The Right would have us believe that the election was a referendum on asset sales and nothing else. Well, let’s take a closer look at the results of that ‘referendum’. Yeah, there’s no mandate there.
Except that Key is about to get his policy passed through parliament this week, and Norman is pushing for a referendum for next year. Who’s desperate?
Greens co-leader Russel Norman said the prime minister was “desperate on asset sales because he has totally lost the public debate”.
“So now all he can do is make underhand attacks based on completely false information about the Greens.”
And Greens haven’t made underhand attacks on asset sales using fales information about them?
The Greens had “shot down” all the Government’s arguments for asset sales, he said.
That’s been so sucessful Norman is trying to extend the debate long after it’s over. And Greens keep trying to claim there is no mandate. Any other signs of who really is desperate?
You argument is basically “we won* you lost, eat that”.
You’ll recognise that phrase from when Cullen supposedly said it to National.
This government, and you, are saying it the electorate though.
The arguments against the CIR amount to nothing more than “we don’t care what you think”.
Is this the new politics you are working towards?
*about that “won” look at the table in the post. 1 seat. that’s the voctory margin.
It’s an open question as to whether or not Dunne would have won his seat, (which gives the govt its majority) without his deal with National. What isn’t an open question though is that both National and Dunne thought the deal was necessary.
These asset sales will impoverish future generations of NZers PG. Just as we have seen the banks, Telecom, Contact, etc. pump out billions of dollars from NZ annually. While providing goods and services that we could easily provide for ourselves.
I was trying to have a reply to PG free day, but I have to laugh at his total lack of understanding of what the word democracy means.
Clue. It does not mean that 61, largely, self appointed fools, or thieves, in parliament should be allowed to go against the clearly stated wishes of a majority of New Zealanders.
The right AND the left said it was a referendum on asset sales. Such short memories you have. Don’t you remember the left claiming a vote for National was a vote for asset sales? The ads Labour ran about how National, if they got in, would sell assets?
Also:
Mandate: 2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) Politics the support or commission given to a government and its policies or an elected representative and his policies through an electoral victory
National fits this description. I am against asset sales but National, unfortunately, have the mandate so why focus on this part? Banging on about mandates isn’t going to solve or stop this policy.
Banging on about mandates isn’t going to solve or stop this policy.
Gosh, so authoritative.
Politics is a funny old business. Language, doubly so.
How can you be so certain about that? Because the language offends your narrow and dictionary based understanding of what ‘mandate’ means perhaps/ Do you think everyone share your view on that at an emotional level?
We know that this government has responded in the past to public outcry, even on things where it said it wouldn’t. Mining, education, etc.
Talking about the mandate, does many things. It’s not as simple as you would have it I think. Politics isn’t a scrapbook where citizens are kept safely in those little platic sleeves and attached to acid free paper and handed to parties to keep safely away until the next election campaign. They run about the place thinking, and more importantly; feeling and trusting,
or growing in disgust as the case may be.
The mandate is a living thing in this view. It’s conditional and constantly being tested. This government gave way on issues, in order to protect its ‘political capital’, which is just another phrase for mandate once you think about it. If you think about it with an open mind and analyse politics as a process. It’s not physics, or at least, if it is, it’s not newtonian physics. Not that there’s anything wrong with Newtonian physics, as afr as it goes. But it won’t get you all the way to an understanding of what is going on.
As thoughtful a response as ever Contro. But I don’t really care about the Free Dictionary’s definition (2) of mandate. Shocking, I know. I’ll report to the Contrarioans re-education camps immediatly. And upon arrival, I’ll tell them that dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive, and if that don’t like that, they can go pound sand.
But that is quite beside the point you raised and the one I was responding to.
You said that:
“Banging on about mandates isn’t going to solve or stop this policy.”
I don’t think that’s true at all. In fact, I think it’s thoughtless.
I hoped to encourage some thought from you on that, and hear some of those thoughts, especially in light of your post graduate politics study.
Hopefully those studies have given you more to lean on than the Free Dictionary.
So you don’t want to explain why you think talking about mandate wan’t achieve anything. Fair enough. If I’d said something so transparently stupid I hope that I’d explain what I actually meant, but it’s differences that make for horse races I guess.
“But each to their own.”
Sure, that’s why you’ve made so many comments about it I guess, it just doesn’t bother you at all.
“So you don’t want to explain why you think talking about mandate wan’t achieve anything.”
Indeed, the argument about whether National has a mandate for this policy won’t help this cause because either side could argue for or against which ties everyone up into a pointless discussion about definition’s, systemic problems with “…rotten boroughs and troughing hairdos.” when a far more powerful and indisputable argument is whether or not it makes economic sense which we all agree it doesn’t.
That’s why I think the discussion about mandate won’t achieve anything. It’s a distraction from the real issues surrounding the economy.
Apart from the fact that the economic argument has already failed. Those numbers aren’t going to change.
The mandate argument might still persuade those National (and UF) MPs who might still want a political career post-2014. After all, it only takes one to scupper the whole thing.
Indeed, the argument about whether National has a mandate for this policy won’t help this cause because either side could argue for or against which ties everyone up into a pointless discussion about definition’s, systemic problems with “…rotten boroughs and troughing hairdos.” when a far more powerful and indisputable argument is whether or not it makes economic sense which we all agree it doesn’t.
I think you’ll find that there are plenty of people out there who do think it makes economic sense, and that they’ll happily provide you with arguments. I disagree with those arguments, as do you, but the existence of those arguments means it isn’t ‘indisputable’ at all.
It’s not that those arguments shouldn’t be made, and it’s good that they are being made. If you prefer those argumenst, have at them. No one is forcing you into these other discussions.
As to why I think the mandate argument is a good one, vto hits on it nicely.
You can’t win political arguments on policy alone. This has been a major problem for the left. They seem to think that if they just spell out their ideas clearly enough, and convince them about policy, they’ll win. It never works out; even when issue polling tells us that clear majorities favour the left’s policies over those of the right. ie, even after the left has one the technocratic debate, they lose the political one.
That’s because people don’t really vote based on policy. Policy plays a role, to be sure, but it doesn’t trump the other issues, like trust, and likeability, and who I’d like to have a beer with, and ‘vision’. These are tricky things. If you talk about them directly, you’re screwed. that’s why you have to get the electorate asking those questions for themselves. You want to get your opponent saying things like ‘I don’t care what you think’, and ‘we won so you have to let us do this thing you don’t want’ and ‘we know better than you’.
Any of those memes wringing bells?
What parties are saying ‘listen to the people’ and which parties are saying ‘shut up’?
You might like to reconsider your opinion on on the use of dictionary meanings after you have read this: http://www.dotrob.com/essays/essay5.html
Basically we give meaning to words by the way we use them. Your use of the word “mandate” is rather restrictive, and certainly not the way it is being used here to describe the will of the majority of the population. There is clear evidence that the majority of New Zealanders are opposed to asset sales of any nature, and the very slim electoral majority won by National and Act and supported in the house by UF, does not actually constitute a mandate from the people, (as evidenced by the number of actual votes cast for each party in the house).
First three dictionaries I tried all listed mandate as some combination of ‘will of the people’ type definitions and ‘command from a higher authority’ type. None of them mentioned winning an election as an example.
Gotta wonder how hard it was fishing through websites to try and dictionary-bash us with that one.
That’s because you are not looking into what constitutes a political mandate, not just the word.
Politics 101 defines a political mandate as the consent to govern given by the people in a general election. If I can find my old uni books I’ll dig it out later tonight.
Mandate (international law), an obligation handed down by an inter-governmental body Mandate (criminal law), an official or authoritative command; an order or injunction Mandate (politics), the power granted by an electorate Individual mandate, an often controversial government requirement for the purchase of goods by individuals Contract of mandate – a contract of bailment of goods without reward, to be carried from place to place, or to have some act performed about them.
a mandate is the formal notice of decision from an appeals court
a requirement for a Health maintenance organization to provide a particular product. Papal mandate – responses of the pope or a Sacred Congregation, in writing, to queries or petitions of individuals. League of Nations mandates, quasi-colonial territories established under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, 28 June 1919, which included:
Mandate (theology), to some Christians, an order from God Mandate of Heaven, a traditional Chinese concept of legitimacy used to support the rule of the kings of the Shang Dynasty and later the Emperors of China Mandate (trade union), a trade union in Ireland
If you want to regress this debate down to the 101 level, tough bikkies. I’m not getting into a dictionary fight with you. Let’s go back to talking like adults, shall we?
A political mandate is retained by the support of the voting public. Note that word I used, “retained”? You don’t just get to have one for three years after winning an election, not if you endorse a democratic system which requires continuous consent of the governed to function.
John Key got a mandate to form a government, (which is what your politics 101 text book refers to, but I don’t think you’re a child, so you should already know that passing policies and forming a government are two different things that each require their own mandate to be justified) but there was never a clear display of public support for asset sales, as they weren’t the only issue at play in the election. He’s never obtained one since. This is a dramatic change of national policy that Kiwis have opposed ever since the first time it was hoisted on us, back when Labour was acting like, well, ACT.
You can pass a law without a mandate from below, if you have a good reason to – hence why we disagree that this referendum and the previous one are comparable. This is the reason that common definitions of mandate include a “higher command”- you can have a ‘strong leader’ who decides that they know better than the populace, if they’re willing to sell their idea and own it if it’s a failure. National have wisely not tried that justification for this policy.
We’ve let National choose their own justifications, and we’ve knocked each one they’re actually willing to admit down. Passing this law is undemocratic, it’s economic self-harm, it’s theft from the public, and it’s just plain stupid. I’m not sure what more you could ask for in terms of reasons to stop it.
No more attempts to define your way out of the argument then? Fair enough.
I’m done my daily article critique, so I’m sorry, but Jane Clifton can wait. (besides, I’m hungry) I’m sure it’s just as useless as Colin James- right wing journalists don’t tend to have a huge diversity of thought. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume it’s one of the ‘the Family First referendum can somehow be warped to say that the public opposed the §59 repeal’ pieces that the right is favouring. I’ll do a takedown on my blog tommorow of at least three reasons why that’s rubbish.
[lprent: There is a limit on the number of links vs text that the system tolerates. That is because a lot of spam consists of mostly links. I released your other comment with lots of links earlier. ]
I’m not following your linkspam, I need to get ready for work. 🙂
I have no doubt they are all warped though, because if the question related to §59, it would have read “Should we repeal the defense of reasonable force for parents or guardians accused of assaulting their children?” Instead it had some waffle about smacking for “good parental correction”, which is newspeak if ever I saw it, and does not relate to the §59 repeal in the slightest, as it merely removes the reasonable force protection- they can still claim to have been acting with a child’s safety in mind to prevent greater harm, if it even comes to court…
And FF hasn’t pointed out a single case of a reasonable parent being prosecuted, just a bunch of sob stories about people who actually did assault their children, not touching their bums lightly to make a metaphorical point, nor using physical force to keep them out of danger.
Actually, I did follow the links.
Yep, even the ones that were explicitly against the repeal were imagining good parents being put through the criminal justice system.
The most interesting one was Sharples saying that the poll claiming Maori were against the repeal was at odds with his experiences at hui, when it was actually explained to people what the repeal actually meant.
So yeah – when there’s a lot of misinformation about an issue, polls are useless. When the questions are so vague as to mean anything, CIR are useless. But when the information is simple and obvious, like “49% of an asset being sold = economically and socially dumb”, and the CIR question is focussed on one plain issue? Then it’s a pretty good reflection of what the people want.
Cont: you did pols101. Do you really think that the “smacking” or hard labour referenda were questions designed to elicit an informed response from the populace?
Colin James starts off talking about why the “political mandates” the contrarian refers to are bunk, which I agree with, but then he pivots into his usual empty pragmatism, or as I generally call it, nonsense.
If National sold privatisation to focus groups before the election, that means that if the public hears only National’s narrative, they might be okay not opposing the policy. That is also different to a mandate, it’s trying to push policy through without needing to obtain one, much the same as trying to fly it in under the radar is.
But National has to deal with a debate, it’s public reasons have been refuted and its private reasons are therefore suspect, and it’s gambling that it won’t lose the next election if it tries to push through this policy.
That’s even discounting whether their base will bother to turn up if they do the expedient thing and cancel the sales.
So… they’re damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.
Personally I find their game of “find the dictionary definition that best suits my point of view” an indication of the tories’ level of desperation.
For example, cont. chose a definition that marked a political mandate being granted strictly by an “electoral victory” (or in this case a minority of votes and a couple of rotten boroughs “represented” by unprincipled troughers). The OED, on the other hand:
2.Polit. [After French mandat (1789 in this sense). In quot. 1796 the phrase mandate instructions is probably after French mandats impératifs (1789).] The commission to rule or to pursue stated policies conferred by electors on their elected representatives; support for a policy or measure of an elected party regarded as deriving from the preferences expressed by the votes of the electorate. Also in extended use.
I.e. contrarian <ahem>cunningly<ahem> chose a definition of “mandate” that did not explicitly include the consent, direction or wishes of voters: just the ability to manipulate a “victory” out of musical chairs.
Why no reference to the actual votes cast? Because, as the post points out, there is no “mandate” granted by the “preferences expressed by the votes of the electorate”. Just rotten boroughs and troughing hairdos.
On the numbers in the table, do you really think National can claim that the people of New Zealand mandated them to sell assets? The majority of us voted against it and the quirks of the system delivered the asset sellers just one extra seat.
Indeed, the quirks of the system delivered National the ability to claim the needed mandate and to sell the assets.
Unfortunate but true. It’s tricky (tricky as in sly) but yes, they can claim it.
Norman has been promoting unsubstantiated exaggerations (at best) on asset sales. How often has he said things like “selling all the asset to foreign owners”?
Probably never, if you’re claiming he did, Pete. And don’t misuse quotation marks, please. They’re for actual quotations, not stuff you just made up.
Norman doesn’t have to say it anyway, becaue the history books already confirm that foreign ownership is the likeliest outcome, because that is what happened with the earlier asset thefts.
I do use quotes, Pete. I put other people’s actual remarks in quotation marks, so that it’s obvious they are the literal representation of their words, not made up opinion or fantasy. That’s how written English works; though I appreciate you struggle with language, manfully trying to hide truths behind a wall of waffle each day.
If you want to precis or simply guess what someone might say, try using singular marks (‘ …. ‘). That usually indicates that the phrases are yours, or generic, not the subject’s actual words.
Claims of mandate reveal a mind that is happy to use democratic means to an autocratic end. As PBs says, it is simply saying: “We have power so we’ll do as we please”. Such thinking can be a form of democracy, but a somewhat low grade version. If that is our measure of mandate, then in official eyes, the Fijian coups resulted in legitimate government. Someone takes power, they therefore had mandate and were completely legitimate. It also means that any political engagement is futile e.g. Someone this term does anything they want, using any means they like; someone next term reverses it using any means they like; there can be no argument from anyone because we all accept the standard of encumbency = mandate = legitimacy.
The National caucus believe they own these assets and have a moral right to decide to sell them. To make that decision would require our representatives to endow themselves with the voices of all peoples of the past who built these assets up, and their reasons for doing so, and all future people who may use them. That would require an element of “divine right to rule” in their perspective. Even if people who voted for National last election all agreed they knew about asset sales, they still couldn’t speak on behalf of past and future generations. Least of all, our cultural understanding of democracy varies from what our ancestors believed it to be and will vary again to what our great grandchildren know. To follow the idea of a vote today equals consent for tomorrow, is just a mask for narrow, autocratic thinking.
National may have a legal right, but that’s a reduction of the egalitarian style of democracy that NZders pride themselves on, or did, by several levels. Democracy that looks to what can be made to be legal, as it’s moral right, is not a democracy that is good for anyone who is not in or associated with official power. But it’s nice that National are illustrating these principles for everyone to see. It’s very hard to hide what you are, in practice.
Under our present systems, the closest we could get to a decision that acknowledged the past and future generations of NZ would be for all members of Parliament to agree to the sale. Until that happens then, asset sales will be an act of a government that picks and chooses it’s meaning of democracy in ways that undermine political engagement.
I should also emphasise that even if all of our current MPs agreed to sell, using our current forms of representation, it would be a strategic and moral error, since so many viewpoints are not yet effectively represented in parliament: most glaringly, maori (from a maori world view sense), then on a historical basis at least, for Chinese; then Pacific immigrants and so on. Not only are these people not currently directly represented, any party that could represent them must adopt a eurocentric perspective to participate in parliamentry process. Pakeha, or europeans, view asset sales as simply a binary question – support or oppose. It’s not so simple for others and even the most eager proponent of multiculturalism would have to awaken the euro horror at awarding special concessions to some groups simply to get their voice heard. To say it’s as simple as, “we need cash… here, sell these”, in one way greatly narrows the parameters for understanding the issue, in another could result in an offence to many people, and going further, could even end in confusion for some people wondering how the question can even be asked.
If National is not willing to wait a few months for the result of a referendum, they will damage their party. This is because a number of scientific polls have shown the vast majority of New Zealanders and even a majority of National supporters don’t want asset sales…
Dune (and as far as I know everyone in UF including me) didn’t campaign on selling assets, we campaigned on allowing National to progress their priority policies and we campaigned on limiting any sale of assets to defined limits, which we have held National too – that’s backed by facts despite repeated attempts to piddle over it.
You’ll be able to find statistics that back anything you like – the key fact is that National have the numbers to get their MOM Bill through parliament.
Read it in the paper on Wednesday, 61-60. Everything else is moot.
the key fact is that National have the numbers to get their MOM Bill through parliament. because Peter Dunne will provide the single vote needed to sell his country down the river.
I agree they do have the numbers, I also think Peter Dunne is well within his rights to vote in favour, All im trying to show is the majority of people in Ohariu voted in a way that allowed asset sales to happen. To claim ignorance of who or what you were voting for after the fact shows you didn’t really care where your vote went.
If Peter Dunne presented himself as a strong leader who will push ahead with policy when he believes it’s the right one, then you might be correct.
The problem is, Peter Dunne is the king of empty populism, and bends to the wind faster than a willow tree. He has been banging on about referendum-led policy for years, and now he doesn’t want a referendum to show him up as abandoning his one principle, populism, and wants to rush ahead with the policy, or try and ad-hominem the people running the referendum, rather than discussing it on its substance.
Functionally speaking, being a hypocrite in politics is probably worse than breaking the law. And Dunne has no way out of his dilemma of supporting this disastrous policy without becoming a hypocrite- either he opposed these asset sales without saying he opposed them, or he supported them without clearly disclosing his support and then opposed giving people a say on it via referendum despite his somewhat odious history of proposing referenda for pretty much everything.
