the National Court in an alleged bribery case, has been reinstated by the Supreme Court on appeal. A three-member Supreme Court bench found that the National Court had erred in finding that ...
Bit of a left field one.
Does anyone know how to completely uninstall that annoying "Petal" app from a Samsung Galaxy?
there’s a typo in your email address holding you comments back.
Angela Merkel has come out and said she was prevented from from having a dialogue with the Russian President , before leaving the post of German Chancellor.
In an interview with Der Spiegel, she said that the start of the special operation was not unexpected, because the Minsk agreements were destroyed.
That sets the cats amongst the pigeons.
Another thin tissue to cover for Russia's unprovoked aggression and vile targeting of civilians.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/russia-ukraine-war-russia-rains-missiles-on-liberated-kherson/JA36MYOQTBANPHE6R7WKR6TUAY/
Russia's strategy now seems to be to hold the territory they've gained and force the Ukranians to the negotiating table. To this end they are trying to make the rest of the country unlivable in. Given that Ukranian aggression sees no signs of abating, it would seem to be the Russian's only sensible strategy. Tough on Ukranian civilians, of course, but latter seem to be showing no signs of wanting a ceasefire and negotiations, any more than the military.
Blame the victim.
Blame the victim.
Nobody is blaming the victim. Such statements are just propaganda.
Describing Ukraine's defence of ITS own country and attempts to regain ITS territory as "aggression" is quite clearly victim blaming, whether you realise it or not.
At present Luhansk, Donetsk, Mariupol etc. belong to Russia, and I don't think Ukraine will be getting them back, so they had best come to terms with Russia before the latter does even more damage to the rest of their country. As I say the ball is now in the Ukranian court. Time, I think, to start negotiations, rather than continue with their aggrefssion.
Well, yes. But you didn't think that Ukraine would gain any territory back following the Russian invasion. So your prediction that Russia will retain those territories is somewhat .. suspect.
Given that Russia attacked a sovereign nation – and is continuing to deliberately bomb civilian infrastructure (and, is apparently unworried by the collateral loss of lives) – I know who I would characterise as the "aggressor"
100% you are blaming the victim, while cheerleading for and excusing vile war criminals.
Since when was having your country invaded by a military that then proceeds to establish torture chambers across your territory, "Aggression"?
Yuk Yuk Yuk.
The Russians killed a 2 day old baby in a maternity ward, fuck them fuck putin if I was Ukrainian I'd try kill them all.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/300748354/ukraine-war-russian-rocket-strikes-hospital-maternity-wing-killing-newborn
If you've been fooled once about a maternity hospital, what's to say you've been fooled again? Have a read, keep an open mind.
"A key witness to the widely publicized incident at the Mariupol maternity hospital has punctured the official narrative of a Russian airstrike on the facility, and raised serious questions about Western media ethics. Meanwhile, news of a massacre in the city of Bucha contains suspicious elements."
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/03/testimony-mariupol-hospital-ukrainian-deceptions-media-malpractice/
The first casualty in war is the truth, as the old saying goes.
All I can say is that (a) war sucks and (b) the media are not telling us the whole truth about Ukraine
I've been watching since the Vietnam War and what I've found out is that the media lines we are feed are mostly a constant inversion of the truth, anyone who took any notice of the middle east wars in the last 20yrs will know that. The question I have to ask is why would they suddenly be telling the truth after 70yrs of lying.
The first thing that came up when I googled "who's greyzone" was its a conspiracy theory spreading outfit.
Not to surprised as you usually are a bit out the gate with your stuff.
Worth doing a bit of research on that claim. Nothing is what it seems.
https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1595561350310334465?cxt=HHwWgsC46YWmyaQsAAAA
The entire civilized world is behind the Ukraine. The fact you seem to want to make common cause with the theocratic monsters of Teheran, the butchers in Beijing, the tinpot despots in Russia, the punctilliously murderous regime in North Korea and the BJP chancers in India is, I guess, a matter for you and your conscience.
Of course you would like the bombing to stop so the Russians can lose the war. The Ukranians are not going to stop their aggression..
Russian mobiks offered up in full-frontal assaults by brutal, corrupt commanders continue dying. Hypothermic Russian mobiks at the tail end of a corrupt logistics chain, denied adequate winter attire, kit, shelter and food continue dying.
Why would Ukraine stop their aggression?
There are dozens of videos on telegram channels showing mobs of freezing and apathetic Russian mobiks being killed by AFU drone attacks and artillery strikes. They are untrained, poorly equipped with no warm clothing in sub-zero temperatures and have been basically abandoned by their officers.
The Russian 155th Naval Brigade apparently lost 450-500 men KIA and about the same woulded in just two days frontally assaulting the town of Pavlivka (Donetsk Oblast) – almost all it's infantry, and all it's tanks and AFVs – for zero gain.
This is what happens when a regime run by criminal desperadoes who have no regard for human life fight a war.
Everyone suffers, but at least the AFU sooldiers are dying for the noblest of causes – to defend their homeland from an invader.
Snow on the ground and some of the poor buggers appear to have no gloves. Another fortnight and night temperatures will be below -10°C and not rise until late February, the ground will be frozen solid so they won't be able to dig in, artillery will be more effective, Kälteidiotie, cold idiocy, will set in and a night out in the open will be unsurvivable.
And Poots knows it, hence the must negotiate talking point pushed by hishasbarists.
TBH it seems clear the Russian high command is simply sacrificing some of the first wave of mobiks as speed bumps while other units get better training and equipment. A criminal waste of life, but who would notice another crime from Putins gangster state?
Yup, one rifle, two men. There's a short video of a Chehcen, apparently identified by the red trainers they wear, NVKD like barrier troop blocking a Russian serviceman on a rural road and beating him around the head as he was sending him back to wherever he'd come from.
Cruelty is their thing.
I prefer reasoned argument to just hurling insults. Unlike you apparently.
Well, no. Russia's sensible strategy would be to withdraw behind the previous frontier – and declare a cease-fire & request negotiations. Of course, Putin shows no signs of 'sensible' in any of his communications.
I fail to see how conducting some kind of scorched earth policy – self-proclaimedly against civilian targets – is in any way admirable.
This type of 'attack the civilians' policy would be condemned – and very rightly so – by the left across the world – if just about any other country were conducting it.
Why on earth would you support it as in any way admirable?
Well, no. Russia's sensible strategy would be to withdraw behind the previous frontier – and declare a cease-fire & request negotiations. Of course, Putin shows no signs of 'sensible' in any of his communications.
That would not be sensible. The ball is in the Ukranians’ court: they need to negotiate.
A brutal and genocidal Fascist enemy from a despotic country run like a giant criminal enterprise launch an unprovoked invasion of New Zealand. Only after a most desperate and valiant defense they are repelled from seizing Auckland and Wellington in coup-de-main.
After heavy fighting, they retreat to Northland, Taranaki and the King Country after looting anything of vlaue and destroying everything they can't steal – leaving behind tales of torture, rape and mass graves of anyone who dared to say they were a proud New Zealander.
After months more of fighting, they are driven out of Northland in a brilliant counter attack and forced to retreat from the King Country. The enemy is on the backfoot, our Allies have supplied us with heaps of weapons. Just Taranaki and bits of Whanganui remain held by the invaders. The invaders respond by annexing all of the territory they’ve occupied and constantly repeating maximalist war aims that include the complete destruction of the New Zealand stae and it’s absorption into their country.
Thousands and thousands on New Zealand soldiers have died to liberate their country. We are united in our determination to drive out the invader. The enemy responds to defeat by mercilessly bombing our hydropower stations, and blowing up the Cook strait cable. They begin attacking our cities indiscrimantely with hundreds and hundreds of cruise missiles in a deliberate attempt to terrorize us into submission, weapons against which we have little initial defense and whose bombardment our citizens must endure.
mikesh says we should negotiate, because to continue to defeat the invader to liberate all our land and free our people would be unnecessarily aggressive.
You seem to me to be the sort of Quisling who would welcome your new overlords and take every opportunity to inform on the resistance because you want to be on what you assume to the winning side, and you didn't like the government anyway.
A brutal and genocidal Fascist enemy from a despotic country run like a giant criminal enterprise launch an unprovoked invasion of New Zealand. Only after a most desperate and valiant defense they are repelled from seizing Auckland and Wellington in coup-de-main.
How awful. When did that happen? Are any of our cities still standing. I would hope that we did not mount a defense on the basis that Uncle Sam would assist us, and then found that he let us down, being only interested in supplying weapons.
"…mount a defense on the basis that Uncle Sam would assist us, and then found that he let us down, being only interested in supplying weapons…"
Ummm, call me an old fashioned pedant, but I am reasonably sure that "supplying weapons" constitutes "assisting".
You missed out the rather important part of the story where New Zealand was shelling enemy territory for 8 years prior, and not allowing some of the enemy territories any independence. Just the main precursor for the war… don't worry though it sort of ruins a good piece of fiction.
That is a selective simplification of a much more complex matter. And rather leaves out the small matter of Russia invading and annexing Crimea at the same time. Hardly a gesture that was going to assure the Ukrainians of Putin's fine brotherly intentions.
Hmm, that's a written history of a war that relies heavily on references from the BBC and a Ukrainian newspaper. Would I be right to question that history?
The other point I would make is that it makes no mention of the ongoing shelling in the Donbass, that has been reported by countless independent media, and seems to have a lot to do with why Russia got involved.
Tankie reckons don't cut it.
