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.
Every day now just seems to bring in more fresh meat for the grinder.In their relentlessly ideological drive to cut back on the “excessive bloat” (as they see it) of the previous Labour-led government, on the mountains of evidence accumulated in such a short period of time do not ...
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Megan Valére SosouMarket gardening site of the Itchèléré de Itagui agricultural cooperative in Dassa-Zoumè (Image credit: Megan Valère Sossou) For the residents of Dassa-Zoumè, a city in the West African country of Benin, choosing between drinking water and having enough ...
Buzz from the Beehive Melissa Lee – as may be discerned from the screenshot above – has not been demoted for doing something seriously wrong as Minister of ...
Morning in London Mother hugs beloved daughter outside the converted shoe factory in which she is living.Afternoon in London Travelling writer takes himself and his wrist down to A&E, just to be sure. Read more ...
Mike Grimshaw writes – The recent announcement of the University Advisory Group, chaired by Sir Peter Gluckman, makes very clear where the Government’s focus and priorities lie. The remit of the Advisory Group is that Group members will consider challenges and opportunities for improvement in the university sector including: ...
Eric Crampton writes – The Reserve Bank of New Zealand desperately wants to find reasons to have workstreams in climate change. It makes little sense. They’ve run another stress test on the banks looking to see if they could find a prudential regulation case. They couldn’t. They ...
Rob MacCullough writes – Pundits from the left and the right are arguing that National’s Fast Track Bill that is designed to speed up infrastructure decisions could end up becoming mired in a cesspool of corruption. Political commentator ...
Looking at the headlines this morning it’s hard to feel anything other than pessimistic about the future of humanity.Note that I’m not speaking about the future of mankind, but the survival of our humanity. The values that we believe in seem to be ebbing away, by the day.Perhaps every generation ...
Swabbing mixed breed baby chicks to test for avian influenzaUh oh. Bird flu – often deadly to humans – is not only being transmitted from infected birds to dairy cows, but is now travelling between dairy cows. As of last Friday, Bloomberg News reports, there were 32 American dairy herds ...
On February 14, 2023 we announced our Rebuttal Update Project. This included an ask for feedback about the added "At a glance" section in the updated basic rebuttal versions. This weekly blog post series highlights this new section of one of the updated basic rebuttal versions and serves as a ...
What is it with the mining industry? Its not enough for them to pillage the earth - they apparently can't even be bothered getting resource consent to do so: The proponent behind a major mine near the Clutha River had already been undertaking activity in the area without a ...
Photo # 1 I am a huge fan of Singapore’s approach to housing, as described here two years ago by copying and pasting from The ConversationWhat Singapore has that Australia does not is a public housing developer, the Housing Development Board, which puts new dwellings on public and reclaimed land, ...
Buzz from the Beehive Reactions to news of the government’s readiness to make urgent changes to “the resource management system” through a Bill to amend the Resource Management Act (RMA) suggest a balanced approach is being taken. The Taxpayers’ Union says the proposed changes don’t go far enough. Greenpeace says ...
I’m starting to wonder if Anna Burns-Francis might be the best political interviewer we’ve got. That might sound unlikely to you, it came as a bit of a surprise to me.Jack Tame can be excellent, but has some pretty average days. I like Rebecca Wright on Newshub, she asks good ...
Chris Trotter writes – Willie Jackson is said to be planning a “media summit” to discuss “the state of the media and how to protect Fourth Estate Journalism”. Not only does the Editor of The Daily Blog, Martyn Bradbury, think this is a good idea, but he has also ...
Graeme Edgeler writes – This morning [April 21], the Wellington High Court is hearing a judicial review brought by Hon. Karen Chhour, the Minister for Children, against a decision of the Waitangi Tribunal. This is unusual, judicial reviews are much more likely to brought against ministers, rather than ...
Both of Parliament’s watchdogs have now ripped into the Government’s Fast-track Approvals Bill. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāMy pick of the six newsey things to know from Aotearoa’s political economy and beyond on the morning of Tuesday, April 23 are:The Lead: The Auditor General,John Ryan, has joined the ...
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Sarah SpengemanPeople wait to board an electric bus in Pune, India. (Image credit: courtesy of ITDP) Public transportation riders in Pune, India, love the city’s new electric buses so much they will actually skip an older diesel bus that ...
The infrastructure industry yesterday issued a “hurry up” message to the Government, telling it to get cracking on developing a pipeline of infrastructure projects.The hiatus around the change of Government has seen some major projects cancelled and others delayed, and there is uncertainty about what will happen with the new ...
Hi,Over the weekend I revisited a podcast I really adore, Dead Eyes. It’s about a guy who got fired from Band of Brothers over two decades ago because Tom Hanks said he had “dead eyes”.If you don’t recall — 2001’s Band of Brothers was part of the emerging trend of ...