I’m sick of this mandate bullshit. It was a general election not a referendum. If the mandate argument had any validity then anything the Nats do that they didn’t campaign on means they have no mandate for it. (Greens & Labour could have some fun with that line of argument)
Bingo! That’s exactly right, DH. Mandates have to be campaigned for, either in a referendum or in an election called for that specific purpose.
National did not go to the electorate last November specifically calling for a mandate for asset sales and one of their support poodles, sorry, parties, thought so little about the issue they didn’t even include their support for asset sales in their policy literature or refer to it in the TV debates. The last time a general election was called to gain a specific mandate over a single issue was in 1984 and that didn’t end so well for Muldoon.
The only other times in recent history an election was fought over gaining a mandate was Hone Harawira forcing a bye-election in Te Tai Tokerau and Tariana Turia doing the same a few years earlier after her resignation from Labour.
Do you believe the rubbish you write? National may not have “campaigned” on asset sales, but it clearly announced them as priority policy in their second term if re-elected. Why else did labour campaign so vociferously on the subject if not to draw attention to this clearly communicated policy?
Yes, National campaigned on it, United Follicles lied about it, and put together they still don’t represent a majority of votes cast.
The mandate to introduce legislation does not confer the right to predetermine the decision of a select committee, nor to ignore evidence presented. Predetermination, for example, is defined by the Ombudsman’s office as a conflict of interest.
But if the National Party wants to commit electoral suicide, I am happy about that, since they are a cancer on New Zealand.
That’s just rubbish. Asset sales was never a priority policy, the claimed benefits were not important enough economically for that. National didn’t campaign on asset sales either, what they did campaign on was the reasons why they wanted to sell the SOEs. The Greens in particular have since shown their justifications to be untrue and we have every right to deny their alleged mandate on those grounds alone.
None of which should obscure the fact that National intends to concentrate the ownership of these very valuable, high profit generating strategic assets into the hands of the few and the foreign.
None of which should obscure the fact that National intends to concentrate the ownership of these very valuable, high profit generating strategic assets into the hands of the few and the foreign.
That’s not a fact. It’s you making pathetically outrageous claims without facts.
There’s plenty. National have made it clear they want to ensure as much New Zealand ownership for as long as possible. And they last week said they want to target getting 200,000 New Zealand shareholders.
Add to that the number of people likely to indirectly have an interest through Kiwisaver funds and NZ Super and ACC and there is likely to be significant New Zealand ownership.
Facts, Pete? You didn’t cite any; the loyalty bribe is so important to them they didn’t even put it in the budget, if you want a fact to consider.
If you’d said National want to create a perception of giving a toss about the ownership, because they think it will prevent some votes haemorrhaging, I’d be agreeing with you.
Explain to me then Pete how the disabled person down the road on invalids benefit gets to be part of this – how they get to buy their share of this asset? or the kid who lost their casual job a few weeks ago, or all those families who are accessing food banks weekly, or those who can’t afford to pay their school fees.
There’s a neat bridge over the Waiwera stream that’s part of the Northern Gateway toll road – I guess that’s the one your talking about. How do I get a share of that? 😉
How are they ensuring that target? What is their POLICY for retaining New Zealand ownership? The only thing they’ve even considered so far is bonus shares, for which it looks like they can’t get a law passed, so if they go ahead with it, it will be blatantly illegal.
How is it not a fact? Assets owned by every Kiwi will after the MOM have a large percentage owned by a small percentage of the population and some oversea’s investors. About as much of a fact as you can get.
1) We’re not proposing this policy, you are. Your side is the one with the burden of proof to establish that this is a wise policy choice, as by proposing a bill you are essentially making a claim that it is beneficial to the country, its citizens, or even the whole world.
2) Like Wikipedia, political websites ought to be treated as reference aggregators (ie. you can’t quote them directly, but check out their own references if provided) for anything other than determining a given party’s policy.
3) If I say something that also appears on a Green or Labour website, that doesn’t mean I haven’t fact-checked it, or that I’m not providing my own analysis of the situation independently. People of similar ideological bents will from time to time have similar ideas or criticisms.
They campaigned on the reasons why they wanted to sell them without actually campaigning on selling them? What election did you watch? Can you seriously believe what you wrote?
So what your saying is that national campaigned by expressing what they want to do, but that they don’t actually want to do it once they get elected?
Give it a rest Pal. Every justification they’ve come up with, and they’ve changed their story countless times, has been well rebutted by economists, the media & pretty much every non-partisan source. Even Treasury told them they were bullshitting.
This mandate argument is a bit silly. We need to be a bit smarter than banging on about having no mandate because quite clearly they will ignore us.
A party’s best way of getting approval for their policy platform is to announce it before an election and make it a centre piece of their campaign. They did that. They can claim a amandate and we have to get on with a constructive way of derailing this.
Winston’s proposal that he would buy them back is a good start. Labour should go one further and say they will nationalise without compensation. That is the end. The sales will not take place if they make that announcement.
I don’t agree. To me this is democracy at work & I’m quite happy with the way it’s progressing. We voted for a government at the general election and now we’re expressing our rejection of one of it’s policies. That’s how democracy is meant to work, voting in a party doesn’t give it licence to do everything it pleases. They’re there to work for our benefit not their own.
The only way I can see for the left to stop asset sales is for them to promise a full commission of enquiry, with complete public disclosure, into the funding of the National Party if the sales go ahead. That would kill it stone dead IMO. Can’t see Labour doing that though, can anyone?
Promising to buy it back won’t achieve anything except a lower price for the shares.
What do you mean it won’t achieve anything. Hands up who will buy shares in a company that they know will be natiionalised in 2 years time.
… Hear that. Its the sound of silence. No one will buy them if they will lose their investment. Therfore the whole process will be derailed.
Meanwhile you can run around getting signatures for a referendum having a feel good fluffy in your stomach about democracy at work while the first lots of dividends heads off shore.
Smarten up please. Take some firm action before our assets are sold. Signatures wont save shit.
No-one would promise to nationalise without compensation. That’s confiscation and it’s untenable for any party. The best they can do is promise to buy back what what was sold and that wouldn’t stop people buying the shares to begin with.
You are correct. Because the ‘activists’ are running around getting signatures for a petition that will achieve nothing, no party is getting the pressure on them to announce Nationalisation. If we put the heat on our MP’s to do that something might come of it.
Instead you can keep getting your signatures and kiss goodbye to our assets.
The only way I can see for the left to stop asset sales is for them to promise a full commission of enquiry, with complete public disclosure, into the funding of the National Party if the sales go ahead.
That’s an absurd threat.
I doubt even Winston would try that. He’d be worried that the same might happen to him. Same for Labour.
LOL. Like Labour wouldn’t come out ahead in that equation. I don’t think they’re squeaky clean, but there’s a difference between being a little dirty and stinking to high heaven.
This mandate argument is not silly. It is central to this government’s credibility. It is absolutely clear that the majority of NZers do not want to sell these assets – they didn’t before the election and they don’t now. There are many ways of assessing this, of which the election (decided on all sorts of policies and crap) is just one.
On top of all this, the one vote holding the ship together, namely Peter Dunne doesn’t even know what the benefits and downsides to the sale of these assets are.
When I asked “what are the benefits to the taxpayer of selling the electricity companies?” Peter Dunne replied with this …
“It is worth noting that the total amount of assets up for sale represent about 3% of the Crown’s balance sheet. The controls own shareholding and ownership we have negotiated will ensure they remain in Crown control, without competing ownership objectives.”
And when Pascals bookie asked “what are the downsides for the taxpayer in selling the assets?” Peter Dunne replied with this …
“There are no downsides”.
Dunne is an arrogant wanker. (sorry PG but that’s just it)
Would you consider then that it was absolutely clear that the majority of NZers did not want the smacking law to be changed?
When you consider before the referendum over 80% of people wanted to law change to be reversed.
Really? The referendum question had nothing to do with the S59 repeal, as I recall:
Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
Minor hitting, while still shite parental correction according to parents I know, doesn’t pass the public interest test to justify prosecution. Hence the lack of floods of “good” parents being charged (unless you think that hundreds of thousands of NZ parents spontaneously stopped using corporal punishment). No prosecution = no criminal offence. Hence the referendum, possibly because the wording is such shite, has been honoured.
Maybe the ‘hit your kid’ brigade should have simply demanded that the repeal of s59 be repealed? Pity they tried to be smart bastards and manipulate the result with a vague leading question…
What I am establishing here is that in both instances (asset sales and the s59 issue) had overwhelming public disapproval based on opinion polls.
Ignoring the actual referendum question due to its vague wording the opinion polls still showed a major public backlash and, for consistency, if you are going to complain the government is routing public opinion on this then they routed public opinion on the other too.
There was a backlash, but against what? The fact that 300k people signed a petition for a CIR with that wording indicates that quite a lot of people had no actual idea what the issue was. If they weren’t opposed to the actual law change, what were they opposed to? As I said, the prison system hasn’t been flooded with parents jailed for a smack on the backside, which seems to be what the findies-first crowd were worried about.
MOM has been discussed to death, and many people in this country have had direct experience of the joys of asset sales. And I believe that the current CIR proposed question is a bit more specific than the smacking one. So maybe there’s a bit less in the way of scaremongering propaganda going on this time – and maybe the polls reflect a more informed opinion.
You keep asking the same question even after you’ve had the answer explained to you a dozen times which means that you’ve dropped from whinging Tory to troll.
I, for one, just ignore you now as there’s no point in engaging you.
probably because they correctly identified the difference between ‘popular demand’ and ‘panic stirred up by paid propagandists working for people who want to beat children’.
really mcflock? the politicians can assess such things better than the rest of New Zealand? Your answer is the easy one but I suspect the true answer may be a tad more complex. Why did all those parties and politicians vote against what the people seemed to be telling them? And how applicable are those reasons to the last cir re harsher sentencing for crims?
I don’t know the answer but I certainly hope it is better than the one you provided, lest my perceptions of politicians get further cemented…
The phrasing of the harsher sentencing CIR was even more idiotic than the good parental beating CIR:
Question: Should there be a reform of our justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?
Fuck sake – a sliding scale from recognising needs of victims all the way up to hard labour? With a yes/no response? As opposed to the current CIR petition which is short, precise, and although it does mention each company by name the issue is much more clearly defined than the hooplah over “smacking” or the sentencing CIR.
Do I really think that those two CIRs are good examples of money and propaganda creating panic instead of an informed decision by the populace? Yes. I also think they are good examples of how referenda (or even general survey) questions should not be written.
This referendum actually addresses the policy being enacted. The referendum about smacking had nothing to do with repealing a legal defense for assault that was being used to successfully acquit people perpetrating very clear examples of assault, ie. beating their children with improvised weapons.
I would support the government at least putting their legislation on hold until after a referendum in any case that the referendum clearly and fairly raises a question about that legislation. This is, unfortunately, due to our lax CIR rules, the first time that such a referendum has been initiated in my political life.
The Government didn’t ‘ignore’ those polls, Parliament did. The whole of the house, except ACT, voted to remove the specious defence that assaulting kids is OK because ‘I’m their parent’.
However, that wasn’t the question in the CIR anyway and the question that was in that CIR has never been introduced to Parliament as a bill, that I recall. They are two seperate matters.
And, leaving aside the failure of the beaters to get a continued right to assault their kids, Parliament is allowed, even encouraged, to lead. To go where society as a whole is not yet happy to go when it is the sensible option. Nuclear power, gay rights, an end to corporal punishment, votes for women and maori etc were all controversial, minority supported issues at some point. But leadership was applied and eventually they became the norm.
Asset theft, on the other hand, has already been tried and rejected in NZ and there is no change in 30 years to NZ society’s sensible rejection of it. Selling the family silver will never be popular in NZ. It wasn’t last time we did it, it failed to achieve what it was supposed to and the only people not to have learned the lesson are some, but not all, National voters and Peter Dunne.
I have no issue at all with Parliament making up its own mind. The referenda are non binding, anyway. But ignoring the result of this particular referendum will have a clear political cost. That wasn’t the case with the failed kiddy beater referendum, because all the parties, bar one, supported kids’ right to a violence free upbringing ahead of allowing their parents to hit them.
Well then you are saying that government is allowed to ignore the people when it is an issue you support but government should be beholden to the people when it isn’t an issue you don’t support.
I am not trying to establish if the repeal was a good idea or not.
What I am trying to understand is how on hand the will of the people should be ignored because ‘parliament knows best’ but not ignored in this instance.
That’s not what he’s saying at all. read the last para. Nothing about ‘beholden’ or anything like it.
Citizens, in my view, should argue for what they think is right. If they think the government is about to do something stupid, they should argue that the government shouldn’t do that.
On the s59, I thought the repeal was the right thing to do, so I argued that parliament should repeal it. On this, I happen to agree with the majority, and again argue that the government should do what I think is the right thing to do. There is no contradiction there.
Do you think that citizens who see their government is about to do something they think is stupid, shouldn’t argue against it onthe basis that, oh well, they’re the government?
Or should they argue from what they think is the right thing to do?
On the s59 the majority spoke quite loudly: Govt. didn’t listen
On s59 the public harrumphed a lot and said absolutely nothing clearly, because they also wanted something done about kids getting beaten to death.
Quite frankly, the s59 repeal opponents seemed terrified that the prisons would be filled with “good” parents who smacked their kids. This hasn’t happened. Parliament (not just the government) fulfilled the rather confused wishes of the electorate, albeit not in the monosyllabic way some of them wanted.
“Why is OK for the govt. not listen in one incidence but not that other?”
The government can do whatever it likes at the end of the day. I don’t dispute that, and TRP came right out and said exactly the same thing.
This is about what we think the government ought to do. Not must. Not ‘can they’, but ‘should they’.
So if you can grok that it isn’t about trying to bind the government constitutionally or what-have-you, but about trying to influence them politically, I think the contradiction you see resolves itself.
If you think the govt is about to do something you agree with, you will think they should do it. If they are about to do something you don’t agree with, you will think they should not.
In a case where you are in the minority, you can pretty much argue the case and say you think the govt ought to do it in spite of public opinion.
If you are in the majority, you can argue that the govt should do it because of the policy argument, and if that doesn’t work; if the government doesn’t agree with you about the merits of the policy, I see no reason that you can’t bring the politics into it and point out that the country doesn’t want them to do it.
They are free to ignore you of course. It’s ‘ought’, not ‘must’.
Contrarian is right in that the last government ignored the wishes of the people, and you others are right in that the particulars of the circumstances are a little different. The issue though surely is that of the government doing as the people wish or ignoring the people, as gleaned from elections, cir’s, polls, etc. The last labour government ignored the wishes of the people. This government is ignoring the wishes of the people.
Just as a side note, the amount of children removed from their parents by the state has declined by over 18% since s59 was implemented. I cannot think of any other social dynamic that would cause this.
Also, most of the polling surveyed people about whether they believed it is okay to smack naughty children, not if the law change was required.
As McFlock has highlighted, the anti-smacking bill did not outlaw smacking altogether but merely removed the “use of reasonable force” as a defence in court. Your comparison is a complete fail TheInegalitarian.
“On s59 the public harrumphed a lot and said absolutely nothing clear”
http://www.voteno.org.nz/polls.htm
Yeah. Kind’ve interesting that even a propaganda website that manages to translate “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” into “87.6% of voters have called for a law change by voting NO in the referendum.” can’t get it’s poll story straight.
Apparently answering “no” to the question “Will a smacking ban stop you from smacking your children?” means they opposed the bill. Maybe they understood the bill?
“Would you like to see Sue Bradford’s smacking bill watered down?” becomes a categorical vote against any repeal, and only one survey apparently specifically mentioned s59. And that result was still against the repeal, but much closer than anything else.
Coupled with the heavy reliance on Stuff and Curia polls and the lack of survey links and questions, colour me not convinced that the polling was legitimate and that people were giving a clear message about their desired outcome. As I said, it looks to me very much like parliament managed to produce the vague outcome that people wanted (i.e. no epidemic of parents being arrested for abuse, which seems to have been tha main concern), while actually making an informed decision (one assumes most of the MPs read the bill and select committee report).
Yet again, “Labour did it too” fails to apply, even if it were more than a half-arsed delaying tactic.
More that the website summarizing them is suspect and intensely biased, and the few verifiable claims it makes (as summarised above) are suspect and wrong.
Well, provide evidence to the contrary.
It’s all well and good to say “the website summarizing them is suspect and intensely biased, and the few verifiable claims it makes (as summarised above) are suspect and wrong.” without offering anything to dispute what the website says.
Surely you must have data that contradicts what this site says otherwise all your doing is offering pure assertion that “these claims are false” without offering anything to back your claim up.
Ain’t it just. The evidence you provided to support your assertion that all of parliament (except ACT) overruled the wishes of the people is bunk. In fact all it does is demonstrate that anti-repeal propagandists (or do you argue that your linked site is unbiased?), where they do bother to mention the questions actually asked in the surveys they chose to report, can’t support your assertion that there was clear public opposition to the repeal beyond a nebulous ‘good parents shouldn’t be locked up’ vibe.
Guess what: they got their wish. Good parents aren’t being locked up – bad parents just can’t argue that beating children to the point of injury was reasonable parental correction.
‘The evidence you provided to support your assertion that all of parliament (except ACT) overruled the wishes of the people is bunk’
Pure and unmitigated assertion. You are deciding, by fiat judgement, that the polls are bunk based on your own interpretation. You have provided no evidence, no polling which shows any different results, no evidence of data manipulation – nothing. The site is bias, we both know that, but you have asserted, without evidence, that the data is “bunk”.
‘That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.’
Christopher Hitchens
Seriously? That site is a blatant propaganda site with no sources. We do know that it, like you, stretches the english language to breaking point, for example the long bow your link drew between the ambivalent wording if the CIR and a very specific course of action they claimed the CIR represented (“called for a law change “). I therefore view with reasonable doubt the possibility that any and all of their unsourced unspecified surveys were specifically relevant to not repealing/reintroducing s59.
As an example, take one of the few surveys where they mentioned the actual question: “Will a smacking ban stop you from smacking your children?” has nothing to do with whether s59 should be repealed of not – many parents who answered yes might have understood that the repeal of s59 would not affect their minor use of force. Yet it’s included in a list of polls that demonstrates “The majority of Kiwis disagree that a smack should be seen as a criminal offence in New Zealand.”.
If I had presented a website like that as supporting evidence, you’d laugh me out of here. All I need to do is point out that the lack of parents being locked up (for pulling young jimmie off the road, as one of the pro-smacking arguments at the time had as an example) is perfectly consistent with not making good parenting a criminal offence. So the wishes of the electorate seem to have been fulfilled.
Given that your link’s an opinion piece with instances of clear misuse of the English language, I counter it with equivalent authority: it’s bunk.
” I counter it with equivalent authority” =/= what I say.
You’re opinion is not an authority. But if you want to play that game:
All those polls that show Kiwis are against assets sales are bunk. I counter them with equivalent authority.