/
I appreciate there a lot of reasons not to unthinkingly trust any media source these days maui. I think most of us struggle with making sense of the world one way or another. I don't expect perfection from anyone, but I do try to understand what direction they are heading in – up or down?
Setting aside the politics, perhaps one good measure of this is the resolve and morale of the Ukrainian people themselves. Their courage and sacrifice has meant their military has completely outperformed all pre-war expectations – and on that undeniable basis I give them them my support.
Oh, so Russia doesn't need to negotiate…. because they hope that they can sufficiently destroy civilian life in Ukraine, so that Ukraine will offer an unconditional surrender.
And, you, apparently, feel this is a worthy strategy. My contempt is deep.
Luckily, your opinion doesn't seem to be widely shared on the left – judging from the spectacular lack of support on TS – (or in the centre, or, to be fair, by much of the right).
This style of jackbooted militarism seems to be out of favour with most civilized countries.
Tell me, if this was the US – launching an attack on Mexico – and raining down missiles on the civilian infrastructure to force a surrender – would you still be so supportive of the military strategy? I somehow, think not.
So the situation is hopeless. Neither side wishes to negotiate. So the mayhem continues. Do you think that is a good thing?
It is not Russia's cities being bombed, so the ball is in Ukraine's court.
It is not that I approve of any of of this. I’ve simply resigned myself to the fact that Russia will not relinquish her gains willingly. It’s just not going to happen.
It's Russia doing the bombing. The ball is in Russia's court. They can stop any time they please.
You haven't answered my question BTW.
"Tell me, if this was the US – launching an attack on Mexico – and raining down missiles on the civilian infrastructure to force a surrender – would you still be so supportive of the military strategy? I somehow, think not."
Exactly. If Russia removed all of it's troops back to the widely recognised 2014 borders and stopped bombing Ukraine – the war would be over tomorrow. (The converse – Ukraine invading and bombing Russia being exceedingly unlikely in the current circumstances.)
Unfortunately because nothing the Russians sign up to can be relied upon – Ukraine would also have to become a full member of NATO. As have Sweden and Finland.
Nothing else can assure their sovereignty now.
just because youre a quitter, dont expect the ukrainians to do the same. and if you any sort of student of history, you will know that once invited, the russians stay and expand.
Tell me, if this was the US – launching an attack on Mexico – and raining down missiles on the civilian infrastructure to force a surrender – would you still be so supportive of the military strategy? I somehow, think not.
I don't know. I could only answer such a question if it happened, and I was able to look at the surrounding circumstances. Unlike you I first of all apply the the "little grey cells" (to plagiarize Agatha Christie).
Gosh, your strict adherence to critical reasoning, in this instance has completely passed me by /sarc/
I've seen plenty of uncritical acceptance of Russian propaganda. And very little application of "the little grey cells"
Gosh, your strict adherence to critical reasoning, in this instance has completely passed me by /sarc/
Why would I be surprised at that? I've noticed that reason and logic are not really your forte.
Nor yours, apparently.
This style of jackbooted militarism seems to be out of favour with most civilized countries.
It seems to be out of favour with the USA as well.
But, apparently not with either Russia, or with you.
I would have to plead "not guilty", though I can't speak for Russia.
Well, you're defending their 'jackbooted militarism' – which speaks volumes for both of you.
Jackboots?? The current propaganda efforts are telling us that the Russians do not have adequate footwear.
"The ball is in the Ukranians’ court: they need to negotiate."
They are negotiating – on the battlefield, which is the only negotiation that will work. Russia has proven entirely unreliable in all agreements previously. Not to mention being murderous, looting, raping war criminals.
Every democratic country should assist Ukraine with their "negotiations" to the maximum extent possible.
The Russians, I am sure, would love to negotiate – which they will do, as usually, in bad faith.
Negotiation time is time for them to regroup, to reequip, ready for the next onslaught on the Ukrainians.
“Every democratic country should assist Ukraine with their "negotiations" to the maximum extent possible.”
Every democratic country should have made clear right from the start – even before the invasion started – that Ukraine would not be accepted as a member of NATO, and they should not have pledged support for Ukraine against Russia. As Kissinger pointed out at a recent conference countries in the area, such as Ukraine and Finland, should follow a policy of strict neutrality.
As for “sovereign rights”, rights come with obligations.
Hang on though, Russia wants to conquer Ukraine to de-Nazify the place, you Putin fanbois have got shorter memories than my goldfish.
Why?
Sovereign means just that, Sovereign.
Ukraine gets to decide who they want to play with on the international stage. Russia doesn't get a veto – just because they *used* to be the imperial power.
The parallels with Czechoslovakia and Nazi Germany are too stark for anyone with even a modicum of historical knowledge. Which is why Europe pledged support against Russia.
Sovereign means just that, Sovereign.
Ukraine gets to decide who they want to play with on the international stage. Russia doesn't get a veto – just because they *used* to be the imperial power.
Fine. So they accept the consequences. Russia's alarm at their joining N'ATO is understandable.
If the consequences of exercising your sovereignty is your neighbour declaring war on you (because we all know that's what it is despite Putin's fig-leaf of a "special military operation") – then one can see why Ukraine would seek support from other countries.
Your metaphorical rabbit hole is getting very dark.
"Might makes right" is a philosophy – but not one I'd expect to see espoused on TS.
Sovereignty does not give them the right to threaten a neighbouring country. Clearly, their joining NATO is a threat to Russia, as also is their stated intention to obtain ownership of Crimea, presumably by invasion as Russia is not going to give it up.
Russia also has a fear of fascists, which is understandable given their experience of WWII.
You mean the Crimea – which was outright stolen from Ukraine in 2014 – in a military annexation!
Ukrainian fascists are Ukraine’s problem. Not Russia’s. That’s what sovereignty means.
Eastern Europe also has a fear of Russians, which is understandable, given their experiences in the latter half of the 20th century – considerably more recently than WWII.
“You mean the Crimea – which was outright stolen from Ukraine in 2014 – in a military annexation!”
Both Crimea (and Ukraine were part of Russia prior to the early nineties, when Ukraine gained independence. This had been the case since Tsarist times. When Ukraine became independent the Crimean population, who were mostly Russian anyway, made it clear that they did not wan to be part of Ukraine, preferring to be either completely independent or part of Russia. So Ukraine effectively 'stole' Crimea at that time.
Do you have any evidence that the overwhelming majority of the population in Crimea A) didn't want to be part of Ukraine in 1991 (at the time of independence); and/or B) still didn't want to be part of Ukraine in 2014 (when Russia invaded)?
Evidence, that is, other than Russian propaganda.
In any case, military annexation was a violation of Russian agreements to safeguard the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
"Do you have any evidence that the overwhelming majority of the population in Crimea A) didn't want to be part of Ukraine in 1991 (at the time of independence); and/or B) still didn't want to be part of Ukraine in 2014 (when Russia invaded)?"
Referenda were held on both occasions. And both indicated that the majority did not want to be part of Ukraine.
They are negotiating, with the Americans.
How long before Russian power plants start to go down for no detectable reason.
Only the evil Russians could do something so " vile" eh jawty ?
Ukrainians couldnt do anything bad ……..noooooooo
they wouldnt for example spread 'petal 'mines all over a civilian neighborhood
nooooooooo
That video ("MAIMED In A PLAYGROUND") provides zero evidence of who deployed the mine in question. Curiously, it is the Russians who have been documented hitting playgrounds etc with missiles.
Here is an article that discusses the presence of PFM ("petal") mines in Ukraine:
https://observers.france24.com/en/europe/20220817-ukraine-russia-donetsk-petal-butterfly-antipersonnel-mines
Human Rights Watch notes that Ukraine signed up to the Ottawa ban on anti-personnel mines, while Russia did not. The loudest accusations of Ukraine using PFM mines come from Russian government sources ('accuse the other side of that which you are guilty').
(Background Briefing on Landmine Use in Ukraine)
Well maybe Human Rights Watch reckons "no credible info " that Ukraine has used petal mines etc but ive seen lots of video showing widespread dissemination of 'petal 'mines in Donetsk .Tanks in one example running up and down city streets trying to explode as many as possible .Mines scattered accross rooftops ,verges ,streets ,parks etc even video of neighborhood kids deliberately detonating them with air rifles !!
Some months ago since their initial use but i'll endeavour to track some down by the way yr first link does'nt work just comes up 'Forbidden' !
Here's one
That is another video reporting the presence of PFM mines in Donetsk (which is not disputed)….but the question is – who put them there?? Several times the video says "Ukrainians" but provides no actual evidence that it was Ukraine at all.
Russia was notorious for widespread use of PFM mines in Afghanistan and have refused to sign treaties banning them. Ukraine on the other hand signed the treaty in 1997 and have been destroying their old stocks of them.
Other banned anti-personnel mines have been scattered in Ukraine (POM-2, POM-3), and these are mines that Ukraine has never possessed but which Russia has plenty of.
Who is more credible?
"Who's more credible " ?
Which option is the more logical ?
What possible reason would Russia have to deliberately over time pollute the cities of its allies and countrymen with antipersonnel mines ???
Seems to me that the idea of Russia shelling its own infrastructure or that it controls is inherently flawed although that is exactly what we are ever increasedly expected to believe !!
So following Ukraine's warped logic Russia shells its own pow facility ,was plotting to blow the dam across the Dnipro river in order to drown its own soldiers and wash away the pontoon bridges that were the only supporting structures of a precariously held bridgehead !!??Likewise we're expected to believe they'd shell a nuclear power station that they are guarding ?!!Do you not get the impression that we are getting bullshitted to by Ukraines ott propaganda dept ?