I ask then you show me any evidence of majority support for this bill.
Otherwise you ain’t got nothing.
I ask then you show me any evidence of majority support for this bill.
Otherwise you ain’t got nothing
You want me to prove the contrary to your unsupported position that the s59 repeal was contrary to the wishes of the voters (your assertion in support of your claim “you are saying that government is allowed to ignore the people when it is an issue you support”)? Otherwise I’m the one who’s got nothing?
You made the assertion, you provide actual evidence that “the people” made any coherent and specific demand that s59 should not be repealed, rather than a more vague ‘good parents shouldn’t be locked up’.
Evidence.
Not some unsourced propaganda site that incorrectly thinks ‘repeal s59’ = ‘good parents will be incarcerated’.
Yeah, logic is a bitch – who would have thought that you making an assertion means that you have to prove it, rather than it being regarded as correct unless proved otherwise.
Plenty more where those came from….now, if you want to dismiss these you need to provide a reason for doing so. “I think they are bunk” is not a reason.
Looking at each link in turn, is the concern with s59 or a more vague panic about parents being locked up:
1 (NZH): majority disagree with bill, think it’s “unenforceable”. Kind’ve the point of the bill – minor smacks aren’t supposed to result in a prison sentence. So demonstates more a fear of good parents being harassed than s59 in particular.
2 ( Press Release: Coalition Against Nanny State’s Anti-Smacking Law). Says it all, really. Not a poll.
3: (Onenews/CB) “A ONE News Colmar Brunton poll has found 83% of those surveyed believe it is okay to smack naughty children”. Issue not in conflict with s59 repeal. Putting the two together implies conflation.
4: researchNZ poll. “Unenforceable” – see point 1
5: TVNZ. Against Bil. Interesting quote: “But Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples says at a number of hui up and down New Zealand, the picture is very different. He says when he and his party colleagues explained what the bill actually says, there was almost unanimous support for the bill”. Supports my point.
6: National party. McCully. Did he vote against the repeal, then? Guess you might want to ask him what changed his mind.
7:SPCS. Broken link – might be my web. Didn’t expect much of an unbiased comment anyway.
So, of 7, those that were polls and even mentioned s59 (maybe 2 or 3) conflated the bill with other issues like making all light smacking child abuse or whatever.
So I think you’ve made a good case that people had no idea about what the bill actually meant.
Well, shit, I disagree that the public didn’t know what they were voting on and I think it is plainly dishonest to say so. I also believe that is hypocritical to say the public didn’t know what they were doing so we can ignore the 80% that time but they shouldn’t be ignored this time…but I have been involved in this debate in some form or another for several days now and no-one has presented any evidence to me to the contrary outside their own opinions and none of the data I have presented has been accepted as evidence.
So it’s a stone wall.
Thanks for at least not resorting to name calling and other personal abuse. Perhaps we’ll talk again on another disputed point.
I think there was a general ‘bill = bad’ vibe, but I also think that was simply because a number of pressure groups managed to link the bill with something other than what the bill represented.
Actually, I seem to recall having a similar debate about the food safety bill – my position was that it was a pretty minor streamlining of the current legislation, but others were claiming that one’s house could be searched without warrant if you gave a couple of garden spuds to a neighbour. No idea what happened with that – whether it was passed or kicked back to the bureaucracy, we seem to have had a shortage of doors kicked down by the food police. I oppose the idea of unwarranted unreasonable searches as much as the next guy, I just never saw it in the proposed bill. But a lot of people did.
Same with s59, imo – the debate was framed around ‘good parents being arrested’, not ‘bad parents not being able to get away with it’. ‘Mum and apple pie’ questions will always get the desired response, but they rarely give useful information about public opinion.
btw, I found it interesting that you appreciated the lack of abuse thrown in your direction but in the same comment called me “plainly dishonest” and “hypocritical”.
I actually do think that people know their experience from previous asset sales, know what asset sales actually mean, and that the CIR question is tight enough to give a reasoned response.
I don’t believe that the same can be said about the s59 repeal – I think there was a lot of bullshit and lies put about by scaremongerers for whatever reason, and the CIR question itself was so broad as to be a benign platitude that few people would disagree with. There’s a balance in getting a useful question vs getting 300k signatures, and I think the pro-s59 crowd went for popularity over substance.
“my position was that it was a pretty minor streamlining of the current legislation, but others were claiming that one’s house could be searched without warrant if you gave a couple of garden spuds to a neighbour.”
Yeah there was a lot of bullshit being floated about the food bill (as you say) but there was nothing in it suggest you’d be arrested for giving someone some of your carrots.
“in the same comment called me “plainly dishonest” and “hypocritical”.”
No, I don’t mean you personally. I can think the position someone holds is dishonest without me thinking they are a dishonest person. I haven’t seen anything to suggest you personally are dishonest and believing a position to be hypocritical does not a personal attack make…not like say, calling someone an idiot saying they are stupid
Like a dishonest argument, intellectually dishonest.
Like if I write a uni paper my lecturer can identify where my argument is dishonest (by omission or by making a logical fallacy) but that does not mean the lecturer is calling me a dishonest person
Yeah there was a lot of bullshit being floated about the food bill (as you say) but there was nothing in it suggest you’d be arrested for giving someone some of your carrots.
The point isn’t that it wasn’t in the bill, the point is that people really believed that it might be the case.
Same with s59 repeal – a lot of people thought good parents might be locked up for child abuse. That is not and never was going to be the case.
Like if I write a uni paper my lecturer can identify where my argument is dishonest (by omission or by making a logical fallacy) but that does not mean the lecturer is calling me a dishonest person
Well, I’ve not heard that use of “intellectually dishonest” without pejorative connotations about the arguer before, rather than it merely meaning an incomplete or flawed argument. Always as intentionally flawed. But whatever.
Nope, ’cause there was no smacking law to change. As was explained to you yesterday, as I recall. And no again, because that referendum was so badly worded, it was easily ignored by Parliament because there was no way of knowing what it really meant.
You are full of it/ so over 300k who signed and the 84% did not know what they were supporting, and Clarke did not know that was why do much effort was placed in deferring the referendum to after the election.
And sue bradfords ever changing judtification on why the law was needed was as consistent as nationals for asset sales. A different reason every other day.
well, we’d prefer a referendum before the assets were sold, but the ‘powers that be’ seem desperate to commit to a course of action before the people have an opportunity to say what they really want…
No, “the powers that be” signalled what they wanted to do 18 months ago, and put the appropriate legislation through parlament in a reasonably timely fashion (I know some have claimed it was cut short but I don’t know if that’s a legitimate complaint or just more stall tactics).
The referendum process was started far too late, in fact possibly about a year too late. That isn’t the (current) government’s fault. We won’t even know if there will be a referendum until up to about 11 months after the legislation has passed through parliament.
Then why don’t you examine the facts of the matter – submitters insulted and ignored, reports prepared before deliberations were complete – and make your mind up then? Or is it more convenient to dribble weasel words?
National said, Act were obvious, UF were masters of ‘keeping national in check’ by rolling over for whatever national wanted. Except where the lie was so blatant that not even Dunne could bend over for it.
Nice try. The government never had adequate public support for its policies, the referendum is merely being used to show this and expose the government’s “mandate” spin as pure rubbish. It wouldn’t be necessary if they weren’t trying to push a policy New Zealand doesn’t want, no matter how you slice it.
If the government cared about democracy, they wouldn’t have even proposed this policy. So we’ll put on pressure, as is our right.
Please note that your “in a timely fashion” is our “curtailing legitimate debate and possible improvement via amendment and select committee, and extending this government’s record high statistics at doing so.”
The mandate justification has been proven wrong. The economic justification is ‘not even wrong’, it’s so broken- in a few short years these sales will have lost the government money. There are only two possible reasons remaining to do this: pure ideology, and cronyism for your investor mates, with a possible honourable mention for ‘saving face’. Whichever applies, none of those are sufficient reasons to push through a drastic and wildly unpopular law.
National have no mandate,end of, scrambling with cuppa teas and a wink and a nod
of two questionable tail feathers hardly is enough for key to crow about,he should
be ashamed of his actions in the run up to the election.
His attitude is arrogant to say the least when it comes to nz taxpayer owned assets
that were here long before he came back to these shores with a determination to
empty the cupboards,he has no rights on this score,generations before him,current
generations and future generations have more of a mandate to demand that strategic
assets remain in all nz taxpayers hands as full and comprehensive entities.
this government is expert at pretending that some things are too difficult for ordinary new zealanders to understand like the meaning of the word mandate.
National was elected to form a government.
That does not mean that every single policy they dream up gets carte blance.
In a modern democracy the government of the day must see its policy undergo stringent scrutiny but this government is so scared of the public that every thing they do is sub rosa and only grudgingly exposed to the light of day.
witness the policy rollouts on Sunday night that should have been released on Friday nights so people can discuss it.
this government is really frightened by the public because in their heart of hearts they mean them no good.
INT: ILAM ELECTORATE OFFICES – TUESDAY GERRY: Morning everybody. ADVISORS 1, 2, AND 3: Morning Gerry. GERRY: Now… this is a bit of a crisis meeting. Several rogue polls have come out putting the National Party on or around 40% ADVISOR 2: 26? ADVISOR 1: 12? ADVISOR 3: 29? GERRY: ...
What's National's first move under lockdown? Call for elections to be delayed: National leader Judith Collins is demanding Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern delay the September election after the discovery of Covid-19 community transmission cases in Auckland. A clearly frustrated Collins on Wednesday afternoon said she was directly asking Ardern ...
Respecting the journal editorial process Each week we scan between 450 and 650 articles for relevance to Skeptical Science's remit: communication of the science of climate change itself the many affected branches of scientific inquiry by climate change. The 100+ journals we cover encompass a galaxy of expertise we cannot ...
You may have heard that there were queues at the supermarket last night, and again this morning. This will probably carry on for a while, even though it’s clear that supermarkets and other essential outlets and services will remain open and stocked throughout Alert Level 3 (and Alert Level 4, ...
Russia are deploying a COVID-19 vaccine to its people without knowing if it works or if it is safe. They also appear to be taking advance orders for doses from other countries. It is almost hard to know where to start with why this is so wrong. Reckless, unethical, and ...
Another rural business is complaining about being unable to find staff, despite offering "high" pay. So what do they want people to do? “There’s also a perception that contractors work from sunrise to sunset but that’s not accurate, either,” Hawker said. “Health and safety is our biggest concern – ...
By Aleksandra Pawlik, Ngoni Faya, Joseph Guhlin, Megan Guidry, Tom Harrop, Dinindu SenanayakeRapid development of computational bioinformatics tools mean we can more easily push research boundaries. However, it comes at a cost. The complexity of the software chain that needs to be installed and configured to run advanced ...
So, the inevitable has happened and we have Covid in the community again. So now we have to do it all again to try and get it back under control. And already the usual suspects are whining, pretending that they don't know what the plan is when really they simply ...
Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nzGeothermal electricity produces emissions but is categorised with wind and ...
Aotearoa surpassed 100 days without a case of community transmission of Covid-19. Last night that virus-free streak ended and we’re moving back up the alert levels. For months now, we’ve been intercepting cases of Covid-19 at the border. But just as has happened in many other countries, somehow the sneaky ...
Today the National Party have annouced plans to get tough on gangs. Again. We at MyThinks thought it was important to identify a list of gangs the National Party were planning on getting tough on. National have said if they are elected their new “The Gang Unit” gang unit will ...
In the musical Wicked, a re-imagining of The Wizard of Oz, the hit song Defying Gravity comes at the end of the first act and talks of how one woman (who would become the Wicked Witch of the West) breaks from what’s expected to strike off on her own path. ...
This is a re-post from Carbon Brief by Daisy Dunne Human-caused climate change has “intensified” patterns of extreme rainfall and drought across the globe, a new study finds. There is a detectable “human fingerprint” on decreasing rainfall over the US, central Asia and southern Africa, according to the results. It is ...
Back in June, Newsroom published a well-investigated piece about how the Department of Conservation had waived rehabilitation requirements for a mining company. Now, one of the company's directors - specifically David Wong-Tung, who just happens to be Judith Collins' husband and the director of environmental pillagers Oravida - is threatening ...
This year’s election campaign in New Zealand has attracted a number of “fringe” parties, at least some of whose supporters seem to have a fairly tenuous hold on reality and a highly flexible approach to the truth. I mean, how else could one describe some of those affiliated with the ...
Accused - Jami-Lee RossNobody would think poorly of you if you wrote former National Party MP Jami-Lee Ross off as just another crackpot! After all, now that he’s hitched his Advance NZ wagon to Billy Te Kahika’s crazy Public Party, there’s little chance of him ever redeeming himself or recovering ...
Students will be striking for the climate again on Friday, September 4: Students in Wellington are gearing up to strike from school this September 4th, to protest inaction on climate change. Their demands? That Government invests in a green COVID-19 response; that there is a just transition provided for ...
There’s no Covid on the Cook Islands. But isolation-free travel into New Zealand from the Cooks looks to be a long way off. The Prime Minister confirmed on Monday that Cabinet had considered draft text being worked on via officials which will become the basis of an agreement for quarantine-free travel ...
We should all know by now that Judith Collins, who has openly said she simply doesn’t care if wetlands are destroyed in the pursuit of swamp Kauri, isn’t exactly an environmentalist.In fact she has promised to roll back most of the small gains made by the Green Party in Government, ...
If you drive an electric car more than trivial distances between charges, you likely appreciate a state-of-charge meter (that is, what would be called a fuel-gauge in a petrol car) that is accurate. When it reports a range of 30 km, you do want to be sure it will actually ...
What to do to improve the public perception of the newly elected National party leader, when her performance so far has no doubt disappointed the expectations of her supporters? The answer is to get a National-supporting newspaper (the Herald) to organise a poll that could be guaranteed to provide an ...
Campaigns. Culture. Character. And perhaps most of all, Covid. Now the House has risen and politicians are hitting the road to pitch their woo to voters, those will be front of mind for the candidates.They were also where the new season of politics podcast Caucus began on Thursday. This year ...
There are only a few days left to make a submission on Statistics New Zealand's consultation on sex and gender identity statistical standards. This represents a really important step for recognising the very real diversity of gender, including people with no gender, and ensuring everyone has the option to see ...
Since finishing the Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change book, I’ve frequently dipped into that 176-page clip-art library, reshaping the cartoons to fit the 1920 x 1080 pixel format for Powerpoint presentations. I’ve also adapted many of the cartoons for the Cranky Uncle video series. Over the last few weeks, a few people ...
NewsHub Nation has launched a new podcast, "Supplementary Question". Their inaugural episode is about the OIA, and asks "is our most important transparency law fit for purpose?" While they interviewed Justice Minister Andrew Little and Ombudsman Peter Boshier for this, there's not actually a lot of them in there, and ...
Remember the Ruataniwha dam? The Hawke's Bay Regional Council wasted $14 million trying to push this environmental disaster through before the Supreme Court ruled that the land swap it relied on with DoC was illegal. At the end of it, they wrote off the money and sold the existing consents ...
For years we've had a housing crisis in New Zealand, driven by immigration-driven population growth and the market refusing to build enough houses (and enough of the right sort of houses) to meet it. As a result, people can't get homes, while Boomer landlords leech away their income and parasitical ...
Story of the Week... Toon of the Week... Coming Soon on SkS... Poster of the Week... SkS Week in Review... Story of the Week... Drawdown Review 2020: How To Address Global Warming In A Responsible Manner Source: Project Drawdown Project Drawdown is a non-profit organization that relies ...
Dr Tim Chambers, Prof Nick Wilson, Jayne Richards, A/Prof Simon Hales, Dr Mike Joy, Prof Michael Baker (author affiliations*)Increasing water-related health threats, notably the waterborne campylobacter outbreak in Havelock North, have highlighted failings in NZ’s regulatory system for drinking water. In this blog we consider how the new Water ...
Yes, an election is in the offing – and we all know that elections can be polarising, as parties of the left and right square off against each other. But we should not allow our party and political allegiances to obscure the fact that, in a properly functioning democracy like ...
Dr Sommer Kapitan, Auckland University of Technology, and Dr Patrick van Esch, Auckland University of TechnologyThe Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill will limit vape sales at dairies and service stations to only three flavours, and make vaping illegal in smokefree areas. Vaping laws will be more ...
A chronological listing of news articles linked to on the Skeptical Science Facebook Page during the past week: Sun, Aug 2, 2020 through Sat, Aug 8, 2020Editor's ChoiceFive Years After Speaking Out on Climate Change, Pope Francis Sounds an Urgent AlarmThe encyclical ‘Laudato Si’ motivated many people ...
From some quarters, incessant scaremongering. From others, it’s a full-on tilt into touching the alarmist buttons a little too readily (uncertain times make for very captive audiences with this angle of attack). The (so-called) Opposition (and merely regarding them as that seems to be a far looser term now ...
National Party leader - Judith CollinsElections often bring out the best and worst in politicians. Some rise to the occasion and provide us with a clear vision for the future. While others wallow in resentment and controversy, over-relying on attack politics to try to attain the interest of voters.That’s been ...
The attempts to sabotage Corbyn's leadership seems likely to do more damage than Corbyn supposedly ever could have done, even if all the stories about him were true:I was reluctant to say anything but this is too important, the full story needs to be told.Don’t let anyone ever tell ...
Good day to everyone. I’ve been asked by Mr Thinks to come here and talk to you all about my concerns regarding the government response to Covid-19. We’ve been living through this pandemic for, what seems like, years. Years and years and years. Why else would the National Party have ...
‘Good Economics for Hard Times’ should be on your reading list. New Zealand does not have a Minister of Labour. It has Ministers of Immigration and Workplace Relations and Safety but there is no minister with responsibility for the labour market. That responsibility was abolished in 2012 when ...
Back in the Kyoto era, the international climate change regime included a Clean Development Mechanism to fund emissions reduction projects in developing nations. Essentially someone would certify that a project - e.g. building a windfarm, or installing energy-efficient lightbulbs - would reduce emissions over and above "business-as-usual". The project would ...
Claire Breen, University of WaikatoWith COVID-19 vaccine developers reporting promising results, it is probable we will one day face a major public health question: can the government compel New Zealanders to be vaccinated? Just as inevitably, some people will refuse a vaccine. As we have seen overseas with debates ...
As the classic MMP cartoon goes, just look at who is against it. Yesterday, the Hamilton City Council voted to use STV for its next two local body elections. The move was initially opposed by deputy mayor Geoff Taylor. The reason? Because a voting system which provided accurate representation and ...
On Wednesday evening (which in Parliament’s weird world technically was still Tuesday because urgency had been taken and so time stood still), MPs united to remove a pretty terrible piece of law from our statute books. No real fanfare or fireworks accompanied this action. Indeed, I didn’t even know about it ...
By Geoffrey Miller Prominent refugee advocate Murdoch Stephens says he is disappointed by Judith Collins’ reaction to Immigration New Zealand’s decision to grant refugee status to Kurdish-Iranian writer Behrouz Boochani. Judith Collins told media last month that “there’s a lot of concern in New Zealand about what they see as ...
Hello all. Judith here to talk about how National are going to take the election in September. The National Party prides itself its unity and cohesion. We are working together to deliver for New Zealanders. First of all, ee are a strong team. We are a very strong team. Our ...
Parliament has just begun the adjournment debate, signalling the effective end of this Parliament. So it seems like an appropriate time to assess Labour's term in office. Unfortunately, its a pretty dismal assessment. Labour campaigned on one thing: change. Not just a change in who got the top jobs and ...
Our climate change policies are insufficient to achieve our goal of carbon neutrality by 2050, according to independent assessor Climate Action Tracker: New Zealand won’t be carbon neutral by 2050 without much stronger policies, says an independent analysis by Climate Action Tracker. The non-profit highlighted a lack of active ...
That was clearly a huge explosion. Just after the explosion, we see a cloud of ‘fog’ moving outwards at high speed. This is a shockwave, rather similar to that which causes a sonic boom. The ‘fog’ is caused by water condensing from the atmosphere in areas of intense low pressure ...
Can we postpone this year’s election? Quite frankly, the political parties don’t seem ready for it, and aren’t about to offer voters the necessary policy choices for the unprecedented times we’re in. We’ve ended up with a campaign focused on scandal, personality and leadership, with a policy void that’s worse ...
It is the last sitting day of Parliament, and the last question time before the House is dissolved. So, are there any questions about the damning findings of the Hit and Run inquiry, and how the government plans to bring the military back under democratic control? Of course not. ...
Property speculator - John KeyThe National Party must be in dire straits to have to rely on John Key to campaign on their behalf. Not only has the former PM been in the news claiming the recently released unemployment figures aren’t accurate, the fool has also been promoting the opening ...
Nothing Too Drastic: Few would dispute that the Left, today, are few in number. Is their failure to make the public aware of and act upon the manifest failures of the present system attributable to their lack of active energy and intelligence? Or, is it simply because the Left’s ideas ...
by Don Franks This talk was given to the Wellington Anti Capitalist Alliance, fifteen years ago. The ultimate weapons of mass destruction so far seen on this planet have been used just twice, 60 years ago this month. August 6 and August 9 1945 witnessed the US atomic bombing ...
After I noticed that my name had been taken yet again in vain by my friendly antagonist Tom Hunter over at No Minister, I went over to see what the fuss was about. Nothing much, but then I discovered a post about the Operation Burnham Inquiry by Psycho Milt. I ...
The COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 was extended today, until December 1st or the tenth sitting day following the resumption of Parliament after the election. It seems like a necessary extension. While we currently have eradicated the virus in New Zealand, it is still banging at the door, and ...
One of the government's key policies - extracted by NZ First as part of its coalition agreement - is the "Provincial Growth Fund": $1 billion a year spent on creating jobs in rural New Zealand. Yesterday the Auditor-General issued a report on the fund, finding that it lacks transparency, and ...
The Warehouse, one of New Zealand's biggest retailers, has decided to stop selling coal. Good. Coal is a dirty, polluting fossil fuel, and the less of it we have out there, the better. Retailers choosing not to sell it sends a clear message that this is not a fuel we ...
The labour market statistics have been released, and they show that unemployment actually dropped last quarter. All told, there are 111,000 unemployed - 15,000 fewer than when the government took office. But before anyone thinks that the pandemic hasn't put people out of work, remember that this is for ...
Judy KavanaghI’m OK with wearing a CovidCard. But are you? There’s no point me doing it alone.The author modelling a (fake) CovidCard. I didn’t know much about the CovidCard proposal until I read Dave’s latest blog post. You would wear the card visibly on your person. It ...
Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nzWhy can’t I use the battery from my electric car ...
As many good things come in threes (as the saying goes), we are happy to announce a third partnership between Skeptical Science and other websites. Fakebook.eco in Brazil is joining Klimafakten.de in Germany and Nauka o Klimacie in Poland to leverage translated rebuttal material and to make the information readily available in other ...
This interview on RNZ with Ross Tucker, the scientist who headed a review of transgender athletes playing in women’s rugby, discusses the findings of the review and what it means for women in sports. The review that World Rugby undertook had a broad range of independent experts and included a ...
Siouxsie WilesThe restrictions in place for metropolitan Melbourne now are in some ways stricter than those that were in force during New Zealand’s COVID-19 lockdown. A curfew is in place and most people have to wear masks when they leave their home – neither of which happened in New ...
On Friday the Hit and Run inquiry delivered a devastating report which found that NZDF had systematically misled Ministers over civilian deaths. The report called into question civilian control of the military (and indeed, military control of the military), a fundamental principle of our democracy. So you'd expect our politicians ...
Let's Do This Again: What else can Jacinda do in a political environment so bereft of imagination and courage but seek a continuance? If she trades upon the extraordinary personal qualities that she has, miraculously, carried with her into the office of Prime Minister, then I, for one, will offer ...
How corrupt are the New Zealand Police? This corrupt: On 10 February 2019, Police attended a family harm incident. The suspect attempted to run the attending officers over in a driveway with his car, narrowly missing them, before fleeing the scene. A short pursuit followed, ending when the suspect stopped ...
Parliament's triennial Review of Standing Orders was released today, and it contains a number of welcome, if minor, improvements. The ones that caught my are: A move to encourage "pre-legislative engagement" - the government consulting widely on legislation before it is introduced - by promising easier passage (e.g. with ...
The Auckland region moved to Alert Level 3 on 12 noon on Wednesday 12 August. The rest of New Zealand moved to Alert Level 2. Visit covid19.govt.nz for the latest information on alert levels, including an overview of restrictions in your area. ...
It's campaign time! The official countdown to Election Day is underway, with Labour supporters crowding into Auckland's Town Hall for our 2020 Campaign Launch. We recap some of the highlights below ...
It's campaign time! The official countdown to Election Day is underway, with Labour supporters crowding into Auckland's Town Hall for our 2020 Campaign Launch. We recap some of the highlights below ...
We've announced that we will expand the Flexi-wage programme to support up to 40,000 more people into work, or to help them start their own business. It's yet another way we're helping keep our economy moving by getting people into work and training. Read on to find out more ...
Business subsidy of on average $7500, and up to $22,000, to hire unemployed New ZealandersUp to 40,000 jobs to be supported by $311 million investment in keeping New Zealanders off the unemployment benefitRing-fenced fund to help unemployed start their own business ...
This week was the last of the 52nd Parliament: a major milestone for our Government and a great opportunity to look back at all the progress we've made for New Zealanders. This week, we increased support for businesses to take on apprentices, improved access to hospital care in Northland, and ...
Kia orana and kia ora koutou katoa. It is a privilege to be able to speak in this adjournment debate and to mark and acknowledge the fact that we are now two years and 10 months into the conclusion of a parliamentary term that has been extraordinary in so many ...
On 1 August, we marked the anniversary of Jacinda Ardern becoming the Leader of the Labour Party. On that day in 2017, Leader Andrew Little nominated Jacinda Ardern to succeed him and lead the party to victory.Now, three years on, we look back at some of the key moments ...
With the June 2020 quarter showing underemployment increasing, the Green Party is calling for a Guaranteed Minimum Income and an increase to the abatement threshold to ensure everyone has a dignified income. ...
We went hard and we went early in our health response to COVID-19, and we did everything we could to cushion the economic impact too. In fact, we can fill every letter of the alphabet with the steps we took to fight COVID-19 and ensure we were in a position ...
Investing in our people, backing businesses, and upgrading infrastructure and housing throughout the country - it's been another week of progress for New Zealanders as we deliver our plan to recover and rebuild. ...
July was another busy month, packed with key investments aimed at progressing our economic recovery as we rebuild New Zealand. We extended support for businesses, helped create jobs through local infrastructure projects, and kept working to clean up our waterways so Kiwis can access safe clean water. Check out the ...
The Green Party is calling for the Defence Force Chiefs in place between 2010-2017 to front up and explain how dishonesty, process and policy failures within the Defence Force led to ‘a series of incorrect statements in briefings to ministers and public releases’ regarding alleged breaches of international torture prevention ...
Thanks to our strong health response, New Zealand’s economy is more open than many other countries. But as COVID continues to surge around the world, the economic consequences of the virus will continue to be a challenge, which is why we have a detailed plan to help New Zealand bounce ...
Thanks to our strong health response, New Zealand’s economy is more open than many other countries. But as COVID continues to surge around the world, the economic consequences of the virus will continue to be a challenge, which is why we have a detailed plan to help New Zealand bounce ...
The Government is stepping up action to deal with environmentally harmful products – including plastic packaging, tyres and e-waste – before they become waste. ...
The Green Party are ensuring that New Zealanders who were overseas when COVID-19 hit will not be charged for the cost of isolation or quarantine if they return home to live. ...
It's been another week of creating jobs, supporting local businesses, and investing in infrastructure up and down the country - all of which are helping to keep our economy moving post-COVID-19. ...
Following the success of the phase out of single-use plastic shopping bags, the Government now has plans to phase out more single-use and problem plastics to reduce waste and protect the environment announced Associate Minister for the Environment Eugenie Sage. The proposals are to phase-out: some hard-to-recycle PVC and polystyrene ...
After 102 days we have our first cases of Covid-19 outside of a Managed Isolation or Quarantine facility in New Zealand. Shortly I will ask Dr Bloomfield to set out the details of the case. While we have all worked incredibly hard to prevent this scenario, we have also planned ...
An iwi-Crown approach programme to restore the Raukūmara forest on the East Coast of the North Island and boost employment opportunities for whānau, particularly rangatahi/young people, will receive $34 million funding, Minister of Conservation Eugenie Sage has announced. “Raukūmara Pae Maunga is a partnership with Te Whānau-ā-Apanui, Ngāti Porou, and ...
Government agencies and partners are working closer together to provide more Māori Housing through the Te MAIHI o te Whare Māori – the Māori and Iwi Housing Innovation Framework for Action (MAIHI). MAIHI is a kaupapa Māori approach that drives a system change to give effect and impact on Māori ...
Site work is soon to begin on Te Ahu a Turanga: Manawatū Tararua Highway, the project to replace the former SH3 route through the Manawatū Gorge, Transport Minister Phil Twyford said today. Phil Twyford was today in Woodville at the signing of a formal agreement by members of the Alliance ...
The Pacific Islands Forum Economic Ministers Meeting (FEMM) begins today and will focus on the major economic and social impacts of COVID-19 on the Pacific. FEMM is an important congregation of Economic Ministers and senior officials from around the region, and for the first time, the annual meeting will be ...
Cabinet has approved a formal apology and ex gratia payment to former soldier George Nepata, announced Defence Minister Ron Mark. This payment is to recognise the New Zealand Defence Force’s failure to provide Mr Nepata with a safe system of work in April 1989 when, as a result of an ...
A report undertaken by Ministerial Services into Iain Lees-Galloway’s ministerial expenditure has found no evidence of any inappropriate transactions or spending. Ministerial Services undertook a line by line review of all his expenditure, including staff and spouse expenses for the period 1 January 2019 to 30 June 2020. “I commissioned ...
Managed isolation charges for returnees will come into force from 12.01am Tuesday 11th August, after they passed their last cabinet milestone today, Housing Minister Megan Woods said. “The new charging system balances the rights of New Zealanders to return home and helps reduce pressure on the managed isolation and quarantine ...
The Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern and the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands Henry Puna have welcomed the completion of phase one in the establishment of a travel bubble between New Zealand and the Cook Island. Negotiations on the text of an ‘Arrangement to Facilitate Quarantine-Free Travel ...
The Government has launched a new online, phone and onsite service to help New Zealanders connect to a range of employment support and products for workers and businesses affected by COVID-19, announced Minister of Education Chris Hipkins and Minister for Social Development Carmel Sepuloni. Connected.govt.nz is a one-stop-shop for jobseekers, ...
Security guards contracted to the Ministry of Social Development will be paid at least the Living Wage from next month supporting the Government’s commitment towards fair pay and employment conditions, announced Minister for Social Development Carmel Sepuloni. “MSD was among the first government agencies to pay its employees the living ...
The Minister of Conservation Eugenie Sage today launched Te Mana o te Taiao, the Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy - a way forward that envisions Aotearoa New Zealand as a place where ecosystems are healthy and resilient, and people embrace the natural world. “Many of New Zealand’s plants and wildlife species ...
“Pacific languages, cultures and identity are essential to the health, wellbeing and lifetime success of our Pacific peoples and their communities in Aotearoa. The strength and resilience of Pacific Aotearoa is not only vital to their own prosperity but integral to the prosperity of all New Zealanders, and is particularly ...
· $38 million to help schools cover unexpected costs related to COVID-19 · $69 million upgrade for online learning · $107 million contingency funding to support school construction suppliers facing additional costs due to the lockdown. The Government is releasing $214 million from the COVID-19 response and recovery fund to ...
Despite the Government installing safety upgrades around the country, people should still take care around rail crossings, said Transport Minister Phil Twyford launching Rail Safety Week. Phil Twyford said installing safety infrastructure is crucial, but we are encouraging people to be more careful around trains too. “We’re making good progress ...
The Government is providing a cash injection to help Palmerston North City Council complete a programme to provide 78 social housing units for vulnerable tenants. The $4.7 million to build 28 units in the Papaioea Place redevelopment comes from the $3 billion set aside for infrastructure in the Government’s COVID-19 ...
A pest free Banks Peninsula/Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū is one step closer with a $5.11 million boost to accelerate this project and create jobs, announced Conservation Minister Eugenie Sage in Canterbury today. “This is a game changer for this ambitious project to restore the native wildlife and plants on Ōtautahi/Christchurch’s doorstep ...
A Government grant of $6.4 million will expand the Pettigrew Arena in Taradale with new indoor courts of national standard. “The project is likely to take 18 months with approximately 300 people employed through the process,” Grant Robertson said. “The expansion will increase the indoor court space up to 11 ...
The Far North tourist destination of Mangonui is to receive Government funding to improve waterfront infrastructure, open up access to the harbour and improve water quality, Infrastructure Minister Shane Jones has announced. A total of $6.5 million from the $3 billion set aside in the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund ...
The Government has re-affirmed its commitment to supporting the hosting of the ICC Women’s Cricket World Cup, which the ICC has delayed from 2021 to 2022. “This is obviously a disappointing decision for cricket players and fans around the world and for the White Ferns and their supporters here at ...
Cyclists and walkers will now have a safer way to get around Taupō, Tūrangi, and between Hamilton and Cambridge, with funding for shared paths and Te Awa River Ride, Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter announced today. “The Te Awa River Ride is the latest part of massive growth ...
Six major cycle routes will be completed in Christchurch thanks to funding from the Government’s investment in shovel-ready infrastructure as part of the COVID-19 recovery Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter announced today. $125 million will be invested to kick-start construction and fund the completion of the following cycleway ...
Plans are underway for a brand new state-of-the-art hub for Whanganui’s justice and social agencies, following confirmation the ageing Whanganui Central Police Station is to be replaced. Police Minister Stuart Nash has announced $25 million in new infrastructure spending to improve facilities for the wider community, and for staff who ...
An adjustment payment has been made to Waikato-Tainui and Ngāi Tahu under the relativity mechanisms in their 1995 and 1997 Treaty of Waitangi settlements, Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Andrew Little announced today. The latest payments to Waikato-Tainui and Ngāi Tahu are $2,700,000 and $2,600,000 respectively to ensure the ...
Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters and Transport Minister Phil Twyford today kicked off the start of the Auckland NZ Upgrade Programme rail projects which will support over 400 jobs and help unlock our biggest city. Both ministers marked the start of enabling works on the third main rail line project ...
The Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) investment of $3.78 million in Wairoa will create much needed economic stimulus and jobs, Under-Secretary for Regional Economic Development Fletcher Tabuteau announced today. PGF projects announced today include: $200,000 loan to Nuhaka Kiwifruit Holdings Ltd (operated by Pine Valley Orchard Ltd) to increase the productivity ...
Tenants in public and Māori housing may be benefiting from their own affordable renewable energy in future – a fund to trial renewable energy technology for public and Māori housing has today been announced by Energy and Resources Minister Megan Woods and Associate Minister for Housing (Māori Housing) Nanaia Mahuta. ...
Hokianga will receive $2.7 million to redevelop four of its wharves and upgrade its water supply, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones has announced. Far North District Council will receive $1.8 million from the Provincial Growth Fund for the work on the wharves. “The work will include the construction of ...
A $350 million Residential Development Response Fund is being established to support the residential construction sector and to minimise the economic impact from COVID-19, the Housing Minister Dr Megan Woods has announced. “The Residential Development Response Fund will help to progress stalled or at-risk developments that support our broader housing ...
As part of a broader plan to divert waste from landfill, the Government today announced $10.67 million for new infrastructure as part of the Resource Recovery Network across the Auckland region. “This key investment in Auckland’s community recycling network is part of the Government’s Infrastructure Reference Group ‘shovel ready’ projects ...
The Government is investing $45 million in the first stage of an ambitious urban development project for Tauranga that will employ up to 250 people and help the region grow, Urban Development Minister Phil Twyford announced today. Phil Twyford says the funding has been allocated out of the $3 billion ...
Getting low-emission trucks on the road is a step closer with investment in infrastructure to support hydrogen vehicles, the Energy and Resources Minister Megan Woods has announced. The Infrastructure Reference Group has provisionally approved $20 million for New Plymouth company Hiringa Energy to establish a nationwide network of hydrogen-fuelling stations. ...
A new trades training centre to upskill the local workforce will be built in the South Waikato town of Tokoroa through funding from the Government’s COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund, Education Minister Chris Hipkins and Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones have announced. The Government will contribute $10.84 million from ...
The Government has agreed to repeal part of the Oranga Tamariki Act subsequent children provisions, Minister for Children Tracey Martin announced today. “There are times when children need to go into care for their safety – the safety and care of children must always be paramount,” Minister Martin said. “But ...
A $1.5 million boost to grow primary mental health and addiction services for Pacific peoples in Auckland, Hamilton and Canterbury will lead to better outcomes for Pacific communities, Associate Health Minister Jenny Salesa says. Pasifika Futures has received funding to expand services through The Fono, Aotearoa New Zealand’s largest by ...
Twenty-two projects to boost the sustainability and climate resilience of New Zealand’s food and fibres sector have been announced today by Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor. The $18m funding will deliver practical knowledge to help farmers and growers use their land more sustainably, meet environmental targets, remain prosperous, and better understand ...
Employment Minister Willie Jackson welcomes an initiative that assists employers to get mature workers into New Zealand small businesses. The disadvantages that older people face in the workplace was highlighted in the whole of Government Employment Strategy. In order to address this, a Mature Workers Toolkit has been developed and ...