Perhaps Ukraine's signature on the landmine agreement signifies good intent but its by no means clear how much ordinance it has left undestroyed and the fact that it has been shelling civilians in Donetsk for a very long time would tend to support the contention that it was Ukraine that spread the petal mines imo.
A seat on a petro board in the offering?
/
https://twitter.com/germanyinusa/status/1497244517954641925?lang=en
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/merkel-condemns-russian-invasion-legacy-comes-under-scrutiny-2022-02-25/
https://twitter.com/derJamesJackson/status/1595350733716684800
For the most part Merkel seems to have been guilty of believing that trade alone could be a path toward unity and peace. Sadly for her that was never a sufficient condition. In my view until both the Kremlin and the CCP fully repudiate their marxist heritage – neither can be trusted.
That'll be the day, when a pollie goes to gaol for putting party before country.
With the RBNZ manufacturing a recession to reduce consumer spending those who rent are going to find that difficult as landlords pursue increased passive income:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/479433/rents-on-rise-again-as-landlords-pass-on-costs
Rent is an unavoidable cost that is seemingly completely disconnected from traditional supply/demand price fluctuation. The Government must reinstate the Rent Freeze.
Renters United petition here: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/rent-controls-now
It's difficult to accuse landlords of pursuing passive income – when their costs (rates, mortgage, insurance, maintenance, improvements (healthy homes stds), etc.) are also increasing.
Passing these costs on, in the form of rent increases is the way the market operates.
Unless you want the Government to nationalize all rental housing (in which case, bye-bye to any chance of a left government in 2023) – there is little the government can actually do about this.
Perhaps you can point to a successful long-term rent freeze – which has not resulted in 'unintended outcomes'.
What this graph appears to actually show is that inflation is out-stripping wages. Which is not news.
Passive income is any that is generated by capital rather than labour. This is definitionally what property income is. Landlords ‘earn’ profit above and beyond the costs you mention merely by ownership.
The graph is demonstrating that fixed costs for over a million NZers are diverging further and further from affordability. In a functioning market an oversupply of rental properties would result in lower cost rentals, but this is not the case as people have to live somewhere. Landlords are able to make increasing profits from this need for housing, a human right.
Rent controls exist all over the place, can you point to our housing and rental market and say its working for anyone other than Aussie banks and those already owning multiple properties?
In that case, all investments – even your $100 in the bank for a rainy day – is passive income.
Well, yes. Landlords are *running a business* – if they don't make a profit (either in income stream or capital value) – then they exit the market.
If the Government wants to have an 'oversupply of rental properties' – then they need to adjust the costs of construction and supply – as well as making owning rental property an attractive proposition.
I hope this isn't news, but *no one* apart from the government (or those supplying to the government) is building for the lower end of the rental market – because there is literally no money in it. All of the development going on (and most of that is coming to a halt) is at the mid- and upper- end.
If rent controls exist all over the place, perhaps you can point to one working successfully, in a market similar to NZ (i.e. with the majority of the rental stock privately owned).
Yes, all investments are passive income. Most forms of investment aren’t just about rent-seeking though. For the majority of people their only significant source of income is earned income, that which they acquired from their labour.
It’s got nothing to do with what the government wants, there is currently an oversupply of rentals but rental prices have reached record highs despite this. This is isn’t a functioning market.
Until relatively recently both local and central government built and rented low cost housing in significant numbers. Those assets were sold. It was a decision that a less-regulated market would provide what is needed but as you state there is no incentive for businesses to provide for those in need; there’s literally no money in it. One of the major problems of applying ‘market-solutions’ to providing for people.
If we believe that housing is a human right then the government must substantially alter the balance of the current market so that it can perform it’s basic function of housing everyone. As NZ previously demonstrated, and weka’s link explains, social housing is necessary for a more equitable and healthy housing market for everyone. Leaving it to capitalism has demonstrably failed.
It’s got nothing to do with what the government wants, there is currently an oversupply of rentals but rental prices have reached record highs despite this. This is isn’t a functioning market.
Too many have borrowed heavily to get into the market. Now that interest rates have risen their investments have turned bad. To recover they are, by passing on their mortgage costs as part of the rent, trying to make the tenant pay for their "mistakes".
TBH – that doesn't seem to have been true in NZ for at least the last 2 years.
Investors needs a 40% deposit to buy an existing property, and 20% for a new build
https://www.opespartners.co.nz/mortgage/lvr
The increase in mortgage costs doesn't mean their investments have turned bad – it means that the cost of operating their 'business' has increased – and they need to increase income (in this case, rent) Just as if you're running a delivery business – the increase in petrol/diesel costs means you have to increase delivery fees; or if you're running a restaurant – the increase in staff costs means you have to increase prices.
The higher LVR means that they have quite a cushion in terms of property price before they'd be in negative equity territory. Remember that a 20% drop (which is what the RB is signalling) just puts prices back where they were in early 2020.
it means that the cost of operating their 'business' has increased – and they need to increase income (in this case, rent)
It is only the interest component of the mortgage that has recently become non deductible. The principal was never deductible. However the mortgage, both principal and interest, represents the cost of the house to the landlord, and has nothing to do with the tenant. The tenant should not have to pay for the landlord's property, so the mortgage should not be a determinant of how much rent he pays. If the cost to the landlord of operating his business has increased and that increase is due to an increase in mortgage costs, then so be it: he has simply made a bad business decision and he is being "punished" by the market. That's what capitalism is all about.
AFAIK – there isn't a political party in NZ which has this rather radical policy – to prevent landlords from recouping interest costs or even capital repayments from rental income.
And, no. No business owner makes the decision to just give up because costs have increased. They first look to see if they can increase their income.
Do you also propose that trucking firms should somehow absorb petrol/diesel price rises? And that restaurants should somehow absorb the increased cost of staffing? Should they, too, be "punished by the market" for making bad business decisions?
Of course, if it is not possible to increase income to offset increased costs, then the landlord goes out of business – and sells up – potentially at a loss; just as the trucking firm and restaurant also go broke.
Your argument seems to be that, like Weka, you regard rental housing as a public good – and that, therefore it should not be commercialized (i.e. it should all be government owned, or owned by non-profit entities; and rents should be controlled by the ability to pay.)
Well and good – but not practical in NZ. Unless you have a realistic pathway to get there from here.
“Do you also propose that trucking firms should somehow absorb petrol/diesel price rises? And that restaurants should somehow absorb the increased cost of staffing? Should they, too, be "punished by the market" for making bad business decisions?”
No, I do not. I instance interest because, unlike diesel, etc, it is not a true 'business cost'. since businesses don't borrow. Proprietors borrow and the cost of their borrowing, ie interest, is a personal expense. It makes no difference to a business whether or not interest is paid on the capital invested in it.
Some have argued that it was unfair of Grant Robertson to single out landlords for this treatment and I would agree. Non deductibility of interest should apply across the board; but I guess that's another story
Oh dear, oh dear …
https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/series/registered-banks/banks-assets-loans-by-business-size
AFAIK – there isn't a political party in NZ which has this rather radical policy – to prevent landlords from recouping interest costs or even capital repayments from rental income.
Raf Manji, leader of the Opportunities Party has mentioned the possibility of preventing banks from lending for the purpose of financing residential rental investments. I don't know whether this was just an off the cuff remark or whether it is TOP policy. If it isn't then I think it should be.
since businesses don’t borrow. [sic]
The additive "(sic)" seems entirely appropriate. The author of the link, presumably the RBNZ, seems to have been a little loose in their description of what actually happens. A business is not a person so it cannot walk into a bank and ask for a loan. Only a person, usually the proprietor, can do that.
Accountants have a convention they call the "entity convention". This asserts that the proprietor and his business are separate entities for business and accounting purposes. Interest is an expense incurred for by the proprietor for the purpose of raising capital. It is of no concern to the business.
The Income Tax Act says that an expense is deductible if it is incurred for the purpose of gaining "taxable income". Capital, as any accountant will tell you, is not income, taxable of otherwise, so expenses relating to the raising of capital should not be deductible.
As usual, you concoct your own narrative twisting ordinary language into sophistry and techo-gibberish that only you seem to believe in. Sadly, it doesn’t stop there and you seem to have your own ‘unique’ view of reality that, unfortunately, sucks up a lot of oxygen here.
I would have more respect for your comments if you explained them. For instance, why do you call my comments "sophistries and techno-gibberish"? Do you have an argument to support that claim? If not, then you may as well stop your blathering.
As a matter of interest I took a look at TOP's housing policy as per their website, these are the relevant parts:
The third item would seem to prevent borrowing for private rental purposes, so the question of tax deductibility mentioned in the second item would not arise, except for current rentals. The only reason for borrowing would then be to carry out renovations after purchasing, but this would be covered by the new builds provisions presumably. Or for normal business expenses such as rates, insurance, repairs, etc, for cash flow purposes.
This, the third item aside, would bring the business more into line with normal businesses. I still think that all interest should be non deductible, but that, as I said somewhere else in the comments to this blog, is another story.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/12/vienna-housing-policy-uk-rent-controls
I don't give a flying fuck about how some people think the market should work. Human rights take precedence.
+1
Same issue with this outrageous 'manufactured recession'. If the market working as it should, screws us over to protect others' "wealth", then it's not fit for purpose as a governing philosophy.