New Zealand and Australia reaffirmed today the need for the closest possible collaboration as they tackle a global environment shaped by COVID-19, Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters said. “In these challenging times, our close collaboration with Australia is more vital than ever,” said Mr Peters. Mr Peters and his Australian ...
The recovery and forensic examination of the loader driven by survivor Russell Smith means the underground team are now moving into an area of the Pike River Mine that has not been seen since the explosion, Minister Responsible for Pike River Re-entry Andrew Little said. “The fifth and last robot ...
“Your post goes against our community standards on nudity or sexual activity” was the terse message that Professor David Robie, director of the Auckland-based Pacific Media Centre, RSF’s Oceania partner, received from Facebook whenever he tried to share an article about press freedom in Melanesia, especially the Indonesian provinces of ...
And is he about to launch a coup against Judith Collins? Just asking questions here.Jacindamania was meek by comparison. Just as Ardern captured a nation from the role of deputy leader of the opposition in 2017, so it is with Gerry Brownlee in 2020. Relentless grouchy, Gerrymania is in full ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kylie Quinn, Vice-Chancellor’s Research Fellow, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University On Tuesday, Vladimir Putin announced Russia was the first country to register a vaccine offering “sustainable immunity” against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Developed by the Gamaleya Research ...
Power Play - Warnings another outbreak was bound to happen were not enough to prepare New Zealanders for the shock of seeing the country's largest city put back into level 3 lockdown. ...
Power Play - Warnings another outbreak was bound to happen were not enough to prepare New Zealanders for the shock of seeing the country's largest city put back into level 3 lockdown. ...
At lunchtime yesterday, Jacinda Ardern was easing into full campaign mode on the main street of Whanganui. Just a few hours later, news from Auckland turned her plans, and an election campaign, on its head. Justin Giovannetti reports from Whanganui and Wellington.Jacinda Ardern’s first day on the campaign trail outside ...
One bright spot amid the grimness of the Covid resurgence: the return of our series of charts, graphics and data visualisations of the pandemic by Chris McDowall.Over one hundred days, Covid-19 slowly slipped from my attention. I was aware of new cases reaching Aotearoa’s border, managed isolation breaches, relapses in ...
By RNZ News QR app codes are now mandatory for businesses and services, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield have revealed, as they announced new covid-19 cases in New Zealand. Dr Bloomfield said there was just one new confirmed case in managed isolation recorded today, ...
Justin Latif takes the temperature of his community in South Auckland, ground zero for the latest Covid-19 outbreak.Following the prime minister’s announcement on Tuesday evening, my messenger app began pinging with pictures and videos of people at the supermarket. But it wasn’t panic buying that I was seeing, rather there ...
Odessa To’o on Selina Tusitala Marsh’s picture book Mophead, which was just named the Margaret Mahy Book of the Year. I almost didn’t read this book because of the title. Mophead. Instantly recognisable as an insult for anyone with big hair, even though I’ve never been called it myself. The kids ...
Announcing the winners of the 2020 New Zealand Book Awards for Children and Young Adults. The supreme prize of the night, the Margaret Mahy Book of the Year Award, goes to Selina Tusitala Marsh for her super-personal picture book, Mophead.Mophead is memoir and clapback and wild doodle; it’s the story of ...
Pacific Media Centre Newsdesk Human rights activist and lawyer Veronica Koman says the Indonesian government has asked her to return scholarship money amounting to 773 million rupiah (about US$70,000) which she received to undergo her master’s degree in Australia in 2016, reports CNN Indonesia. According to Vero – as she ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC Principal Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW With mask wearing in public compulsory in Victoria and recommended in New South Wales, many Australians are buying, wearing or making face masks for the ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bruce Webber, Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO Scientists have been interested in the flora of New Guinea since the 17th century, but formal knowledge of the tropical island’s diversity has remained limited. To solve this mystery, our global team of 99 scientists from ...
Photographers John Sefton, in Auckland, and Lynn Grieveson in Wellington watched the return of Level 3 lockdown and Level 2 restrictions on Wednesday, a day of masks, businesses shutting or setting themselves up for limited access, supermarket queues and people exercising their relative freedoms. As the clock ticked down, Bunnings ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Taylor, Teaching Fellow, Bond University The Melbourne International Film Festival is currently running online, but one movie announced at their program launch won’t be streaming. At the end of July, Sandra Wollner’s The Trouble With Being Born was withdrawn after the ...
Director-General of Health Ashley Bloomfield says the Government will sequence the genomes of yesterday's four Covid-19 cases to help identify how the outbreak started. What does that mean? New Zealand has found itself suddenly plunged into a dire situation: Four new cases of Covid-19 in the community with no obvious link ...
Several of National's sitting MPs have been allocated list rankings from which it will be difficult or near impossible for them to gain re-election. ...
Are you trying to wander the world with your government recommended mask while wearing glasses, but can’t stop them from fogging up? Don’t worry, we’re here to help.Today, Jacinda Ardern said that Aucklanders should wear a mask (or a face covering of some kind) when they leave the house. But ...
Responding to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s decision to expand its Large Scale Asset Purchase programme from $60 billion to $100 billion, New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union Economic Advisor Karan Menon says: “ The Reserve Bank has just announced ...
As New Zealand braces for a return to lockdown, and parts of Australia wrestle with a recent surge in case numbers, a new study shows how we can do better in the COVID-enforced work from home (EWFH) experience. The study, by researchers at Auckland University ...
Last night Jacinda Ardern and Ashley Bloomfield announced four cases of Covid-19 in the community. Within hours the online community transmission of dumb takes was going like wildfire. It didn’t take long did it? Before the anti-Covid God squad shit the bed and started screeching about how they’ll never wear a ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Geddis, Professor of Law, University of Otago The return of COVID-19 community transmission, with Auckland back in a level 3 lockdown and the rest of New Zealand at level 2, raises real questions about New Zealand’s upcoming general election. Polling day ...
Along with heightened alert levels, New Zealand has a new advisory on masks: Aucklanders should wear a face covering when outside the home, and the rest of us have been advised to wear one when in a confined public space, such as on public transport. But what kind of mask ...
As the Government mulls how the latest Covid-19 cases might affect the September 19 election, party leaders are stepping forward with their own opinions about how the news changes the campaign Political leaders have sparred over the impact of new Covid-19 community cases on the upcoming election, with claims Prime ...
The House - The dissolution of Parliament has been postponed following the discovery of Covid-19 cases in the community. What is dissolution and why is it important? ...
The Council of Trade Unions is reminding employers of their responsibilities to employees as we return to alert levels 2 and 3. "Employers need to remember that they must act in good faith with employees and their unions. Most employers ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Norberg, Associate Professor in Psychology, Macquarie University As COVID-19 quarantines and lockdowns drive up psychological distress, many people have increased their screen time, including online shopping, to cope. Like alcohol use — or overeating, watching TV or surfing the internet — ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Giselle Bastin, Associate Professor of English, Flinders University Finding Freedom was published on August 11.HarperCollins Publishers A new book about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is generating sensational headlines about their private life, defiance of Queen Elizabeth and how Prince ...
By The Bougainvillean Bougainville is heading to the polls today amid its first case of the covid-19 in thefourth general election of Papua New Guinea’s autonomous region since 2001. While this election is critically important in the region’s push for independence from mainland PNG, it comes at a time when ...
This week, Taranaki locals stumbled across a pit full of dead dairy calves, dumped on public land nearby a waterway. Graphic images of the scene were shared with SAFE. SAFE CEO Debra Ashton says the horrific images are the reality of the dairy industry. ...
The Health Quality & Safety Commission is the latest signatory of the government Accessibility Charter - a commitment to providing accessible information and online tools to all disabled people. The charter, launched by the Ministry of Social Development ...
As Alert Level 3 restrictions come in place, please keep in mind those people who can’t leave their homes to shop or who might need help with their shopping. Do you have a neighbour you could check in with and drop items off to? Can you free ...
Tēnā koutou katoa, welcome all. The Monetary Policy Committee agreed to expand the Large Scale Asset Purchase (LSAP) programme up to $100 billion so as to further lower retail interest rates in order to achieve its remit. The eligible assets remain ...
“Today’s announcement by Associate Minister for the Environment, Eugenie Sage, to ban seven single-use plastic items is an important step in addressing plastic pollution,” says Donna Peterson, Chair of the WasteMINZ Behaviour Change Sector ...
Our Seas Our Future welcomes today’s Government’s announcement by Minister Sage of a plan to phase out more single-use and problem plastics to reduce waste and protect the environment. Our Seas Our Future Founder, Noel Jhinku, says, ...
Auckland is now at alert level three and the rest of New Zealand has moved to level two. Here’s what you need to know about what’s happened so far. Last night, the prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, and the deputy general of health, Ashley Bloomfield, announced that four people in one ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bryan Cranston, Academic Teacher, Swinburne University of Technology Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has announced Kamala Harris as his running mate for the 2020 election — the first woman of colour to appear on a major party ticket. On the 100th anniversary ...
Latest from the Beehive While the PM has declared a renewal of the war against Covid-19 and activated the government’s resurgence plan (watch this space for more), the Greens’ Eugenie Sage is stepping up the war on plastics. The phase out of single-use plastic shopping bags had been successful, she ...
People calling New Zealand’s covid-19 healthline were facing long waits on hold today as the phone line struggles with high demand as the largest city of Auckland was poised for a three-day lockdown. This follows Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s announcement last night of four positive cases of covid-19 outside ...
What do they do? Do I really need one? And how much do they cost? Gillian Boyes from the Financial Markets Authority breaks down the basics.When it comes to important money decisions, having someone to help can make a big difference.A financial adviser can be your money coach – they ...
The September 19 election could yet be delayed, with Parliament's dissolution put on hold as health officials track the movements of our new Covid-19 cases - including one woman who visited tourist sites in Rotorua The dissolution of Parliament has been delayed after the re-emergence of Covid-19 in the community, with the Government seeking ...
In this year’s election, a party is offering a new economic model. That party is the Progressive Party and Bruce Dyer who is both its leader and Nelson candidate, said “Both Jim Bolger when interviewed for the 9th Floor TV series and Edmund Hilary ...
Visiting a brothel for the new series of Bad News helps convince Alice Snedden that sex work should be available to everyone.Beyond my teenage obsession with the movie Pretty Woman, my knowledge of the sex work industry has always been extremely limited. Like a lot of people I saw it ...
We have a caretaker government in the middle of an election campaign. Māori Party Co-Leader John Tamihere is calling on Jacinda Ardern to be up front and honest about the latest Covid community outbreak so we can all be part of the team. Level 3 lockdown ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Plank, Professor in Mathematics, University of Canterbury Auckland, and possibly other parts of New Zealand, almost certainly have more cases of COVID-19 in the community than the four new cases confirmed yesterday. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern activated a resurgence plan late ...
The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union is urging the Prime Minister to recommend that the Governor-General delay the dissolution of Parliament. Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Islay Aitchison says, "Given the considerable uncertainty regarding ...
The Māori Affairs Committee has completed its inquiry into health inequities for Māori and has presented its final report. You can read the committee’s report here . The inquiry was initiated in March 2019 and focused on cancer care. It explored ...
Back in March 17th 2020 - WHO (world health Organisation) warned the global community test, test, test, everyone suspected of COVID 19 virus infections, today our senior epidemiologist James Baker advised to test multiple times, as he states that some ...
Today at noon, Auckland moves into alert level three while the rest of New Zealand moves into alert level two. Here’s how it will affect businesses and what you can do to help.Three days at a higher alert level may not seem like much, but for many fragile businesses still ...
Greenpeace is welcoming the Government’s announcement today of a plan to phase out more single-use plastics, but is calling for the ban to cover a wider range of products, including plastic drink bottles. "The world is drowning in plastic ...
Takeaway Throwaways applauds this morning’s announcement by Associate Minister Eugenie Sage, proposing phase-outs of a wide range of single-use plastics. Items targeted include multiple serviceware products - from bowls, plates, straws, stirrers, ...
John Bolton’s book on his time as Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser – The Room Where it Happened – is worth reading. His forensic training means he sets out clearly his own actions and their motivations. His recording of the responses of others appears scrupulous, albeit disputed. Failings of omission or ...
Parliament is scheduled to be dissolved today for an election on September 19. University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis runs through how and under what circumstances the election will happen – or be delayed.No matter how, Covid-19 is now back in the community. How widespread, and with what consequences, ...
ACT Leader David Seymour wrote to the Speaker last night asking him to postpone the dissolution of Parliament. "Mr Speaker, Terrible news tonight. It occurs to me that Parliament does not need to dissolve before the election. I strongly urge ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jason Weismueller, Doctoral Researcher, University of Western Australia In February, major social media platforms attended a meeting hosted by the World Health Organisation to address coronavirus misinformation. The aim was to catalyse the fight against what the United Nations has called an ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Salisbury, Research Associate, School of Political Science & International Studies, The University of Queensland Government responses to COVID-19 in Australia have received, by and large, bipartisan support. An exception, it seems, is the imposition of restrictions on interstate movement. State borders ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hoffmann, Professor of Economics and Chair of Behavioural Business Lab, RMIT University Fingers have been pointing all over the place as the country searches for answers to the stubbornly high coronavirus cases and rising death rates in Victoria. While Victorian Premier ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ali Lakhani, Senior Lecturer in Public Health, La Trobe University Under the stage 4 restrictions enforced throughout metropolitan Melbourne, residents can exercise for one hour each day, within five kilometres of their home. While such restrictions are necessary to reduce the spread ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Wilkins, Associate Professor of illegal drug research, Massey University The referendum on legalising recreational cannabis use is just over a month away. Campaigns for and against the change are well under way. We’ve had expert reports from the Helen Clark Foundation, ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fernanda Alves, PhD student, Australian National University Saving endangered species from extinction is a challenging job. It requires creative, affordable and effective interventions. In a rare good news story for conservation, we came up with one such method. We want to save ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Krumdieck, Professor and Director, Advanced Energy and Material Systems Lab, University of Canterbury CC BY-NDClimate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.If you have ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Barry Oliver, Associate Professor, The University of Queensland Insider trading comes in two main forms: arguably legal and clearly illegal. But, as with drugs in sport, it’s hard to tell when arguably legal ends and clearly illegal begins. It is generally accepted ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frances Di Lauro, Senior Lecturer, Department of Writing Studies, University of Sydney In the year then of our Lord 1348, there happened at Florence, the finest city in all Italy, a most terrible plague… Giovanni Boccaccio introduces his acclaimed collection ...
"The Government must share open, transparent data," according to ACT Leader David Seymour "Prime Minister has stated she knew of a Family with COVID-19 at 4pm on Tuesday afternoon. A simple question is whether the four people were all ...
Welcome to The Spinoff’s Live Updates for August 12, bringing you the latest on New Zealand news and Covid-19 as it returns to the community. Get me on Stewart@thespinoff.co.nz7.00am: What you need to know Auckland has four new cases of Covid-19 – all in the community. There is no ...
Good morning and welcome to The Bulletin. In today’s edition: Resurgence plan triggered by Covid-19 community transmission, questions about what it will mean for the election, and Christchurch rest home lockdown appears to be unrelated.The first new cases of Covid-19 outside of managed isolation have been announced, triggering a resurgence ...
The only Kiwi woman to win an Olympic medal in swimming, Jean Hurring, has passed away in her 90th year. She was gentle and generous, teaching countless New Zealanders how to swim - but had a formidable, determined streak. Jean Hurring will be remembered as a kind, gentle and humble woman ...
Trade Me, New Zealand's largest online auction and classifieds market, had already integrated its core software tools into the Slack collaboration platform before Covid-19 hit, and saw the true value of that when it shifted seamlessly to remote working under lockdown. Paolo Ragone, chief technology officer for Trade Me, told Newsroom the ...
About that mandate 
The Right would have us believe that the election was a referendum on asset sales and nothing else. Well, let’s take a closer look at the results of that ‘referendum’. Yeah, there’s no mandate there.