Tautoko Roy and weka
The manufactured recession is a consequence of having to constrain inflation due to lowered interest rates,increased money supply,and keynsian fiscal stimulus that create asset bubbles,that implode leaving both debt,unemployed politicians,and distressed consumers with buyers remorse.
It is an expectation of MPS tightening,why it surprised politicians,shows ignorance rather then discovery,the inability to be able to suggest policy that removes cost,show an inability to govern.
Not all of the inflation is caused by stimulus, some comes from supply chain (foreign and domestic) disruption, including to international logistics (containers etc).
And reducing demand by higher interest rates is not the best way to encourage investment in labour replacement (crop harvesting machines, machine milking and the like). Some of price escalation is caused by monopoly (gib board) practice.
Actions such as lower petrol taxation and a rent freeze also lower inflation.
PS Orr held interest rates down too long, he also allowed investors off the deposit ratio to buy property with cheap money (rather than directing them to new investment to reduce price pressures caused by rental shortage) to increase our collective debt.
Freight rates have been decreasing since March,they are now down to pre covid levels.A substantive portion of the imported inflation is from the depreciation of the NZ dollar,due to capital flight and the appreciation of the US$ as a safe haven,with higher debt liquidity,without the forex hedge costs.
There is no shortage of rental properties,there is a shortage of suitable tenants due to policy changes,and the difficulty in removing poor performing tenants,
Yip they'll force them onto the dole then hate them for taking it.
From your link
"two-thirds of Viennese citizens live in municipal or publicly subsidised housing. "
Which certainly doesn't apply in NZ – and can't, in the near – or even mid- term, without massive Government acquisition of rental property either by paying market price or compulsorily (cf above comment on one quick way to ensure there is no left government in 2023)
"Where rent controls do work, many Viennese agree, is in tandem with Vienna’s vast offering of unghettoised, social housing and an aggressive policy to add more of these homes."
The market doesn't care whether you approve or not. If there is a shortage of housing – and/or increasing provision costs – the price will go up. Whether that's 'officially' or the plethora of ways that a landlord can move out tenants (renovations to meet standards is a current favourite), and re-let at a higher price.
If you want to have massive amounts of government subsidised housing in NZ – then you have to find an effective pathway (i.e. one which can gain electoral support) to get there from here. I've yet to see one which is even vaguely achievable.
The (phased) end of mortgage interest deductability will, with a higher OCR, lead to more sales by landlords (and at lower values than now) to first home buyers.
A rent freeze and the option of 5 year loans (lower than the floating rate of the next year or two) to these first buyers would help. An alternative is for government to buy off landlords and on-sell to first home buyers later when the mortgage rates fall back.
Where do you think the money for the Government to buy from existing landlords is going to come from?
Kainga Ora are well over their current budget for builds both underway and in the planning phase. And, are well behind their targets for getting their current rental stock to meet healthy homes standards.
With the Government being told by the RB to restrain their spending – I doubt a big new property acquisition income stream is going to magically appear.
It's not spending if it is buying and on-selling. It's just a transaction. And Orr is not boss of government, and governments can borrow on the bond market anytime they want.
It most certainly is spending. If you (the government) purchase something, then you need to have the income stream to do so (it has to be in the budget somewhere).
You (the government) may later sell off part of your assets – and that then becomes positive cash balance in a later budget cycle.
I really don't think that the government want Orr to be telling the country that increased spending in their 2023 budget will increase inflation even further – so, they will be listening very closely to what he has to say.
Kainga Ora is already using bonds – and, as you can see, it's reported as a liability against the government accounts
https://debtmanagement.treasury.govt.nz/investor-resources/new-zealand-debt-management-undertake-financing-kainga-ora
There really is no magic money tree.
One has an income stream from rent to pay the cost of the debt and then the money from selling the property (to those who would buy once the OCR comes back down) to pay the debt back.
Whether the government, or first home buyers borrowing from banks with 5 year loans, buy up property makes no difference to aggregate spending in the economy.
Different budget cycles. Unless you are postulating that prices would crash significantly within a year.
It also postulates a capital loss on every sale (government selling for significantly less than they bought the property) – so you would never recover even the base price from sales – let alone the borrowing costs.
Rental income might cover the borrowing costs (maybe…) – but wouldn't do a thing to cover the capital cost.
Orr is commenting on the *government* needing to restrain spending. And, is also predicting a fall in house prices of around 20% (don't rejoice too soon, that would get us back to about 2020 price levels – hardly sustainable)
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/130565288/reserve-bank-telling-government-to-slow-spending-to-bring-inflation-under-control-economist-says
A rent freeze would assist house price fall. The government would determine the timing of its buy in.
Re-sale would, and there will be more businesses looking at buying into this market with the end of interest deductablility for investors speculating for untaxed CG using borrowed money.
Housing corp has both a budget deficit ( 344 m at 1 july) an increased debt 9.8b 1 July,increasing again ( by 2.3 b in nov) as it now needs to borrow on the government account due to the lack of interest in the secondary bond market.
https://www.nzx.com/markets/NZDX
It now has no ability to repay debt,due to now borrowing for operations and maintenance.A revaluation downwards of 10% in its asset valuations,how does it provide a sustainable income?
"Re-sale would, and there will be more businesses looking at buying into this market with the end of interest deductablility for investors speculating for untaxed CG using borrowed money."
There is no possible way this can be true. If the government buys and then waits for the market to fall before re-selling – as you postulate – there is no possible way that they can recoup even the capital cost – let alone the cost of borrowing.
If the government buys at 1 million – and sells, 3 years later at 750K – they've made an absolute lost of 250K + whatever the borrowing costs might be.
I'm sorry, but I have better use for my taxes.
I said
Government policy leads to a price fall and then the government buys in and then on sells to first home buyers (they would be still be waiting for mortgage cost to fall).
@ Poission
A devaluation in Housing Corp assets (with a downward correction in the market value) has no impact on its operational finances (just more difficulty borrowing against its assets – which is sorted out via new government input as is the case at present).
The period of greater cost – increasing property to the required standard is a one time thing. And inevitably required government input. Another impost will be sufficiency of disability housing with aging tenants.
People don't spend money, they spend incomes. A money tree does exist: it's called the "velocity of money". As money moves through the economy it creates income, and the faster it moves the more income it creates. If we wish to avoid demand inflation we need to ensure that the flow of goods and services matches that increase in income.
You didn't ask for an example that could be used by NZ without NZ having to change much. You asked for an example that,
Which is the standard line from people who believe in TINA. But TINA is something that neoliberals made up. We have choices and TINA basically says fuck off poors, we don't really care about you.
The market is a system that humans created. It doesn't have opinions of feelings. Humans can change that system.
Your example of how the market works fails in two fundamental ways.
Humans rights matter more that the ability of some people to make passive income. What would help change things if is we were honest about the fact that adhering to TINA = relinquishing the right to a healthy and meaningful life.
Apologies for not specifically stating that I was looking for an example of a rent freeze in a country which was comparable to NZ.
Because, right now, all the examples I can see – which are trying to resolve rocketing rents – rather than being long-term 'the way we do business' – have very significant unintended consequences.
If you want to argue for massive state intervention in the market – switching NZ to majority state ownership of rentals – go to.
I'd like to see your thinking on how to get there from here – other than handwavium. Because the budgetary implications are staggering.
However, I don't think a rent freeze is going to win an election for the left in 2023.
Humans matter in lots of ways. Our government doesn't support or fund lots of areas effectively (livable income for sickness beneficiaries, dental treatment, timely hospital care, routine medical treatment, etc.). Housing is just one instance.
If the answer is simple and obvious, then no doubt we'll see it as a central platform of the Left in 2023.
Housing isn't just one of many instances though. It's fundamental to everything. Because we all need a home, and because the cost of housing is now the main driver of poverty here. Anything else the government and NGOs do to alleviate poverty is undermined by the cost of housing. Even raising benefits will partially fail because landlords will raise rents in response.
Snort, we don't have a left to adopt such a platform. And it's not simple or obvious, it's really fucking complex. TINA arguments make it that much worse.
There are no single, silver bullet solutions. A rent cap would need to be strategic and part of a broader overall plan. Which means not just housing but everything eg we cannot solve the housing crisis without looking at Accommodation Supplement and we can't look at that without looking at benefits and welfare.
Have a look at the GP policy to see where we might go on this.
https://www.greens.org.nz/housing_policy
Well if you are going to abandon market mechanisms altogether – or in your own words:
the alternative you seem to be espousing is that the govt provides housing as 'a human right'. This is your core jsutification.
Now given that human rights are universal, it is fair to ask why the govt would only provide some people with housing and not others. And why it might charge some people more than others. Or why it might provide some people with houses in more desirable places than others. Or newer ones for some people, but not others.
I have lived in such a housing system for a while – a standard Soviet apartment building – but I am not sure this is what you have in mind. Nor what I suspect most New Zealanders would choose either. So if we are to get past the handwavium – how about giving us some hard details as to how you think this human rights based universal state housing system would work please?
As for the Green Party policy – again long on handwavium with multiple contradictions around keeping rents and mortgages less than 30% or 25% – but then nothing on keeping costs down. Quite the opposite a long whole wish list that demand more capital and costs. Even if you want to reject markets altogether I am not sure how anyone can square that circle.
Fuck off Red. I've told you so many times that you are making shit up about what I believe, there's no point in engaging with you seriously. Basically you just take what I say, shift it out of context and/or misrepresent it, and then use that to push your own barrow.
For the benefit of others reading,
I quoted your exact words:
That statement is a repudiation of market mechanisms if I ever read one.
If you are going to base your argument that on the idea that housing is a human right – again your words precisely – then they have to be universal. Or do you think some people get different rights to housing depending on intersectionality or something?
yes you quoted my words and completely misunderstood what I meant. This is what I have been saying for ages, you actually don't understand my arguments, politics or position. And you almost never ask for clarification.
And here you are doing it again, thinking you know what I meant when I’ve already told you you don’t and you still don’t ask for clarification.
Combine your statement that emphatically appears to repudiate markets, with your reference to Green Party policy that seems to demand both rental reductions and cost increases at the same time – then you maybe could offer us ignorant ones some clarification about how you think markets should work.
And if you are going to base your argument squarely on the claim that housing is a human right – then you also need to clarify how you think that will work. Because as I explained – there are some fairly obvious practical problems with this approach.
The property market in New Zealand was already overvalued because investment is directed into land ownership as there is no CGT.
And allowing people to speculate by borrowing money cheaply to own property made things worse.
Fortunately there is a plan – end deductability of interest to encourage sale to first home buyers or business ownership (subject to company tax on CG and can claim interest as a cost).
A way to improve on this plan would be a rent freeze and better regulation of property being up to standard. Thus increase the pressure to sell and thus take down property values – fix Orr's mess.
Red, you just keep making shit up about my views and I'll just keep not responding.
Nah – you resort to the 'you are just making shit up about my views' persecution ploy whenever I offer even the simplest and most obvious challenges.
If you do believe in markets – as you now claim – then how do you markets manage to decrease rental prices while increasing supplier costs at the same time?
And if housing is a universal human right – then how do you allocate it if – as you now claim – you do not think the state should be the universal provider?
These are really obvious questions that did not require me to make up anything.
It’s not that I have to resort to it, it’s that you make it so obvious I just have to point it out.
I don’t “believe in” markets. Again, you simply don’t understand my position, nor do you want to.
I’d suggest you go read what rights to housing so you can stop arguing with your staw man there.
No way am I going to engage with the points you are making until you stop misrepresenting mine.
The problem is solved by a collapse in property values. Such is crisis capitalism.
@SPC
Current prices are reducing because interest rates have increased.
But unless you happen to have the purchase price sitting around in cash, most people are going to need to borrow – and increasing interest rates will pretty much cancel out any gain from decreasing prices.
And in a falling market, banks quite reasonably tend to demand higher deposit equity – which does not help affordability either.
Worse still if the market falls far enough, as you seem to wish, a large fraction of existing homeowners will go underwater with their mortgage – ie the value of the property becomes less than the mortgage. Which means either they will not sell unless forced to, reducing supply on the market. Or if they do have to sell and wind up with no equity, they finish up back renting again and increasing demand in that sector.
And in Aus and NZ you cannot walk away from a mortgage if you have made a loss on it – the residual debt remains.
Lots of interacting factors your simplistic demand to collapse the property market does not really take into account.
@weak
If you refuse to explain yourself – then why are you upset with me?
upset would be overstating it, but now you’re basically trolling me 🙄
First of all you say you don't give a flying fuck about how other people think markets should work, then you say you don't believe in abandoning market mechanisms altogether, and now you say you 'don't believe in markets'. No wonder no-one knows what you mean, because it seems to shift about from comment to comment.
And when asked how you think the housing market should work when you both reduce rental prices and increase rental costs at the same time – crickets.
Over the years I have contributed both at length and in detail on this topic – in essence arguing that if you are going to try and fix something as complex and important as housing in this country – it would be a good idea to demonstrate that you have a solid, well thought out idea of how it worked. Because in my experience, taking a simplistic blunt hammer to a complex mechanism rarely has the claimed result.
And again if you are going to base your argument on housing being a human right, then it has to be a universal human right. One that only the state can deliver on – universally. That you have not thought this through does not change the fact of it.
And again. The reason you don’t know what I think is because you spend all this time, every time, asserting what I think instead of asking. In this case, you are just plain wrong. As I said, I’m not going to talk politics with someone who does this so consistently. What would be the point.
You can also keep asserting your ideas about human rights, but without out referencing the work people have done on the rights to housing and what that means in a HR frame, all that’s happening is you are sitting in a room arguing with a bunch of straw men.
But unless you happen to have the purchase price sitting around in cash, most people are going to need to borrow – and increasing interest rates will pretty much cancel out any gain from decreasing prices.
Everybody has a right to a home, but no-one has an automatic right to own rental properties, Purchasing rental properties increases demand and presumably pushes up prices. Bank lending for that purpose is therefor counterproductive. To become a landlord it should be necessary to either have a spare freehold property that you can rent out, or sufficient dosh to be able, without borrowing, to purchase one. .
The leader of TOP has suggested that banks be prevented from lending for that purpose. I don't know whether this is TOP policy, but I think it probably should be. It would also probably lead to a lowering of rentals since landlords would then have no need to illicitly pass on mortgage costs to tenants.
@mikesh
Everybody? All New Zealanders or everyone on the planet? And do they get a choice of which home, or do you imagine some govt entity would allocate them on what basis?
Perhaps even if they had no income or savings and if this is going to be a proper meaningful right, then it would have to be a free home. But why then would some people get free houses and others have to pay? Maybe they should all be free?
This is the problem with making housing a right. Rights are an abstract universal and apply equally to all humans. Housing is not; they are in different locations, different sizes, styles and quality. Not to mention all differing ages. There is nothing abstract or universal about housing. Jamming the two concepts on top of each other results in an absurd mess the moment you look past the superficial slogan.
In any real world case whether you are borrowing from a bank directly, or indirectly via a landlord (who is effectively providing the equity and creditworthiness you do not have) – there is no such thing as free houses.
The problem extreme left wingers have is they are generally too poor to even qualify for the capital to own a home outright; and deeply resent the fact they have to ask others – either a landlord or a bank – to provide it for them. Hence the blind desire to smash capitalism – rather than make it work intelligently for everyone.
@ weka
Well about three comments ago would have been a good moment to provide a reference. Like how you insist other do all the time.
A breathtaking departure at 9:50pm by WhiteLogix from what defines the socially conscious left.
ACT in nature, ACT in name.
Everybody? All New Zealanders or everyone on the planet? And do they get a choice of which home, or do you imagine some govt entity would allocate them on what basis?
Oh, stop blathering. People have a right to a home, as distinct from an (automatic) right to own rental properties.
@RedLogix
House prices are falling because
1. they only rose to those levels because Orr facilitated an abnormally low level of mortgage rates.
2. Orr wants an abrupt change to higher than normal mortgage rates to cause a recession.
The guy over-reacts to everything.
The government needs to assist in lowering inflation by freezing rents. If this means there are more landlords willing to sell (before fully impacted by the phasing out of interest deductability) but there is a lack of buyers (waiting for mortgage rates to fall to normal levels) then
1. the government can buy and later on-sell to first homeowners (when the mortgage rates ease)
2. the government and or Orr or the banks could manage this period with more 5 year loans to first home buyers.
You cannot be serious, mortgagee sales only occur when someone cannot pay the mortgage.
No it does not. How does someone staying in their property reduce the number of houses in the market?
If they have to. And not necessarily because if the property goes to a first homeowner, they move into the rental vacated by them elsewhere.
Stuff and nonsense.
Appreciate your comments Red, nice to have some logic to the discussions on here.
If housing is a human right, wouldn't food come before that ? Problem is someone else is required on the other side of the transaction to deliver the goods (at no cost ?)
Well put. The hard left often overlooks that for every human right there is an complementary and balancing human responsibility.
Do you know what a human right is?
Yes, there is a human right to food.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-food/about-right-food-and-human-rights
By all means make an argument against the human right to food, I'd like to hear that. But please reference the actual right not what you are imagining.
If housing is a human right, wouldn't food come before that ? Problem is someone else is required on the other side of the transaction to deliver the goods (at no cost ?)
Are you telling that the human right to food is not being met. That's terrible. It's certainly something that should be rectified.
Landlords deduct those costs from rent income before tax on rent is assessed. Rents are higher here than overseas, not because of these costs, but because of seeking a rate of return on the land/property values (which were overvalued and are now falling).
Landlords are losing their right to deduct mortgage cost (where these are existing properties rather than new builds) against rent income. This encourages sales to first home buyers and purchase of new builds.
A rent freeze for a year, alongside the reduction in petrol taxation, is a way to reduce cost in the economy. It would assist the RB in reducing inflation and thus result in an earlier return to lower mortgage rates.
It's a no brainer. And given National would not do it, is an easy political win with renters.
But, also guaranteed to lose votes from all of the Mum and Dad investors (that's around 1/3 of the rental stock in NZ). A heck of a lot of them voted Labour last time. Do you really think Labour want to risk it?
They deserve to lose, if they do not. There are not that many such landlords either. And in any case they are already losing their right (being phased out) to deduct interest under Labour … .
Sorry. Are you saying that Labour deserve to lose?
According to this article, around 1/3 of rental properties in NZ are owned by Mum and Dad investors.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/part-time-paradise-mum-and-dad-landlords-own-more-than-a-third-of-property/L5S3MVSOUZLW74K575GKOAO3NU/
It is dated from 2020 – so may have changed a bit – but I haven't seen anything in the news about the rental property ownership profile changing significantly.
Landlords know that they are losing the right to deduct interest. That's part of the reason that rents have been going up (it's one of the increased costs I mentioned above).
I'll repeat.
They deserve to lose, if they do not.