INT: ILAM ELECTORATE OFFICES – TUESDAY GERRY: Morning everybody. ADVISORS 1, 2, AND 3: Morning Gerry. GERRY: Now… this is a bit of a crisis meeting. Several rogue polls have come out putting the National Party on or around 40% ADVISOR 2: 26? ADVISOR 1: 12? ADVISOR 3: 29? GERRY: ...7 hours ago
What's National's first move under lockdown? Call for elections to be delayed: National leader Judith Collins is demanding Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern delay the September election after the discovery of Covid-19 community transmission cases in Auckland. A clearly frustrated Collins on Wednesday afternoon said she was directly asking Ardern ...7 hours ago
Respecting the journal editorial process Each week we scan between 450 and 650 articles for relevance to Skeptical Science's remit: communication of the science of climate change itself the many affected branches of scientific inquiry by climate change. The 100+ journals we cover encompass a galaxy of expertise we cannot ...7 hours ago
You may have heard that there were queues at the supermarket last night, and again this morning. This will probably carry on for a while, even though it’s clear that supermarkets and other essential outlets and services will remain open and stocked throughout Alert Level 3 (and Alert Level 4, ...8 hours ago
Today’s content Community transmission Ben Thomas (Spinoff): What the Covid resurgence means for the election campaign Luke Malpass (Stuff): In this new lockdown, Labour competence will be key Sam Sachdeva (Newsroom): NZ’s bubble bursts as Covid returns Jason Walls (Herald): ‘Extremely disappointed’: National Party leader Judith Collins blasts Govt; says it let Covid-19 back ...15 hours ago
In the musical Wicked, a re-imagining of The Wizard of Oz, the hit song Defying Gravity comes at the end of the first act and talks of how one woman (who would become the Wicked Witch of the West) breaks from what’s expected to strike off on her own path. ...1 day ago
Accused - Jami-Lee RossNobody would think poorly of you if you wrote former National Party MP Jami-Lee Ross off as just another crackpot! After all, now that he’s hitched his Advance NZ wagon to Billy Te Kahika’s crazy Public Party, there’s little chance of him ever redeeming himself or recovering ...1 day ago
What to do to improve the public perception of the newly elected National party leader, when her performance so far has no doubt disappointed the expectations of her supporters? The answer is to get a National-supporting newspaper (the Herald) to organise a poll that could be guaranteed to provide an ...2 days ago
There are only a few days left to make a submission on Statistics New Zealand's consultation on sex and gender identity statistical standards. This represents a really important step for recognising the very real diversity of gender, including people with no gender, and ensuring everyone has the option to see ...2 days ago
...4 days ago
...4 days ago
From some quarters, incessant scaremongering. From others, it’s a full-on tilt into touching the alarmist buttons a little too readily (uncertain times make for very captive audiences with this angle of attack). The (so-called) Opposition (and merely regarding them as that seems to be a far looser term now ...4 days ago
The attempts to sabotage Corbyn's leadership seems likely to do more damage than Corbyn supposedly ever could have done, even if all the stories about him were true: I was reluctant to say anything but this is too important, the full story needs to be told.Don’t let anyone ever tell ...5 days ago
7 days ago
by Don Franks This talk was given to the Wellington Anti Capitalist Alliance, fifteen years ago. The ultimate weapons of mass destruction so far seen on this planet have been used just twice, 60 years ago this month. August 6 and August 9 1945 witnessed the US atomic bombing ...7 days ago
The Auckland region moved to Alert Level 3 on 12 noon on Wednesday 12 August. The rest of New Zealand moved to Alert Level 2. Visit covid19.govt.nz for the latest information on alert levels, including an overview of restrictions in your area. ...10 hours ago
The Green Party has revealed its Homes for All Plan, which lays the foundation for an Aotearoa where everyone has a warm, dry and affordable home. ...3 days ago
Following the success of the phase out of single-use plastic shopping bags, the Government now has plans to phase out more single-use and problem plastics to reduce waste and protect the environment announced Associate Minister for the Environment Eugenie Sage. The proposals are to phase-out: some hard-to-recycle PVC and polystyrene ...16 hours ago
“Your post goes against our community standards on nudity or sexual activity” was the terse message that Professor David Robie, director of the Auckland-based Pacific Media Centre, RSF’s Oceania partner, received from Facebook whenever he tried to share an article about press freedom in Melanesia, especially the Indonesian provinces of ...55 mins ago
And is he about to launch a coup against Judith Collins? Just asking questions here.Jacindamania was meek by comparison. Just as Ardern captured a nation from the role of deputy leader of the opposition in 2017, so it is with Gerry Brownlee in 2020. Relentless grouchy, Gerrymania is in full ...2 hours ago
Power Play - Warnings another outbreak was bound to happen were not enough to prepare New Zealanders for the shock of seeing the country's largest city put back into level 3 lockdown. ...3 hours ago
...6 hours ago
Photographers John Sefton, in Auckland, and Lynn Grieveson in Wellington watched the return of Level 3 lockdown and Level 2 restrictions on Wednesday, a day of masks, businesses shutting or setting themselves up for limited access, supermarket queues and people exercising their relative freedoms. As the clock ticked down, Bunnings ...7 hours ago
Director-General of Health Ashley Bloomfield says the Government will sequence the genomes of yesterday's four Covid-19 cases to help identify how the outbreak started. What does that mean? New Zealand has found itself suddenly plunged into a dire situation: Four new cases of Covid-19 in the community with no obvious link ...8 hours ago
Several of National's sitting MPs have been allocated list rankings from which it will be difficult or near impossible for them to gain re-election. ...8 hours ago
As the Government mulls how the latest Covid-19 cases might affect the September 19 election, party leaders are stepping forward with their own opinions about how the news changes the campaign Political leaders have sparred over the impact of new Covid-19 community cases on the upcoming election, with claims Prime ...9 hours ago
Latest from the Beehive While the PM has declared a renewal of the war against Covid-19 and activated the government’s resurgence plan (watch this space for more), the Greens’ Eugenie Sage is stepping up the war on plastics. The phase out of single-use plastic shopping bags had been successful, she ...12 hours ago
The September 19 election could yet be delayed, with Parliament's dissolution put on hold as health officials track the movements of our new Covid-19 cases - including one woman who visited tourist sites in Rotorua The dissolution of Parliament has been delayed after the re-emergence of Covid-19 in the community, with the Government seeking ...13 hours ago
John Bolton’s book on his time as Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser – The Room Where it Happened – is worth reading. His forensic training means he sets out clearly his own actions and their motivations. His recording of the responses of others appears scrupulous, albeit disputed. Failings of omission or ...16 hours ago
The only Kiwi woman to win an Olympic medal in swimming, Jean Hurring, has passed away in her 90th year. She was gentle and generous, teaching countless New Zealanders how to swim - but had a formidable, determined streak. Jean Hurring will be remembered as a kind, gentle and humble woman ...19 hours ago
Trade Me, New Zealand's largest online auction and classifieds market, had already integrated its core software tools into the Slack collaboration platform before Covid-19 hit, and saw the true value of that when it shifted seamlessly to remote working under lockdown. Paolo Ragone, chief technology officer for Trade Me, told Newsroom the ...19 hours ago
Check parliament tomorrow to see who has a mandate. Is this “no mandate” claim is a further sign of desperation?
Russel Norman claims Key ‘desperate’ over asset sales.
Except that Key is about to get his policy passed through parliament this week, and Norman is pushing for a referendum for next year. Who’s desperate?
And Greens haven’t made underhand attacks on asset sales using fales information about them?
That’s been so sucessful Norman is trying to extend the debate long after it’s over. And Greens keep trying to claim there is no mandate. Any other signs of who really is desperate?
Nice one Pete.
You argument is basically “we won* you lost, eat that”.
You’ll recognise that phrase from when Cullen supposedly said it to National.
This government, and you, are saying it the electorate though.
The arguments against the CIR amount to nothing more than “we don’t care what you think”.
Is this the new politics you are working towards?
*about that “won” look at the table in the post. 1 seat. that’s the voctory margin.
It’s an open question as to whether or not Dunne would have won his seat, (which gives the govt its majority) without his deal with National. What isn’t an open question though is that both National and Dunne thought the deal was necessary.
There’s your mandate Pete.
awesome.
I’m desperate to stop asset sales.
Nothing to be ashamed of, Pete.
These asset sales will impoverish future generations of NZers PG. Just as we have seen the banks, Telecom, Contact, etc. pump out billions of dollars from NZ annually. While providing goods and services that we could easily provide for ourselves.
That’s why the fight is desperate.
I was trying to have a reply to PG free day, but I have to laugh at his total lack of understanding of what the word democracy means.
Clue. It does not mean that 61, largely, self appointed fools, or thieves, in parliament should be allowed to go against the clearly stated wishes of a majority of New Zealanders.
Pathetic Grovelar the only Man date you have is with your leader.
Yet another day that Pete George cannot go one post without trying to redirect the topic.
The right AND the left said it was a referendum on asset sales. Such short memories you have. Don’t you remember the left claiming a vote for National was a vote for asset sales? The ads Labour ran about how National, if they got in, would sell assets?
Also:
Mandate:
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) Politics the support or commission given to a government and its policies or an elected representative and his policies through an electoral victory
National fits this description. I am against asset sales but National, unfortunately, have the mandate so why focus on this part? Banging on about mandates isn’t going to solve or stop this policy.
Banging on about mandates isn’t going to solve or stop this policy.
Gosh, so authoritative.
Politics is a funny old business. Language, doubly so.
How can you be so certain about that? Because the language offends your narrow and dictionary based understanding of what ‘mandate’ means perhaps/ Do you think everyone share your view on that at an emotional level?
We know that this government has responded in the past to public outcry, even on things where it said it wouldn’t. Mining, education, etc.
Talking about the mandate, does many things. It’s not as simple as you would have it I think. Politics isn’t a scrapbook where citizens are kept safely in those little platic sleeves and attached to acid free paper and handed to parties to keep safely away until the next election campaign. They run about the place thinking, and more importantly; feeling and trusting,
or growing in disgust as the case may be.
The mandate is a living thing in this view. It’s conditional and constantly being tested. This government gave way on issues, in order to protect its ‘political capital’, which is just another phrase for mandate once you think about it. If you think about it with an open mind and analyse politics as a process. It’s not physics, or at least, if it is, it’s not newtonian physics. Not that there’s anything wrong with Newtonian physics, as afr as it goes. But it won’t get you all the way to an understanding of what is going on.
need more tools young man.
I look forward to reading Pascal’s Dictionary of Redefined Terms.
Make sure to include Draco’s redefined definition of dictatorship and autocracy.
As thoughtful a response as ever Contro. But I don’t really care about the Free Dictionary’s definition (2) of mandate. Shocking, I know. I’ll report to the Contrarioans re-education camps immediatly. And upon arrival, I’ll tell them that dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive, and if that don’t like that, they can go pound sand.
But that is quite beside the point you raised and the one I was responding to.
You said that:
“Banging on about mandates isn’t going to solve or stop this policy.”
I don’t think that’s true at all. In fact, I think it’s thoughtless.
I hoped to encourage some thought from you on that, and hear some of those thoughts, especially in light of your post graduate politics study.
Hopefully those studies have given you more to lean on than the Free Dictionary.
But if you’re not up to it. Pay it no mind.
I usually use a dictionary to define terms not “what I think”.
But each to their own.
So you don’t want to explain why you think talking about mandate wan’t achieve anything. Fair enough. If I’d said something so transparently stupid I hope that I’d explain what I actually meant, but it’s differences that make for horse races I guess.
“But each to their own.”
Sure, that’s why you’ve made so many comments about it I guess, it just doesn’t bother you at all.
“So you don’t want to explain why you think talking about mandate wan’t achieve anything.”
Indeed, the argument about whether National has a mandate for this policy won’t help this cause because either side could argue for or against which ties everyone up into a pointless discussion about definition’s, systemic problems with “…rotten boroughs and troughing hairdos.” when a far more powerful and indisputable argument is whether or not it makes economic sense which we all agree it doesn’t.
That’s why I think the discussion about mandate won’t achieve anything. It’s a distraction from the real issues surrounding the economy.
Apart from the fact that the economic argument has already failed. Those numbers aren’t going to change.
The mandate argument might still persuade those National (and UF) MPs who might still want a political career post-2014. After all, it only takes one to scupper the whole thing.
Indeed, the argument about whether National has a mandate for this policy won’t help this cause because either side could argue for or against which ties everyone up into a pointless discussion about definition’s, systemic problems with “…rotten boroughs and troughing hairdos.” when a far more powerful and indisputable argument is whether or not it makes economic sense which we all agree it doesn’t.
I think you’ll find that there are plenty of people out there who do think it makes economic sense, and that they’ll happily provide you with arguments. I disagree with those arguments, as do you, but the existence of those arguments means it isn’t ‘indisputable’ at all.
It’s not that those arguments shouldn’t be made, and it’s good that they are being made. If you prefer those argumenst, have at them. No one is forcing you into these other discussions.
As to why I think the mandate argument is a good one, vto hits on it nicely.
You can’t win political arguments on policy alone. This has been a major problem for the left. They seem to think that if they just spell out their ideas clearly enough, and convince them about policy, they’ll win. It never works out; even when issue polling tells us that clear majorities favour the left’s policies over those of the right. ie, even after the left has one the technocratic debate, they lose the political one.
That’s because people don’t really vote based on policy. Policy plays a role, to be sure, but it doesn’t trump the other issues, like trust, and likeability, and who I’d like to have a beer with, and ‘vision’. These are tricky things. If you talk about them directly, you’re screwed. that’s why you have to get the electorate asking those questions for themselves. You want to get your opponent saying things like ‘I don’t care what you think’, and ‘we won so you have to let us do this thing you don’t want’ and ‘we know better than you’.
Any of those memes wringing bells?
What parties are saying ‘listen to the people’ and which parties are saying ‘shut up’?
Definitions are merely a beginning to communication, and dictionaries are particularly helpful to children still learning the basics of communicating.
You might like to reconsider your opinion on on the use of dictionary meanings after you have read this: http://www.dotrob.com/essays/essay5.html
Basically we give meaning to words by the way we use them. Your use of the word “mandate” is rather restrictive, and certainly not the way it is being used here to describe the will of the majority of the population. There is clear evidence that the majority of New Zealanders are opposed to asset sales of any nature, and the very slim electoral majority won by National and Act and supported in the house by UF, does not actually constitute a mandate from the people, (as evidenced by the number of actual votes cast for each party in the house).
First three dictionaries I tried all listed mandate as some combination of ‘will of the people’ type definitions and ‘command from a higher authority’ type. None of them mentioned winning an election as an example.
Gotta wonder how hard it was fishing through websites to try and dictionary-bash us with that one.
That’s because you are not looking into what constitutes a political mandate, not just the word.
Politics 101 defines a political mandate as the consent to govern given by the people in a general election. If I can find my old uni books I’ll dig it out later tonight.
gots to finds us a definition that means we’s rightses. Silly hobbitses using normal wordsies…
No, gots to find the definition that’s relevant:
Mandate (international law), an obligation handed down by an inter-governmental body
Mandate (criminal law), an official or authoritative command; an order or injunction
Mandate (politics), the power granted by an electorate
Individual mandate, an often controversial government requirement for the purchase of goods by individuals
Contract of mandate – a contract of bailment of goods without reward, to be carried from place to place, or to have some act performed about them.
a mandate is the formal notice of decision from an appeals court
a requirement for a Health maintenance organization to provide a particular product.
Papal mandate – responses of the pope or a Sacred Congregation, in writing, to queries or petitions of individuals.
League of Nations mandates, quasi-colonial territories established under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, 28 June 1919, which included:
French Mandate of Lebanon
British Mandate of Mesopotamia
British Mandate of Palestine
French Mandate of Syria
Mandate (theology), to some Christians, an order from God
Mandate of Heaven, a traditional Chinese concept of legitimacy used to support the rule of the kings of the Shang Dynasty and later the Emperors of China
Mandate (trade union), a trade union in Ireland
@Matthew, enjoy work 🙂
@McFlock – I think it is a long gambit to play that the populace didn’t understand what they were voting/being polled on.
If you want to regress this debate down to the 101 level, tough bikkies. I’m not getting into a dictionary fight with you. Let’s go back to talking like adults, shall we?
A political mandate is retained by the support of the voting public. Note that word I used, “retained”? You don’t just get to have one for three years after winning an election, not if you endorse a democratic system which requires continuous consent of the governed to function.
John Key got a mandate to form a government, (which is what your politics 101 text book refers to, but I don’t think you’re a child, so you should already know that passing policies and forming a government are two different things that each require their own mandate to be justified) but there was never a clear display of public support for asset sales, as they weren’t the only issue at play in the election. He’s never obtained one since. This is a dramatic change of national policy that Kiwis have opposed ever since the first time it was hoisted on us, back when Labour was acting like, well, ACT.
You can pass a law without a mandate from below, if you have a good reason to – hence why we disagree that this referendum and the previous one are comparable. This is the reason that common definitions of mandate include a “higher command”- you can have a ‘strong leader’ who decides that they know better than the populace, if they’re willing to sell their idea and own it if it’s a failure. National have wisely not tried that justification for this policy.
We’ve let National choose their own justifications, and we’ve knocked each one they’re actually willing to admit down. Passing this law is undemocratic, it’s economic self-harm, it’s theft from the public, and it’s just plain stupid. I’m not sure what more you could ask for in terms of reasons to stop it.
No more attempts to define your way out of the argument then? Fair enough.
I’m done my daily article critique, so I’m sorry, but Jane Clifton can wait. (besides, I’m hungry) I’m sure it’s just as useless as Colin James- right wing journalists don’t tend to have a huge diversity of thought. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume it’s one of the ‘the Family First referendum can somehow be warped to say that the public opposed the §59 repeal’ pieces that the right is favouring. I’ll do a takedown on my blog tommorow of at least three reasons why that’s rubbish.
Hmm. That should have been another reply to Bunji. Sorry about that.
“No more attempts to define your way out of the argument then? Fair enough. ”
No, my comment is moderation still for some reason.
“‘the Family First referendum can somehow be warped to say that the public opposed the §59 repeal’”
Yeah, these are all warped!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/child-abuse/news/article.cfm?c_id=146&objectid=10430953
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00226.htm
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1037215
http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=71587&cat=975
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1088478
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0703/S00653.htm
http://www.spcs.org.nz/2006/well-over-80-oppose-bradfords-anti-smacking-bill/
(EDIT – see above re mandate def’s)
[lprent: There is a limit on the number of links vs text that the system tolerates. That is because a lot of spam consists of mostly links. I released your other comment with lots of links earlier. ]
I’m not following your linkspam, I need to get ready for work. 🙂
I have no doubt they are all warped though, because if the question related to §59, it would have read “Should we repeal the defense of reasonable force for parents or guardians accused of assaulting their children?” Instead it had some waffle about smacking for “good parental correction”, which is newspeak if ever I saw it, and does not relate to the §59 repeal in the slightest, as it merely removes the reasonable force protection- they can still claim to have been acting with a child’s safety in mind to prevent greater harm, if it even comes to court…
And FF hasn’t pointed out a single case of a reasonable parent being prosecuted, just a bunch of sob stories about people who actually did assault their children, not touching their bums lightly to make a metaphorical point, nor using physical force to keep them out of danger.
Actually, I did follow the links.
Yep, even the ones that were explicitly against the repeal were imagining good parents being put through the criminal justice system.
The most interesting one was Sharples saying that the poll claiming Maori were against the repeal was at odds with his experiences at hui, when it was actually explained to people what the repeal actually meant.
So yeah – when there’s a lot of misinformation about an issue, polls are useless. When the questions are so vague as to mean anything, CIR are useless. But when the information is simple and obvious, like “49% of an asset being sold = economically and socially dumb”, and the CIR question is focussed on one plain issue? Then it’s a pretty good reflection of what the people want.
Cont: you did pols101. Do you really think that the “smacking” or hard labour referenda were questions designed to elicit an informed response from the populace?
@Matthew, enjoy work
@McFlock – I think it is a long gambit to play that the populace didn’t understand what they were voting/being polled on.
You may find respected journo Colin James’ latest column interesting reading Contrarian:
When a mandate is not a mandate.
Jane Clifton also wrote an interesting piece:
http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/politics/does-national-have-a-mandate-to-sell-assets/
Colin James starts off talking about why the “political mandates” the contrarian refers to are bunk, which I agree with, but then he pivots into his usual empty pragmatism, or as I generally call it, nonsense.
If National sold privatisation to focus groups before the election, that means that if the public hears only National’s narrative, they might be okay not opposing the policy. That is also different to a mandate, it’s trying to push policy through without needing to obtain one, much the same as trying to fly it in under the radar is.
But National has to deal with a debate, it’s public reasons have been refuted and its private reasons are therefore suspect, and it’s gambling that it won’t lose the next election if it tries to push through this policy.
That’s even discounting whether their base will bother to turn up if they do the expedient thing and cancel the sales.
So… they’re damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.
Personally I find their game of “find the dictionary definition that best suits my point of view” an indication of the tories’ level of desperation.
For example, cont. chose a definition that marked a political mandate being granted strictly by an “electoral victory” (or in this case a minority of votes and a couple of rotten boroughs “represented” by unprincipled troughers). The OED, on the other hand:
I.e. contrarian <ahem>cunningly<ahem> chose a definition of “mandate” that did not explicitly include the consent, direction or wishes of voters: just the ability to manipulate a “victory” out of musical chairs.
Why no reference to the actual votes cast? Because, as the post points out, there is no “mandate” granted by the “preferences expressed by the votes of the electorate”. Just rotten boroughs and troughing hairdos.
On the numbers in the table, do you really think National can claim that the people of New Zealand mandated them to sell assets? The majority of us voted against it and the quirks of the system delivered the asset sellers just one extra seat.
Indeed, the quirks of the system delivered National the ability to claim the needed mandate and to sell the assets.
Unfortunate but true. It’s tricky (tricky as in sly) but yes, they can claim it.
United Future – quirk of the system.
“It’s tricky (tricky as in sly) but yes, they can claim it.”
Sure they can. Just as someone who smashes a new house with an axe and daubs graffiti all over it can claim that it was “just for fun”.
Pete is a masochist. Why else would he be so desperate to defend the indefensible? Everything that Mr Norman has said above could be or is true.
Norman has been promoting unsubstantiated exaggerations (at best) on asset sales. How often has he said things like “selling all the asset to foreign owners”?
Probably never, if you’re claiming he did, Pete. And don’t misuse quotation marks, please. They’re for actual quotations, not stuff you just made up.
Norman doesn’t have to say it anyway, becaue the history books already confirm that foreign ownership is the likeliest outcome, because that is what happened with the earlier asset thefts.
I can understand if you never use quotes.
I do use quotes, Pete. I put other people’s actual remarks in quotation marks, so that it’s obvious they are the literal representation of their words, not made up opinion or fantasy. That’s how written English works; though I appreciate you struggle with language, manfully trying to hide truths behind a wall of waffle each day.
If you want to precis or simply guess what someone might say, try using singular marks (‘ …. ‘). That usually indicates that the phrases are yours, or generic, not the subject’s actual words.
You are assuming that Pete cares about accurately representing people who disagree with him.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22russel+norman%22+%22selling+all+the+asset+to+foreign+owners%22
The answer is “zero times”
hmmm.
the peeps over at insidersPredict have National at under 40% for the first time in that market’s history:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/national-drops-below-40-ipredict-ca-121902
Wonder what the internal polling is saying?
Wonder no more.
Claims of mandate reveal a mind that is happy to use democratic means to an autocratic end. As PBs says, it is simply saying: “We have power so we’ll do as we please”. Such thinking can be a form of democracy, but a somewhat low grade version. If that is our measure of mandate, then in official eyes, the Fijian coups resulted in legitimate government. Someone takes power, they therefore had mandate and were completely legitimate. It also means that any political engagement is futile e.g. Someone this term does anything they want, using any means they like; someone next term reverses it using any means they like; there can be no argument from anyone because we all accept the standard of encumbency = mandate = legitimacy.
The National caucus believe they own these assets and have a moral right to decide to sell them. To make that decision would require our representatives to endow themselves with the voices of all peoples of the past who built these assets up, and their reasons for doing so, and all future people who may use them. That would require an element of “divine right to rule” in their perspective. Even if people who voted for National last election all agreed they knew about asset sales, they still couldn’t speak on behalf of past and future generations. Least of all, our cultural understanding of democracy varies from what our ancestors believed it to be and will vary again to what our great grandchildren know. To follow the idea of a vote today equals consent for tomorrow, is just a mask for narrow, autocratic thinking.
National may have a legal right, but that’s a reduction of the egalitarian style of democracy that NZders pride themselves on, or did, by several levels. Democracy that looks to what can be made to be legal, as it’s moral right, is not a democracy that is good for anyone who is not in or associated with official power. But it’s nice that National are illustrating these principles for everyone to see. It’s very hard to hide what you are, in practice.
Under our present systems, the closest we could get to a decision that acknowledged the past and future generations of NZ would be for all members of Parliament to agree to the sale. Until that happens then, asset sales will be an act of a government that picks and chooses it’s meaning of democracy in ways that undermine political engagement.
I should also emphasise that even if all of our current MPs agreed to sell, using our current forms of representation, it would be a strategic and moral error, since so many viewpoints are not yet effectively represented in parliament: most glaringly, maori (from a maori world view sense), then on a historical basis at least, for Chinese; then Pacific immigrants and so on. Not only are these people not currently directly represented, any party that could represent them must adopt a eurocentric perspective to participate in parliamentry process. Pakeha, or europeans, view asset sales as simply a binary question – support or oppose. It’s not so simple for others and even the most eager proponent of multiculturalism would have to awaken the euro horror at awarding special concessions to some groups simply to get their voice heard. To say it’s as simple as, “we need cash… here, sell these”, in one way greatly narrows the parameters for understanding the issue, in another could result in an offence to many people, and going further, could even end in confusion for some people wondering how the question can even be asked.
No mandate for asset sales
If National is not willing to wait a few months for the result of a referendum, they will damage their party. This is because a number of scientific polls have shown the vast majority of New Zealanders and even a majority of National supporters don’t want asset sales…
Dunnes “mandate”
Total electoral votes in Ohariu 37,965
Votes for Dunne 14.357
Votes against Dunne 23,608
Percentage for Dunne 37.8%
Percentage against Dunne 62.2%
That’s disingenuous bearing in mind that Katrina Shanks Nat Candidate received 6907 votes.
How bout,
Pro asset sale candidates 21264
Against asset sale candidates 16701
Except that Dunne didn’t actually campaign on selling assets.
I dunno if Pete would agree…. but fair play.
So how bout going on the party vote then:
37828 total,
19050 Nat & Act
18778 the rest.
Dune (and as far as I know everyone in UF including me) didn’t campaign on selling assets, we campaigned on allowing National to progress their priority policies and we campaigned on limiting any sale of assets to defined limits, which we have held National too – that’s backed by facts despite repeated attempts to piddle over it.
You’ll be able to find statistics that back anything you like – the key fact is that National have the numbers to get their MOM Bill through parliament.
Read it in the paper on Wednesday, 61-60. Everything else is moot.
FIFY
I agree they do have the numbers, I also think Peter Dunne is well within his rights to vote in favour, All im trying to show is the majority of people in Ohariu voted in a way that allowed asset sales to happen. To claim ignorance of who or what you were voting for after the fact shows you didn’t really care where your vote went.
If Peter Dunne presented himself as a strong leader who will push ahead with policy when he believes it’s the right one, then you might be correct.
The problem is, Peter Dunne is the king of empty populism, and bends to the wind faster than a willow tree. He has been banging on about referendum-led policy for years, and now he doesn’t want a referendum to show him up as abandoning his one principle, populism, and wants to rush ahead with the policy, or try and ad-hominem the people running the referendum, rather than discussing it on its substance.
Functionally speaking, being a hypocrite in politics is probably worse than breaking the law. And Dunne has no way out of his dilemma of supporting this disastrous policy without becoming a hypocrite- either he opposed these asset sales without saying he opposed them, or he supported them without clearly disclosing his support and then opposed giving people a say on it via referendum despite his somewhat odious history of proposing referenda for pretty much everything.
Pathetic Grovelar So where is the money come from from lost income, when the assets are sold.
Dunne wasn’t a pro-asset sales candidate.
Edit: Crikey, Draco’s quick. Room for him in the Olympic team?
I’m sick of this mandate bullshit. It was a general election not a referendum. If the mandate argument had any validity then anything the Nats do that they didn’t campaign on means they have no mandate for it. (Greens & Labour could have some fun with that line of argument)
Bingo! That’s exactly right, DH. Mandates have to be campaigned for, either in a referendum or in an election called for that specific purpose.
National did not go to the electorate last November specifically calling for a mandate for asset sales and one of their support poodles, sorry, parties, thought so little about the issue they didn’t even include their support for asset sales in their policy literature or refer to it in the TV debates. The last time a general election was called to gain a specific mandate over a single issue was in 1984 and that didn’t end so well for Muldoon.
The only other times in recent history an election was fought over gaining a mandate was Hone Harawira forcing a bye-election in Te Tai Tokerau and Tariana Turia doing the same a few years earlier after her resignation from Labour.
Do you believe the rubbish you write? National may not have “campaigned” on asset sales, but it clearly announced them as priority policy in their second term if re-elected. Why else did labour campaign so vociferously on the subject if not to draw attention to this clearly communicated policy?
Yes, National campaigned on it, United Follicles lied about it, and put together they still don’t represent a majority of votes cast.
The mandate to introduce legislation does not confer the right to predetermine the decision of a select committee, nor to ignore evidence presented. Predetermination, for example, is defined by the Ombudsman’s office as a conflict of interest.
But if the National Party wants to commit electoral suicide, I am happy about that, since they are a cancer on New Zealand.
That’s just rubbish. Asset sales was never a priority policy, the claimed benefits were not important enough economically for that. National didn’t campaign on asset sales either, what they did campaign on was the reasons why they wanted to sell the SOEs. The Greens in particular have since shown their justifications to be untrue and we have every right to deny their alleged mandate on those grounds alone.
None of which should obscure the fact that National intends to concentrate the ownership of these very valuable, high profit generating strategic assets into the hands of the few and the foreign.
That’s not a fact. It’s you making pathetically outrageous claims without facts.
Pete, I suspect cv is basing that on very recent NZ experiences with selling assets.
What evidence is there that this wont happen again?
There’s plenty. National have made it clear they want to ensure as much New Zealand ownership for as long as possible. And they last week said they want to target getting 200,000 New Zealand shareholders.
Add to that the number of people likely to indirectly have an interest through Kiwisaver funds and NZ Super and ACC and there is likely to be significant New Zealand ownership.
You swallowed that pack of lies?
There’s naive, and then there’s wilfully moronic.
And there’s blatant denial of facts, with zero counter-facts.
Facts, Pete? You didn’t cite any; the loyalty bribe is so important to them they didn’t even put it in the budget, if you want a fact to consider.
If you’d said National want to create a perception of giving a toss about the ownership, because they think it will prevent some votes haemorrhaging, I’d be agreeing with you.
Pete George, those are facts in the same useful way that telling everybody you wash you hands after the loo is a fact.
whoop-de-fucking-shit.
Don’t be so naive. There is no fact in law to support the fact of their wishy-washy waffle crappola.
wake up man
Explain to me then Pete how the disabled person down the road on invalids benefit gets to be part of this – how they get to buy their share of this asset? or the kid who lost their casual job a few weeks ago, or all those families who are accessing food banks weekly, or those who can’t afford to pay their school fees.
Enlighten me.
Descendant
They still have their share of the majority holding 51% – which is greater than 49%.
Fucking worthless without the iron clad guarantees in legislation and enforcement.
So where are they, PG.
Or are you just spouting recycled Tory PR?
And if you believe that crap. I have a nice bridge for sale.. FFS what an one eyed fool you are petey.
There’s a neat bridge over the Waiwera stream that’s part of the Northern Gateway toll road – I guess that’s the one your talking about. How do I get a share of that? 😉
How are they ensuring that target? What is their POLICY for retaining New Zealand ownership? The only thing they’ve even considered so far is bonus shares, for which it looks like they can’t get a law passed, so if they go ahead with it, it will be blatantly illegal.
How is it not a fact? Assets owned by every Kiwi will after the MOM have a large percentage owned by a small percentage of the population and some oversea’s investors. About as much of a fact as you can get.
You haven’t used any facts at all, you seem to have used generalised guesses, based in what?
The Green Machine and the Labour Loudhailer don’t count as factual.
They’re a damm sight more factual than the Blue Boilers and the Purple Plonker!
1) We’re not proposing this policy, you are. Your side is the one with the burden of proof to establish that this is a wise policy choice, as by proposing a bill you are essentially making a claim that it is beneficial to the country, its citizens, or even the whole world.
2) Like Wikipedia, political websites ought to be treated as reference aggregators (ie. you can’t quote them directly, but check out their own references if provided) for anything other than determining a given party’s policy.
3) If I say something that also appears on a Green or Labour website, that doesn’t mean I haven’t fact-checked it, or that I’m not providing my own analysis of the situation independently. People of similar ideological bents will from time to time have similar ideas or criticisms.
They campaigned on the reasons why they wanted to sell them without actually campaigning on selling them? What election did you watch? Can you seriously believe what you wrote?
So what your saying is that national campaigned by expressing what they want to do, but that they don’t actually want to do it once they get elected?
I get it now. Vey droll.
No. They said “we want to sell these assets because….”
The evidence is now very strong that their ‘because’ is false so their campaign was a fraud. No mandate. Very simple.
“The evidence is now very strong that their ‘because’ is false so their campaign was a fraud.”
Citation needed.
(EDIT – Sorry misread your comment. Pretend I said nothing….)
Give it a rest Pal. Every justification they’ve come up with, and they’ve changed their story countless times, has been well rebutted by economists, the media & pretty much every non-partisan source. Even Treasury told them they were bullshitting.
Yeah yeah, I know.
Sorry I am guilty of not reading your comment properly and imbibing wine. Forget I said anything…
This mandate argument is a bit silly. We need to be a bit smarter than banging on about having no mandate because quite clearly they will ignore us.
A party’s best way of getting approval for their policy platform is to announce it before an election and make it a centre piece of their campaign. They did that. They can claim a amandate and we have to get on with a constructive way of derailing this.
Winston’s proposal that he would buy them back is a good start. Labour should go one further and say they will nationalise without compensation. That is the end. The sales will not take place if they make that announcement.
I don’t agree. To me this is democracy at work & I’m quite happy with the way it’s progressing. We voted for a government at the general election and now we’re expressing our rejection of one of it’s policies. That’s how democracy is meant to work, voting in a party doesn’t give it licence to do everything it pleases. They’re there to work for our benefit not their own.
The only way I can see for the left to stop asset sales is for them to promise a full commission of enquiry, with complete public disclosure, into the funding of the National Party if the sales go ahead. That would kill it stone dead IMO. Can’t see Labour doing that though, can anyone?
Promising to buy it back won’t achieve anything except a lower price for the shares.
What do you mean it won’t achieve anything. Hands up who will buy shares in a company that they know will be natiionalised in 2 years time.
… Hear that. Its the sound of silence. No one will buy them if they will lose their investment. Therfore the whole process will be derailed.
Meanwhile you can run around getting signatures for a referendum having a feel good fluffy in your stomach about democracy at work while the first lots of dividends heads off shore.
Smarten up please. Take some firm action before our assets are sold. Signatures wont save shit.
No-one would promise to nationalise without compensation. That’s confiscation and it’s untenable for any party. The best they can do is promise to buy back what what was sold and that wouldn’t stop people buying the shares to begin with.
There’s no problem if prospective buyers were forewarned well in advance of committing their money. Fairs fair after all.
You are correct. Because the ‘activists’ are running around getting signatures for a petition that will achieve nothing, no party is getting the pressure on them to announce Nationalisation. If we put the heat on our MP’s to do that something might come of it.
Instead you can keep getting your signatures and kiss goodbye to our assets.
Winston Peters has already said that NZF would nationalise and charge it to the Cullen Fund
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/labour-wouldnt-buy-back-assets-peters-would-borrow-cullen-fund-ck-121886
That’s an absurd threat.
I doubt even Winston would try that. He’d be worried that the same might happen to him. Same for Labour.
LOL. Like Labour wouldn’t come out ahead in that equation. I don’t think they’re squeaky clean, but there’s a difference between being a little dirty and stinking to high heaven.
“This mandate argument is a bit silly. We need to be a bit smarter than banging on about having no mandate because quite clearly they will ignore us.”
Agree.
This mandate argument is not silly. It is central to this government’s credibility. It is absolutely clear that the majority of NZers do not want to sell these assets – they didn’t before the election and they don’t now. There are many ways of assessing this, of which the election (decided on all sorts of policies and crap) is just one.
On top of all this, the one vote holding the ship together, namely Peter Dunne doesn’t even know what the benefits and downsides to the sale of these assets are.
When I asked “what are the benefits to the taxpayer of selling the electricity companies?” Peter Dunne replied with this …
“It is worth noting that the total amount of assets up for sale represent about 3% of the Crown’s balance sheet. The controls own shareholding and ownership we have negotiated will ensure they remain in Crown control, without competing ownership objectives.”
And when Pascals bookie asked “what are the downsides for the taxpayer in selling the assets?” Peter Dunne replied with this …
“There are no downsides”.
Dunne is an arrogant wanker. (sorry PG but that’s just it)
“It is absolutely clear that the majority of NZers do not want to sell these assets”
Are you basing this on opinion polls?
That and everything else, including the election. See original post above.
Would you consider then that it was absolutely clear that the majority of NZers did not want the smacking law to be changed?
When you consider before the referendum over 80% of people wanted to law change to be reversed.
Yes absolutely. That government similarly ignored the will of the people and was chucked like this lot will be in just over two years.
Both acts are despicable and nothing makes the blood boil more. Vote them out!
Really? The referendum question had nothing to do with the S59 repeal, as I recall:
Minor hitting, while still shite parental correction according to parents I know, doesn’t pass the public interest test to justify prosecution. Hence the lack of floods of “good” parents being charged (unless you think that hundreds of thousands of NZ parents spontaneously stopped using corporal punishment). No prosecution = no criminal offence. Hence the referendum, possibly because the wording is such shite, has been honoured.
Maybe the ‘hit your kid’ brigade should have simply demanded that the repeal of s59 be repealed? Pity they tried to be smart bastards and manipulate the result with a vague leading question…
@McFlock
What I am establishing here is that in both instances (asset sales and the s59 issue) had overwhelming public disapproval based on opinion polls.
Ignoring the actual referendum question due to its vague wording the opinion polls still showed a major public backlash and, for consistency, if you are going to complain the government is routing public opinion on this then they routed public opinion on the other too.
There was a backlash, but against what? The fact that 300k people signed a petition for a CIR with that wording indicates that quite a lot of people had no actual idea what the issue was. If they weren’t opposed to the actual law change, what were they opposed to? As I said, the prison system hasn’t been flooded with parents jailed for a smack on the backside, which seems to be what the findies-first crowd were worried about.
MOM has been discussed to death, and many people in this country have had direct experience of the joys of asset sales. And I believe that the current CIR proposed question is a bit more specific than the smacking one. So maybe there’s a bit less in the way of scaremongering propaganda going on this time – and maybe the polls reflect a more informed opinion.
The public polls showed by a huge margin the public did not want the bill passed.
http://www.voteno.org.nz/polls.htm
So why not complain about the government ignoring those polls but insist the government listen to these ones?
You keep asking the same question even after you’ve had the answer explained to you a dozen times which means that you’ve dropped from whinging Tory to troll.
I, for one, just ignore you now as there’s no point in engaging you.
“I, for one, just ignore you now as there’s no point in engaging you.”
Says the guy who insists that NZ is a dictatorship based on evidence whatsoever outside “because I say so”
So if the majority of the public did not want the S59 Repeal Bill passed…. why do you think the vast majority of Parliament voted for it?
mr logix, that is a question that I have always wondered.