If Labour freeze rent for a year to reduce inflastion, the incentive to these landlords to sell will increase. Labour wants more first homeowners – thus earlier decision to end mortgage deductability. Landlords who own their property without mortgage, or run it as a business (thus can claim interest as a cost and thus pay tax on any sale CG) are not affected. And some investors will buy into 100% property ownership once values fall far enough, as will some companies.
Whereas, my pick is, that they will lose if they do put a rent freeze in place.
Too many middle NZ investors are tied into property. Governments meddle with this at their peril.
Labour would be putting a lot of 'soft' centre votes at risk. These are people who voted Labour in 2020, and like Ardern (or don't like Luxon) – but have no 'tribal' loyalty to Labour.
Put their economic future at risk (most Mum and Dad investors, are doing this to cover their retirement) – and they'll change their votes.
As you point out – rent-freeze policies going to be more popular with the renters – but how many of them vote National or ACT (or, vote at all, for that matter)?
Of course, just my opinion.
The polls indicate they have already moved from Labour, and given National's offering the return of interest deductability (and threshold movement), for mine Labour's best chance is to hold down rent costs and make the chance of owning greater.
Currently our level of home ownership is lower than that of the UK and it is going down. Labour has to be seen to be acting.
And its actions need to also include houses to get people out of motels (before on-selling them later).
Well, I guess we'll see if/when Labour make this a central plank of their housing policy.
Loss of interest deductibility was tolerable when rates were around 3% – much less so if they go back up to the > 7% range.
So don't just freezer rent, but help middle class NZ either protect their investments in other ways, or find other ways to invest.
or run it as a business (thus can claim interest as a cost and thus pay tax on any sale CG) are not affected.
Who are these? I thought all (residential) landlords were affected.
People can form a business vehicle for owning rental property.
It would allow people to form partnerships with others to do so.
I don't think that would work. A "business vehicle" – company, trust, partnership, or whatever – would, or should, be subject to the same tax rules as an individual landlord.
It's been this way for a long time.
What's been what way for a long time?
The landlord shouldn't really be passing on mortgage costs. The tenant might be expected to pay a fair rent, but he shouldn't have to pay for the landlord's property.
I disagree. The reason is that housing is a basic need, and comes out of income before anything else. Landlords as a group are a monopoly, as social housing is the only alternative to living in your car. They can form cartels to push the cost up, and have been. Property managers, who earn a % of the rent, encourage increases as often as possible.
However, residential property investors are acting as if they carry no risk, despite the fact they are investors, and all investments carry risk. The property investors (and banks) expect renters to top up their extra costs, to retain a nice annual return, plus untaxed capital gains. But they, along with banks should carry the negative consequences of investment as well as the positive. I'd especially like to see banks have to eat loses in property value, as they did for the 20% drop in California residential property after the 2008 housing bubble crash. After all, the banks magic the money for mortgages out of thin air, and then charge us interest for the privilege.
The number of landlords/businesses lodging residential bonds is 120, 00 or so from the link below, for more than 500, 000 rentals. This small percentage of NZ is trying to convince the rest of us to suck it up for their benefit.
Once again, housing costs come first out of income, before food and power. If we can push rents down by making the banks and landlords take the hit for their investment risk, many more Kiwis would be in a stronger position to weather other inflationary costs.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/real-estate/124320645/nearly-80-per-cent-of-landlords-own-just-one-property-data-shows
Yet later on you state:
Obviously 120,000 landlords cannot be a monopoly – and claiming they are 'as a group' adds no meaningful information whatsoever. You might as well argue all farmers are a monopoly cartel because there is 'no alternative to eating'.
As for your quaint notion that landlords carry no risk, this really tells me you know nothing about the business – nor the slim margins it operates on.
In which case, you should argue (as others have above) that rental housing should only be provided by the government or other not-for-profit social agencies.
And provide a mechanism to get there from here.
ATM, rental housing is a business – just as running a restaurant or a delivery company is a business.
If you don't want it to be a business (with bottom line profitability a significant factor), then you don't want private landlords in the game, at all.
ATM, rental housing is a business – just as running a restaurant or a delivery company is a business.
Businesses produce goods or services. Rentier activities produce nothing, but merely exploit existing assets.
Provision of housing is a service.
A house is capable of providing accommodation. The landlord did not create that capability, he merely purchased a pre-existing house and exploited it for his own gain. He cannot be deemed to be "providing a service".
A service would normally entail active participation such as, for example, when a barber gives you a “trim”.
So, according to your argument: the owner of a storage unit is not providing a service; the owner of a hire car is not providing a service; the owner of a for-lease post-hole borer is not providing a service.
None of those entail active participation. They involve ownership of a capital asset which is rented or leased out for a period of time.
The storage unit is subject to some sort of regulation I expect. Hire car definitely needs a WOF. Not so a rental property. If "provision of housing is a service", why do landlords and their bodies squeal like stick pigs when they are asked to provide a decent product?
The operator of a storage unit will have built the facility himself. He is renting out capabilities which he has created. A car hire firm has to hire car groomers, mechanics to check over cars, office and counter staff, drivers to drive cars to where they are needed. and quite independently of the cars themselves, they have hire or own premises. Both are clearly providing a service fromwhich the community benefits, in much same way that a shop owner provides a service although he does not actually create the goods he sells. These businessmen are providing locations where people know they can obtain specific goods or services.
PS: I forgot to mention advertisiing.
Ah, so now your service definition has morphed to 'one where the community benefits'
I think that it's entirely arguable that the community benefits from the service of providing housing.
Landlords also hire lots of people (maintenance, cleaning, repairs, renovation, lawn care, etc.). And most owners of storage units certainly didn't build them, themselves.
Really. If you want to argue that the provision of housing is too important (and/or critical) to be provided by individuals – and should be a government monopoly – then stick to that argument.
Because, this one has more holes than a colander.
It’s weird to compare the reaction to the Sandringham murder to Pike River. The way nobody was at fault, everything was a tragedy at Pike River.
Here immediately everything was the government’s fault. The government, not the police were called soon to investigate and solve the crime.
But both were preventable workplace deaths.
Probably too soon to be talking about it.
Hmm. One was the result of (possible) institutional systems failure in the mine – and was an isolated event; the other was the result of a criminal act by an individual – which followed a pattern of multiple other similar criminal acts which (by luck) didn't result in deaths.
There's a strong element of 'I told you so' going on. Everyone could see that it was just a matter of time before someone was killed in one of these attacks on shops.
Failures in workplace safety and anyone to take responsibility is not an isolated event. We’ve had many industries where contracting out and avoiding responsibility is standard.
Even a Granny Weatherwax tribute act (at least in name) should be able to see that.
This was in relation to Pike River. I'm not aware of a sequence of similar workplace safety failures in that or any other mine.
And, I still don't see the equivalence with a series of similar criminal attacks, which have now resulted in a death.
Two very different incidents. With two very different public responses.
Ahh, workplace deaths are isolated incidents not at all related.
Whereas ram raids, where a feature of the crime is an empty shop, is part of a series of crime where death is inevitable?
I agree, very different reactions from David Seymour and his ilk. A preventable death is a preventable death. No one should face death as part and parcel of their regular duties at work.
Sandringham death wasn't the result of a ram raid – it was a robbery from a staffed shop – in much the same way that we've seen many others (in Auckland, at least – and I assume in the rest of the country).
https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/10/01/watch-michael-hill-albany-thieves-flee-scene-of-daylight-robbery/
Yes. Many people have been saying, that a death in the cause of one of these criminal activities, was, indeed, inevitable.
When one walks away from tribalism.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/huffpost-writer-defends-jk-rowling-no-evidence-transphobic-quotes-burning-wrong-witch
Rosetta's been on fire this week. The original thread,
https://twitter.com/ejrosetta/status/1595060392031657984
I haven't been onsite this past week to address the Incitement to Hatred and Discrimination legislation that has been drastically watered down as regards the rainbow community of Aotearoa. Various reasons; other commitments, shock, and grieving amongst them. But at least there are more solid details about the proposed reduced bill that will be presented to parliament before next election:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/130534545/hate-speech-change-what-it-means-and-why-it-matters
The public submissions to the select committees progressing this legislation are likely to have restricted terms of reference, and the Labour government has enough votes to pass it even without the Green party – who will likely vote for it, after a few speeches saying it should go further. But I will have to wait for specifics of the bill before working on my own submission, so don't have much to say about that yet.
Instead, I will focus on reasons for expanding the prohibition of Incitement of Hatred against not just the present; race, skin colour or national origin, not just to religion, but also; gender, rainbow, and disability communities. With particular LGBTQ+ emphasis; given recent events, plus my own familiarity with that community, and the all too frequent Incitement to Discrimination with which it is beset.
Under present NZ law; there is no Hate Crime against the LGBTQ+ community, which does not reflect the lived experience of Aotearoa's rainbow people. There is provision in the Sentencing Act (2002) for some regard to be paid to hate crimes as Aggravating and Mitigating factors:
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0009/latest/DLM135545.html
However, this is not very useful for deterrence if the perpetrator has an effective lawyer, as:
To see how this works out in practice, we turn now to an example from this year's Pride Month that has been wending its way through the courts:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/distressed-and-dismayed-greymouth-hate-crime-victim-worried-after-offenders-discharged-without-conviction/5RJ3UUPQP5UF4DMXHJGT76B5JU/
{The previous post was thrown together mostly from unposted writing last weekend (trimmed and updated). This second one dealing with more recent events needs more of a CONTENT WARNING for the references to a mass shooting (particularly in the links). Edit: also the colour stayed after I removed the in-text links, I can’t recall how to get around that.}
In understanding the need for Incitement to Hatred and Discrimination legislation to protect LGBTQ+ people in NZ, I turn now to overseas examples of where unchecked campaigns of incitement against Rainbow Communities can lead.
Firstly, I find this Stochastic Terrorism model a valuable lens. Here described by Brynn Tannehill (author of American Fascism) in a September 28th Salon interview with Chauncey Devega:
https://www.salon.com/2022/09/28/trans-activist-and-author-in-a-fascist-america-lgbtq-folk-will-be-systematically-targeted/
This was not just the opinion of a Trans Activist, but also shared by medical professionals at the time – from October 3rd:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/101030
So with hospitals being less easy targets than previously, and the November midterms concluded, it looked almost like Tannehill might be wrong in her prediction, at least for this year. But then came November 19th in the USA (already the Transgender Day of Remembrance in Aotearoa):
https://apnews.com/article/business-crime-shootings-colorado-springs-774c94125cbad7cf05af2c99b81d42cc
Finally, Rebecca Shaw makes important points about the fragility of safety for vulnerable people, and the need for solidarity:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/25/club-q-was-an-inclusive-welcoming-space-for-everyone-its-assault-is-an-attack-on-us-all
Moderators – could this be elevated to a post if Temp O'Rary is willing?
This "firehose of falsehoods" technique has been adopted from Russian propaganda, and we see it in this thread in the nonsense being posted by the Putin fanbois who demand Ukraine negotiate or claim the Ukraine is somehow the agressor.
Adopted by Trump and US Fascists and disseminated here frequrently by pro-Russia posters, their claims are repetitive, lacks commitment to objective reality and they lack commitment to consistency.
My condolances to all the victims of this shooting. And all the victims of the countless shooting across the US.
The writer of the Guardian ariticle article speaks of how important it is for the LBGT community to have safe spaces such as the nightclub to go and I couldn't agree more.
I am puzzled though.. The writer of the Guardian article says
"Defence attorneys have since told the court that the alleged shooter is non binary, and that the motive for the shooting is yet to be determined"
Shouldn't we wait to verify that this person is non binary (not quite sure how you do that because it is afterall a declaration) and tease out the motives for the crime before we talk about it being a hate crime?
Because until we know that it was a hate crime,motivated by hate towards the LGBT community it is mischeif making to go on to do what the author does and I quote
"conservative, transphobes and Gender Critical have created a climate of scrutiny and fear around transgender and queer people". She is associating people who scrutinize gender ideology and queer theory with a mass shooter.
You mention the likes of Tucker Carlson and others who have made threats against gender clinics, all of which I condemn. And thats where our current hate speech laws serve us so well. Because my understanding is if anyone threatens or incites violence in NZ, it is a crime. And that's how it should be.
I will just talk about my impressions in NZ. Over the decades of the 70's 80s and 90s there were a small number of transgender people (transexuals or transvestites as they were known as). Three very prominant trans people over these decades were Carmen, Bob Moodie (a police commissioner who crossed dressed) and of course Georgina Beyer. All of them were publicly well known. Georgina of course was able to secure enough support to be voted in as Mayor and then an MP. All were judged on thier merits. Did these people have a hard life (undoubtedly). Were they generally accepted? Seem to be. Were they free of harrassment? Unlikely.
Gender critical feminists became concerned about the gender ideology for many reasons. Our concerns include the increase in young people identifying as trans and being fast tracked into a medical intervention (see Laura Lopezs excellent article about this published yesterday). We are concerned that medics are using drugs to treat gender dysphoria, that they are not licenced to do. (especially when the use of such drugs are being rolled back in other countries (Sabine also put a clip of Dr Marci Bowers in the comments section of Laura's article. In this Dr Bowers admits that children started on PBs at Tanner stage 2 cannot orgasm.
I would argue that the above situation with the medicalisation of children are deserving of scrutiny.
GC feminists are also concerned about laws such as self id that allows any male who identifies as a female access to womens change rooms, accomodation, sporting competitions etc. Women are entitled to feel protective of their spaces. Not everyone believes that because a man says he is a woman that makes it so. It is gas lighting to expect people to accept it as truth. It may be someones personal truth, but that doesn't make it so.
So I am not sure if you were hoping that the hate speech laws would shut down gender critical voices? Again I think it is essential that women's voices be heard around these issues.
Anker: There are, and have been, many more gender diverse people in Aotearoa than the three you mention. Many of them died at their own (or another's) hands, disappeared, or been forced to live inauthentic lives behind a socially acceptable mask. So it is hardly surprising that there is a bit of a backlog in trans people coming out now that some slight social acceptance is possible.
Our current "hate speech" laws do not serve us at all well, with very few successful convictions to the point where it is hardly worth the effort to lodge a complaint. Even if successful, the penalties are so low that that they wouldn't even prevent someone convicted of the offense of being elected to public office:
Section 131 states that a person who commits the criminal offence is "liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $7,000”.
https://consultations.justice.govt.nz/policy/incitement-of-hatred/
I had been avoiding referencing the (alleged) mass murderer, as they are more of a symptom than a cause. But waiting until all the details have been ironed out in court is not far removed from ignoring the event entirely. The (alleged) shooter's past does not seem to back up their lawyer's claims (for whatever reason) of their client being nonbinary. The name change seems to be more so the mother could cut contact with the (proportedly) violent meth-head of a father:
https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/11/23/club-q-suspect-in-court-friend-says-never-claimed-to-be-nonbinary/
Oh but if they say they're non binary, then they are .How dare you question them?
The transtwittersphere is having multiple meltdowns over that. One side is "he is lying to get off the hate crime charges", the other side is "how dare you challenge their identity" and the "third side" is sniping in with "I thought you folx always say that nobody will ever lie about their gender identity for nefarious purposes". Much popcorn consumed on the sidelines.
https://reduxx.info/it-was-obvious-thats-a-man-cnn-guest-rejects-colorado-shooters-non-binary-claim/
the thing about blaming UK feminists bears examination. Not because it's daft (it is in the extreme), but because we probably should be figuring out how someone's thinking can be like that. I get that some people believe that GC feminism somehow convinces people to be transphobic and act out on it, but it's such a vague idea with no substance to it. Which leads us to the problem of genderists not being able to make even a halfway decent argument for their position. It was the same in the Cambridge debate that Stock was in. The genderists had very little in the way of rationale for what they were saying (some were better than others, and I've only listened to the first half so maybe it go better).
He is not only lying to get of the hate crime charge, being a non binary allows him to identify into a female prison with the born women who are of course not allowed to say a thing in protest to having an entire male locked up with them lest they are happy with loss of privileges and such for misgendering.
And lets also not discuss the amount of dead women that litter the ground of the US, or the amount of dead kids that litter the US, or the amount of native american women that recorded as missing but never found, or the amount of men that get shot in mass shootings or police killings as quite a few blokes of all colors/creed/identity get shot down quite routinely and so on and so forth.
I pity all those that go out for a night of fun, go to school, go to work, go shop in a grocery store and do so without even thinking of having a right to be free of shootings cause it is the US and every dick and john have a gun or a whole collection thereof.
Sabine how can you possibly say the criminal is lying about being non binary to get out of being prosecuted for hate crimes and to go to a women's prison. That would never, ever, ever, ever happen. Its sounds like you are being transphobic
Of course there have been many more gender diverse than the three I mention Temp. I was merely using them to illustrate how NZders are a pretty accepting bunch and will take people how they find them. This isn't to say that there is a small minority of a..holes who will bully and torment anyone who is different or vulnerable.
I don't think you can account for the exponential growth of young girls identifying as trans nowadays is that it is because there is now "slight social acceptance". If there was we would be seeing a comparable rise in women in their 30s, 40s, 50s and 60's coming out as trans and that is not happening.
I agree that many have been forced to live inauthentic lives behind a mask. These would be the male to female cross dressers who often married women who had no idea they liked to cross dress. A lot of this group are made up of autogynophiles.
How do you mean they "disappeared"? Sounds a little 1984ish
I mean that they disappeared; one day they were there, and the next they weren't. Given that it's a community that is almost defined by their difficulty in getting their names on official documents and often lacking traditional families, it has been difficult to get police to take an interest. That's if anyone was keen to interact with police in the first place, which has historically had its own dangers. Best case scenario is they left town and set up under a new (or old) name elsewhere. But that is a bit optimistic.
"Autogynephiles"? I have no more time for Blanchard and his discredited pseudoscience, than I do for Freudian; "penis envy".
Well then – where is the "discrediting"? They are all around you – middle aged men with wives (usually ex-wives) and kids – littering lesbian dating services. I personally know at least 2 of them right here in Auckland.
http://healthcareguild.com/transgender_files/Download%20-%20History%20of%20Autogynephilia.pdf
You may have no time for Blanchard and his "discredited pseudoscience" but in this article Blachard and his colleague Lawrence quote trans who idendify with autogynophilia and the concepts Blanchard was proposing. It describes their experiences of cross dressing and sexual arousal.
God I thought you queer theorists were all for breaking down the charmed circle (as in Gabrielle Reubin's term for hetero sexual monogamous sex).
People get aroused by all sorts of things. As long as it isn't children or animals, degrading women or violent porn. What is your problem with the idea that some men get arounsd at the thought of themselves being and dressing as women. TBH it absolutely isn't my thing and I wouldn't want to be part of it, but in the privacy of one's own home and all that?