What is the answer?
probably because they correctly identified the difference between ‘popular demand’ and ‘panic stirred up by paid propagandists working for people who want to beat children’.
really mcflock? the politicians can assess such things better than the rest of New Zealand? Your answer is the easy one but I suspect the true answer may be a tad more complex. Why did all those parties and politicians vote against what the people seemed to be telling them? And how applicable are those reasons to the last cir re harsher sentencing for crims?
I don’t know the answer but I certainly hope it is better than the one you provided, lest my perceptions of politicians get further cemented…
“‘panic stirred up by paid propagandists working for people who want to beat children”.
Citation needed.
The phrasing of the harsher sentencing CIR was even more idiotic than the good parental beating CIR:
Fuck sake – a sliding scale from recognising needs of victims all the way up to hard labour? With a yes/no response? As opposed to the current CIR petition which is short, precise, and although it does mention each company by name the issue is much more clearly defined than the hooplah over “smacking” or the sentencing CIR.
Do I really think that those two CIRs are good examples of money and propaganda creating panic instead of an informed decision by the populace? Yes. I also think they are good examples of how referenda (or even general survey) questions should not be written.
This referendum actually addresses the policy being enacted. The referendum about smacking had nothing to do with repealing a legal defense for assault that was being used to successfully acquit people perpetrating very clear examples of assault, ie. beating their children with improvised weapons.
I would support the government at least putting their legislation on hold until after a referendum in any case that the referendum clearly and fairly raises a question about that legislation. This is, unfortunately, due to our lax CIR rules, the first time that such a referendum has been initiated in my political life.
The Government didn’t ‘ignore’ those polls, Parliament did. The whole of the house, except ACT, voted to remove the specious defence that assaulting kids is OK because ‘I’m their parent’.
However, that wasn’t the question in the CIR anyway and the question that was in that CIR has never been introduced to Parliament as a bill, that I recall. They are two seperate matters.
And, leaving aside the failure of the beaters to get a continued right to assault their kids, Parliament is allowed, even encouraged, to lead. To go where society as a whole is not yet happy to go when it is the sensible option. Nuclear power, gay rights, an end to corporal punishment, votes for women and maori etc were all controversial, minority supported issues at some point. But leadership was applied and eventually they became the norm.
Asset theft, on the other hand, has already been tried and rejected in NZ and there is no change in 30 years to NZ society’s sensible rejection of it. Selling the family silver will never be popular in NZ. It wasn’t last time we did it, it failed to achieve what it was supposed to and the only people not to have learned the lesson are some, but not all, National voters and Peter Dunne.
I have no issue at all with Parliament making up its own mind. The referenda are non binding, anyway. But ignoring the result of this particular referendum will have a clear political cost. That wasn’t the case with the failed kiddy beater referendum, because all the parties, bar one, supported kids’ right to a violence free upbringing ahead of allowing their parents to hit them.
Well then you are saying that government is allowed to ignore the people when it is an issue you support but government should be beholden to the people when it isn’t an issue you don’t support.
I mean, basically that’s it.
If you ignore “basically” everything that TRP said, you are completely correct.
I am not trying to establish if the repeal was a good idea or not.
What I am trying to understand is how on hand the will of the people should be ignored because ‘parliament knows best’ but not ignored in this instance.
That’s not what he’s saying at all. read the last para. Nothing about ‘beholden’ or anything like it.
Citizens, in my view, should argue for what they think is right. If they think the government is about to do something stupid, they should argue that the government shouldn’t do that.
On the s59, I thought the repeal was the right thing to do, so I argued that parliament should repeal it. On this, I happen to agree with the majority, and again argue that the government should do what I think is the right thing to do. There is no contradiction there.
Do you think that citizens who see their government is about to do something they think is stupid, shouldn’t argue against it onthe basis that, oh well, they’re the government?
Or should they argue from what they think is the right thing to do?
On the s59 the majority spoke quite loudly: Govt. didn’t listen
On the asset sales the majority is speaking quite loudly and it appears the government won’t listen.
Why is OK for the govt. not listen in one incidence but not that other?
On s59 the public harrumphed a lot and said absolutely nothing clearly, because they also wanted something done about kids getting beaten to death.
Quite frankly, the s59 repeal opponents seemed terrified that the prisons would be filled with “good” parents who smacked their kids. This hasn’t happened. Parliament (not just the government) fulfilled the rather confused wishes of the electorate, albeit not in the monosyllabic way some of them wanted.
“Why is OK for the govt. not listen in one incidence but not that other?”
The government can do whatever it likes at the end of the day. I don’t dispute that, and TRP came right out and said exactly the same thing.
This is about what we think the government ought to do. Not must. Not ‘can they’, but ‘should they’.
So if you can grok that it isn’t about trying to bind the government constitutionally or what-have-you, but about trying to influence them politically, I think the contradiction you see resolves itself.
If you think the govt is about to do something you agree with, you will think they should do it. If they are about to do something you don’t agree with, you will think they should not.
In a case where you are in the minority, you can pretty much argue the case and say you think the govt ought to do it in spite of public opinion.
If you are in the majority, you can argue that the govt should do it because of the policy argument, and if that doesn’t work; if the government doesn’t agree with you about the merits of the policy, I see no reason that you can’t bring the politics into it and point out that the country doesn’t want them to do it.
They are free to ignore you of course. It’s ‘ought’, not ‘must’.
“On s59 the public harrumphed a lot and said absolutely nothing clear”
http://www.voteno.org.nz/polls.htm
I think you’re all right.
Contrarian is right in that the last government ignored the wishes of the people, and you others are right in that the particulars of the circumstances are a little different. The issue though surely is that of the government doing as the people wish or ignoring the people, as gleaned from elections, cir’s, polls, etc. The last labour government ignored the wishes of the people. This government is ignoring the wishes of the people.
Just as a side note, the amount of children removed from their parents by the state has declined by over 18% since s59 was implemented. I cannot think of any other social dynamic that would cause this.
Also, most of the polling surveyed people about whether they believed it is okay to smack naughty children, not if the law change was required.
As McFlock has highlighted, the anti-smacking bill did not outlaw smacking altogether but merely removed the “use of reasonable force” as a defence in court. Your comparison is a complete fail TheInegalitarian.
Yeah. Kind’ve interesting that even a propaganda website that manages to translate “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” into “87.6% of voters have called for a law change by voting NO in the referendum.” can’t get it’s poll story straight.
Apparently answering “no” to the question “Will a smacking ban stop you from smacking your children?” means they opposed the bill. Maybe they understood the bill?
“Would you like to see Sue Bradford’s smacking bill watered down?” becomes a categorical vote against any repeal, and only one survey apparently specifically mentioned s59. And that result was still against the repeal, but much closer than anything else.
Coupled with the heavy reliance on Stuff and Curia polls and the lack of survey links and questions, colour me not convinced that the polling was legitimate and that people were giving a clear message about their desired outcome. As I said, it looks to me very much like parliament managed to produce the vague outcome that people wanted (i.e. no epidemic of parents being arrested for abuse, which seems to have been tha main concern), while actually making an informed decision (one assumes most of the MPs read the bill and select committee report).
Yet again, “Labour did it too” fails to apply, even if it were more than a half-arsed delaying tactic.
Yeah, those poll are all suspect and probably wrong.
My assertions are all I need!
Not that the polls are suspect and wrong.
More that the website summarizing them is suspect and intensely biased, and the few verifiable claims it makes (as summarised above) are suspect and wrong.
Well, provide evidence to the contrary.
It’s all well and good to say “the website summarizing them is suspect and intensely biased, and the few verifiable claims it makes (as summarised above) are suspect and wrong.” without offering anything to dispute what the website says.
Surely you must have data that contradicts what this site says otherwise all your doing is offering pure assertion that “these claims are false” without offering anything to back your claim up.
Logic and reason dude, it’s a bitch
Ain’t it just. The evidence you provided to support your assertion that all of parliament (except ACT) overruled the wishes of the people is bunk. In fact all it does is demonstrate that anti-repeal propagandists (or do you argue that your linked site is unbiased?), where they do bother to mention the questions actually asked in the surveys they chose to report, can’t support your assertion that there was clear public opposition to the repeal beyond a nebulous ‘good parents shouldn’t be locked up’ vibe.
Guess what: they got their wish. Good parents aren’t being locked up – bad parents just can’t argue that beating children to the point of injury was reasonable parental correction.
‘The evidence you provided to support your assertion that all of parliament (except ACT) overruled the wishes of the people is bunk’
Pure and unmitigated assertion. You are deciding, by fiat judgement, that the polls are bunk based on your own interpretation. You have provided no evidence, no polling which shows any different results, no evidence of data manipulation – nothing. The site is bias, we both know that, but you have asserted, without evidence, that the data is “bunk”.
‘That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.’
Christopher Hitchens
Seriously? That site is a blatant propaganda site with no sources. We do know that it, like you, stretches the english language to breaking point, for example the long bow your link drew between the ambivalent wording if the CIR and a very specific course of action they claimed the CIR represented (“called for a law change “). I therefore view with reasonable doubt the possibility that any and all of their unsourced unspecified surveys were specifically relevant to not repealing/reintroducing s59.
As an example, take one of the few surveys where they mentioned the actual question: “Will a smacking ban stop you from smacking your children?” has nothing to do with whether s59 should be repealed of not – many parents who answered yes might have understood that the repeal of s59 would not affect their minor use of force. Yet it’s included in a list of polls that demonstrates “The majority of Kiwis disagree that a smack should be seen as a criminal offence in New Zealand.”.
If I had presented a website like that as supporting evidence, you’d laugh me out of here. All I need to do is point out that the lack of parents being locked up (for pulling young jimmie off the road, as one of the pro-smacking arguments at the time had as an example) is perfectly consistent with not making good parenting a criminal offence. So the wishes of the electorate seem to have been fulfilled.
Given that your link’s an opinion piece with instances of clear misuse of the English language, I counter it with equivalent authority: it’s bunk.
” I counter it with equivalent authority” =/= what I say.
You’re opinion is not an authority. But if you want to play that game:
All those polls that show Kiwis are against assets sales are bunk. I counter them with equivalent authority.
I ask then you show me any evidence of majority support for this bill.
Otherwise you ain’t got nothing.
You want me to prove the contrary to your unsupported position that the s59 repeal was contrary to the wishes of the voters (your assertion in support of your claim “you are saying that government is allowed to ignore the people when it is an issue you support”)? Otherwise I’m the one who’s got nothing?
You made the assertion, you provide actual evidence that “the people” made any coherent and specific demand that s59 should not be repealed, rather than a more vague ‘good parents shouldn’t be locked up’.
Evidence.
Not some unsourced propaganda site that incorrectly thinks ‘repeal s59’ = ‘good parents will be incarcerated’.
Yeah, logic is a bitch – who would have thought that you making an assertion means that you have to prove it, rather than it being regarded as correct unless proved otherwise.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/child-abuse/news/article.cfm?c_id=146&objectid=10430953
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00226.htm
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1037215
http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=71587&cat=975
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1088478
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0703/S00653.htm
http://www.spcs.org.nz/2006/well-over-80-oppose-bradfords-anti-smacking-bill/
Plenty more where those came from….now, if you want to dismiss these you need to provide a reason for doing so. “I think they are bunk” is not a reason.
Looking at each link in turn, is the concern with s59 or a more vague panic about parents being locked up:
1 (NZH): majority disagree with bill, think it’s “unenforceable”. Kind’ve the point of the bill – minor smacks aren’t supposed to result in a prison sentence. So demonstates more a fear of good parents being harassed than s59 in particular.
2 ( Press Release: Coalition Against Nanny State’s Anti-Smacking Law). Says it all, really. Not a poll.
3: (Onenews/CB) “A ONE News Colmar Brunton poll has found 83% of those surveyed believe it is okay to smack naughty children”. Issue not in conflict with s59 repeal. Putting the two together implies conflation.
4: researchNZ poll. “Unenforceable” – see point 1
5: TVNZ. Against Bil. Interesting quote: “But Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples says at a number of hui up and down New Zealand, the picture is very different. He says when he and his party colleagues explained what the bill actually says, there was almost unanimous support for the bill”. Supports my point.
6: National party. McCully. Did he vote against the repeal, then? Guess you might want to ask him what changed his mind.
7:SPCS. Broken link – might be my web. Didn’t expect much of an unbiased comment anyway.
So, of 7, those that were polls and even mentioned s59 (maybe 2 or 3) conflated the bill with other issues like making all light smacking child abuse or whatever.
So I think you’ve made a good case that people had no idea about what the bill actually meant.
Well, shit, I disagree that the public didn’t know what they were voting on and I think it is plainly dishonest to say so. I also believe that is hypocritical to say the public didn’t know what they were doing so we can ignore the 80% that time but they shouldn’t be ignored this time…but I have been involved in this debate in some form or another for several days now and no-one has presented any evidence to me to the contrary outside their own opinions and none of the data I have presented has been accepted as evidence.
So it’s a stone wall.
Thanks for at least not resorting to name calling and other personal abuse. Perhaps we’ll talk again on another disputed point.
I think there was a general ‘bill = bad’ vibe, but I also think that was simply because a number of pressure groups managed to link the bill with something other than what the bill represented.
Actually, I seem to recall having a similar debate about the food safety bill – my position was that it was a pretty minor streamlining of the current legislation, but others were claiming that one’s house could be searched without warrant if you gave a couple of garden spuds to a neighbour. No idea what happened with that – whether it was passed or kicked back to the bureaucracy, we seem to have had a shortage of doors kicked down by the food police. I oppose the idea of unwarranted unreasonable searches as much as the next guy, I just never saw it in the proposed bill. But a lot of people did.
Same with s59, imo – the debate was framed around ‘good parents being arrested’, not ‘bad parents not being able to get away with it’. ‘Mum and apple pie’ questions will always get the desired response, but they rarely give useful information about public opinion.
btw, I found it interesting that you appreciated the lack of abuse thrown in your direction but in the same comment called me “plainly dishonest” and “hypocritical”.
I actually do think that people know their experience from previous asset sales, know what asset sales actually mean, and that the CIR question is tight enough to give a reasoned response.
I don’t believe that the same can be said about the s59 repeal – I think there was a lot of bullshit and lies put about by scaremongerers for whatever reason, and the CIR question itself was so broad as to be a benign platitude that few people would disagree with. There’s a balance in getting a useful question vs getting 300k signatures, and I think the pro-s59 crowd went for popularity over substance.
“my position was that it was a pretty minor streamlining of the current legislation, but others were claiming that one’s house could be searched without warrant if you gave a couple of garden spuds to a neighbour.”
Yeah there was a lot of bullshit being floated about the food bill (as you say) but there was nothing in it suggest you’d be arrested for giving someone some of your carrots.
“in the same comment called me “plainly dishonest” and “hypocritical”.”
No, I don’t mean you personally. I can think the position someone holds is dishonest without me thinking they are a dishonest person. I haven’t seen anything to suggest you personally are dishonest and believing a position to be hypocritical does not a personal attack make…not like say, calling someone an idiot saying they are stupid
really? You attribute intent and integrity to abstract statements, rather than the people who make them?
odd.
Like a dishonest argument, intellectually dishonest.
Like if I write a uni paper my lecturer can identify where my argument is dishonest (by omission or by making a logical fallacy) but that does not mean the lecturer is calling me a dishonest person
The point isn’t that it wasn’t in the bill, the point is that people really believed that it might be the case.
Same with s59 repeal – a lot of people thought good parents might be locked up for child abuse. That is not and never was going to be the case.
Well, I’ve not heard that use of “intellectually dishonest” without pejorative connotations about the arguer before, rather than it merely meaning an incomplete or flawed argument. Always as intentionally flawed. But whatever.
Nope, ’cause there was no smacking law to change. As was explained to you yesterday, as I recall. And no again, because that referendum was so badly worded, it was easily ignored by Parliament because there was no way of knowing what it really meant.
You are full of it/ so over 300k who signed and the 84% did not know what they were supporting, and Clarke did not know that was why do much effort was placed in deferring the referendum to after the election.
And sue bradfords ever changing judtification on why the law was needed was as consistent as nationals for asset sales. A different reason every other day.
well, we’d prefer a referendum before the assets were sold, but the ‘powers that be’ seem desperate to commit to a course of action before the people have an opportunity to say what they really want…
No, “the powers that be” signalled what they wanted to do 18 months ago, and put the appropriate legislation through parlament in a reasonably timely fashion (I know some have claimed it was cut short but I don’t know if that’s a legitimate complaint or just more stall tactics).
The referendum process was started far too late, in fact possibly about a year too late. That isn’t the (current) government’s fault. We won’t even know if there will be a referendum until up to about 11 months after the legislation has passed through parliament.
“…I don’t know if that’s a legitimate complaint…”
Then why don’t you examine the facts of the matter – submitters insulted and ignored, reports prepared before deliberations were complete – and make your mind up then? Or is it more convenient to dribble weasel words?
National said, Act were obvious, UF were masters of ‘keeping national in check’ by rolling over for whatever national wanted. Except where the lie was so blatant that not even Dunne could bend over for it.
Nice try. The government never had adequate public support for its policies, the referendum is merely being used to show this and expose the government’s “mandate” spin as pure rubbish. It wouldn’t be necessary if they weren’t trying to push a policy New Zealand doesn’t want, no matter how you slice it.
If the government cared about democracy, they wouldn’t have even proposed this policy. So we’ll put on pressure, as is our right.
Please note that your “in a timely fashion” is our “curtailing legitimate debate and possible improvement via amendment and select committee, and extending this government’s record high statistics at doing so.”
The mandate justification has been proven wrong. The economic justification is ‘not even wrong’, it’s so broken- in a few short years these sales will have lost the government money. There are only two possible reasons remaining to do this: pure ideology, and cronyism for your investor mates, with a possible honourable mention for ‘saving face’. Whichever applies, none of those are sufficient reasons to push through a drastic and wildly unpopular law.
National have no mandate,end of, scrambling with cuppa teas and a wink and a nod
of two questionable tail feathers hardly is enough for key to crow about,he should
be ashamed of his actions in the run up to the election.
His attitude is arrogant to say the least when it comes to nz taxpayer owned assets
that were here long before he came back to these shores with a determination to
empty the cupboards,he has no rights on this score,generations before him,current
generations and future generations have more of a mandate to demand that strategic
assets remain in all nz taxpayers hands as full and comprehensive entities.
this government is expert at pretending that some things are too difficult for ordinary new zealanders to understand like the meaning of the word mandate.
National was elected to form a government.
That does not mean that every single policy they dream up gets carte blance.
In a modern democracy the government of the day must see its policy undergo stringent scrutiny but this government is so scared of the public that every thing they do is sub rosa and only grudgingly exposed to the light of day.
witness the policy rollouts on Sunday night that should have been released on Friday nights so people can discuss it.
this government is really frightened by the public because in their heart of hearts they mean them no good.