By denying autogynephilia you are the one making it shameful. As I say, I dont care if this is what some men get off on (as long as it doesn't involve my knickers or clothing or me in anyway). The problem I have with it is they are wanting me to agree with the idea that they are women and can access my spaces.
it’s the same thing again. People with AGP are the wrong kind of trans women, only accept people’s self-assessment when it suits.
The problem with Blanchard's transsexualism typology is that it rests upon a dichotomy of homosexual and autogynephilic transsexuals. Which is insufficient to explain the spectrum of gender diversity even within white trans women in north America, let alone trans men and nonbinary people of differing cultures and ethnicity. Leaving aside the issue of generalizability of Blanchard's notions, there are still the problems of his research lacking; control groups, and replicability by others. Still, better than Freud I guess.
Here Serano refers to Feminine Embodiment Fantasies (FEFs) rather than AGP, because research that used a control group of cis women to the trans women found similar patterns of reported behaviour in both groups to the same questionnaires that had Blanchard used previously to posit his typology.:
https://www.juliaserano.com/av/Serano-AutogynephiliaEmbodiment.pdf
Blanchard was a clinician who was attempting to make sense of the patterns he was seeing amongst his clients. It is common for research to start with observation, case studies and the RCTs.
I agree the trans umbrella encompasses many variations. AGP being one of them.
As for teenage girls presenting as trans, their pathway is often through chat rooms. Girls who have body disatisfaction who then develop a trans identity on line. There is a huge social contagion factor here. prior to 2012 which happens to be when the smart phone was introduced, that number of teen girls presenting as trans was extremely low. The exponential increase is a new cohort. They have high rates of other mental health issues including anoerexia. This new cohort has appeared not because it is now more socially acceptable to be trans. If it was as I previously wrote we would see middle age women presenting in increased numbers as trans.
The ideology has hijacked the needs of the very, very small minority of people who suffer from gender dysphoria and it is clouding the work of clinicians such as Blanchard who are trying ot make sense of peoples suffering
Julia Serano has skin in the game, around reframing the conversation around AGP.
Queer theory language distorts and obscures, rather than clarifies and Serrano is skilled in its use:
"Which is insufficient to explain the spectrum of gender diversity even within white trans women in north America, let alone trans men and nonbinary people of differing cultures and ethnicity."
It refers to a specific group that resides under the current trans definition, it doesn't claim to define all.
The story so far
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/130588973/hate-speech-disabled-rainbow-communities-and-women-forgotten-in-watereddown-plans
For mine, the essential problem was that hate speech law – incitement of hate was too nebulous (too easy to connect to taking offence at what others say). If they had toughened it up to an "incitement to hate crimes "standard, then few would have seen it as a limitation of free speech to include birth sex, gender ID, sexuality along with religion.
Then leaving the matter of speech that incites hostility and hatred to the review as to regulation of social media etc.
***There have been only three prosecutions because the police and courts have applied a higher threshold than stated in the legislation (there is no guarantee that would continue).
SPC, The wording on the; Proposals against incitement of hatred and discrimination, were not at all nebulous. Though it may be over a year since you read the discussion document, the pdf is still available through
https://consultations.justice.govt.nz/policy/incitement-of-hatred/
From Appendix 2, starting on page 29:
Yes, as noted in the Proposal 4 excerpt: "The exact wording of this provision will be determined following consultation", so not every detail was specified in advance. And there will be public submissions yet to the select committee on whatever text is presented to parliament next year. However, it seems fair to assume that the final text will be less, rather than more; nebulous, than the current asystematic mishmash of legislation. For example (from proposal 2); "The terms “hostility”, “ill-will”, “contempt” and “ridicule” would be replaced by “hatred”".
My comment was guided by that of Paul Hunt
Nebulous refers to the difference between legislation and applied standard. In the same period there were no blasphemy law cases in courts.
This Parliament quite cheerfully passed legislation about Conversion Therapy and the ability to change the SEX marker on a Birth Certificate without having the slightest idea of what "gender identity" or "gender expression" actually means.
There is no agreed definition of "gender" as opposed to "sex" and there will not be because gender is an ideology – a belief system. Therefore it is what you say it is, the minute you say it is – and it is something else 5 minutes later if you change your mind.
Writing legislation on any other basis for this belief system is almost impossible.
There are agreed definitions of the words sex and gender amongst biological scientists, though you might not agree with them yourself Visubversa. There is always academic debate, of course; some of it more sincere than others. Here is the WHO definition – as it was quick to google, and a good nontechnical summary:
https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1
Gender is to sex what astrology is to astronomy. We don't make laws based on astrology. Astronomy got us to the moon.
And nobody is designated a sex at birth. Your sex is determined at the second of your conception. It is with you all your life – every drop of your blood tells the truth about your sex. The truth is in your bones, and even in your cremains.
The things described as "gender" are just the usual sexist stereotypes that most of us moved on from decades ago.
Your "gender identity” shares a room in your head with your immortal soul. Nobody in a civilised society should be forced to believe in either of them.
2. Gender – a different meaning and application, was used when speaking around issues that related to societal manifestations due to sex, eg. gender pay gap, gendered violence;
3. Gender stereotypes – societal/cultural expectations regarding presentation, behaviour, interests achievements based on someone's sex,
4. Gender identity – someone's self-declared personal identity.
Your excerpt above mixes gender 2. and 3., and conflates all in the final paragraph:
Gender influences people’s experience of and access to healthcare.
Actually, sex is very important in healthcare delivery, much more significant than 2., 3. and 4. Yet is not mentioned.
The term "hatred" is impossible to define in a legal sense, and so is difficult to discuss pre-legislative change.
There is no sense of what the intended outcome is.
Is it preventative, or punitive as a means of reducing harm?
And what level of harm is considered legally harmful? IIRC – existing laws prohibit an incitement to genocide – a high bar, but a necessary distinction.
Humans are messy, imperfect, intolerant and obnoxious. While these aspects are not welcomed, should they be criminalised – is one of the discussion points – and how will this be practically managed – is another.
We know increased punishment for violent crime is unsuccessful at persuading those who commit it to restrain themselves. (Sometimes, it increases the violence as they don't want any witnesses). It is unlikely to be a preventative measure here. UNLESS, the threshold is lowered to the point that people are unwilling to speak or challenge orthodoxies for fear of prosecution, or the fear that there may be negative impacts on their livelihood, families and well-being.
In which, case, this legislation should not go ahead.
If it is intended to be punitive, there is also a problem. ANY crime of violence and harm to a person, should have a level of punishment associated with that crime that is applied after successful prosecution.
We should not have a two-tier system of victim, that considers that it is the victim's protected characteristics that increase the level of punishment.
This is disrespectful in two ways: one, that the victims' most important characteristic was in the protected category to which they belonged, two: victims not so categorised do not require the same diligence and outcome, and the impact of their loss or harm on their family and friends is not so great.
For example, taking the conversation above regarding landlords. There is a lot of rhetoric and shaming being directed to landlords as the primary reason (unsubstantiated) for people being unable to find secure, affordable housing.
If someone developed a "hatred" of landlords due to their own housing crisis, and decided to break into a Property Investors meeting and committed violence, would this be a "hate" crime?
This legislation proposal is performative, and as such is vague and does not identify the level of need for it, the intended outcomes, and the measures by which those outcomes will be achieved.
Due to this, a full and frank discussion is unable to take place. But this method has worked previously – unfortunately we may end up with further legislation that was well-intentioned but badly conceived, written and implemented.
Molly; any word can be given a strict legal definition, though it may not correspond well to conventional usage within a given portion of the society subject to those laws. The definition of; "Hatred", and whether any other terminology might be preferable instead of, or as well as, this; was one of the main foci of the public consultation last year. And once we finally get to see the draft legislation next year, will be the subject of submissions to the relevant select committee.
Laws not being perfect instruments seems a poor reason for a government to not introduce new laws. As for results, I would appreciate that those found to be guilty of; incitement to hatred and/or discrimination, be barred from public office in the future. Which under our present system takes an offense with a maximum jail term of over 2 years – whether or not they receive that sentence.
The hate definition remains a problem, but it is not the fundamental issue:
Why create a two-tier system of crime and punishment for the same crime?
I deleted one of your long copypastas yesterday. Please stop doing this. The protocol goes something like this*:
You can direct people to read a longer quote by quoting the start of it and linking.
Two reasons for this.
*it's not absolute, but it's a good guide.
Class.
https://twitter.com/SimonRowntree1/status/1596210160933883905
England fans dressed as crusaders have been banned from entering World Cup stadiums at the risk of upsetting locals.
Two supporters were seemingly led away by security this week after turning up at the Khalifa International Stadium donning chain mail and helmets depicting the Patron Saint of England. Footage appears to show Qatari officials ushering the duo away from the turnstiles though it is unclear as to whether the fans were later allowed to watch the Three Lions' opening Group B fixture.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/england-crusader-costumes-world-cup-28574756
I'm sure this is the video that got his house fire boomed.
This guy! I always suspected there was more to his Twitter 'purchase'. He didn't care about the cost – how could he as a centi-billionaire – but control. He will now have direct insight into our transport habits, buying habits and philosophical leanings. And use them to change our behaviour, not just respond to it.
More fool us; the guy is a doof but he's far from stupid.
https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/the-techno-feudal-method-to-musks-twitter-madness/
(An easy, short read. Very articulate. Scary)
A good news story – how one man made Peru the world's blueberry powerhouse in a decade.
https://twitter.com/LatamData/status/1575133312460341249