Buzz from the Beehive The 180 or so recipients of letters from the Government telling them how to submit infrastructure projects for “fast track” consideration includes some whose project applications previously have been rejected by the courts. News media were quick to feature these in their reports after RMA Reform Minister Chris ...
It would not be a desirable way to start your holiday by breaking your back, your head, or your wrist, but on our first hour in Singapore I gave it a try.We were chatting, last week, before we started a meeting of Hazel’s Enviro Trust, about the things that can ...
Calling all journalists, academics, planners, lawyers, political activists, environmentalists, and other members of the public who believe that the relationships between vested interests and politicians need to be scrutinised. We need to work together to make sure that the new Fast-Track Approvals Bill – currently being pushed through by the ...
Feel worried. Shane Jones and a couple of his Cabinet colleagues are about to be granted the power to override any and all objections to projects like dams, mines, roads etc even if: said projects will harm biodiversity, increase global warming and cause other environmental harms, and even if ...
Bryce Edwards writes- The ability of the private sector to quickly establish major new projects making use of the urban and natural environment is to be supercharged by the new National-led Government. Yesterday it introduced to Parliament one of its most significant reforms, the Fast Track Approvals Bill. ...
Michael Bassett writes – If you think there is a move afoot by the radical Maori fringe of New Zealand society to create a parallel system of government to the one that we elect at our triennial elections, you aren’t wrong. Over the last few days we have ...
Without a corresponding drop in interest rates, it’s doubtful any changes to the CCCFA will unleash a massive rush of home buyers. Photo: Lynn GrievesonTL;DR: The six things that stood out to me in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, poverty and climate on Monday, April 22 included:The Government making a ...
Sunday was a lazy day. I started watching Jack Tame on Q&A, the interviews are usually good for something to write about. Saying the things that the politicians won’t, but are quite possibly thinking. Things that are true and need to be extracted from between the lines.As you might know ...
In our Weekly Roundup last week we covered news from Auckland Transport that the WX1 Western Express is going to get an upgrade next year with double decker electric buses. As part of the announcement, AT also said “Since we introduced the WX1 Western Express last November we have seen ...
TL;DR: The six key events to watch in Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy in the week to April 29 include:PM Christopher Luxon is scheduled to hold a post-Cabinet news conference at 4 pm today. Stats NZ releases its statutory report on Census 2023 tomorrow.Finance Minister Nicola Willis delivers a pre-Budget speech at ...
A listing of 29 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, April 14, 2024 thru Sat, April 20, 2024. Story of the week Our story of the week hinges on these words from the abstract of a fresh academic ...
The ability of the private sector to quickly establish major new projects making use of the urban and natural environment is to be supercharged by the new National-led Government. Yesterday it introduced to Parliament one of its most significant reforms, the Fast Track Approvals Bill. The Government says this will ...
This is a column to say thank you. So many of have been in touch since Mum died to say so many kind and thoughtful things. You’re wonderful, all of you. You’ve asked how we’re doing, how Dad’s doing. A little more realisation each day, of the irretrievable finality of ...
Identifying the engine type in your car is crucial for various reasons, including maintenance, repairs, and performance upgrades. Knowing the specific engine model allows you to access detailed technical information, locate compatible parts, and make informed decisions about modifications. This comprehensive guide will provide you with a step-by-step approach to ...
Introduction: The allure of racing is undeniable. The thrill of speed, the roar of engines, and the exhilaration of competition all contribute to the allure of this adrenaline-driven sport. For those who yearn to experience the pinnacle of racing, becoming a race car driver is the ultimate dream. However, the ...
Introduction Automobiles have become ubiquitous in modern society, serving as a primary mode of transportation and a symbol of economic growth and personal mobility. With countless vehicles traversing roads and highways worldwide, it begs the question: how many cars are there in the world? Determining the precise number is a ...
Maintaining a safe and reliable vehicle requires regular inspections. Whether it’s a routine maintenance checkup or a safety inspection, knowing how long the process will take can help you plan your day accordingly. This article delves into the factors that influence the duration of a car inspection and provides an ...
Mazda Motor Corporation, commonly known as Mazda, is a Japanese multinational automaker headquartered in Fuchu, Aki District, Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan. The company was founded in 1920 as the Toyo Cork Kogyo Co., Ltd., and began producing vehicles in 1931. Mazda is primarily known for its production of passenger cars, but ...
Your car battery is an essential component that provides power to start your engine, operate your electrical systems, and store energy. Over time, batteries can weaken and lose their ability to hold a charge, which can lead to starting problems, power failures, and other issues. Replacing your battery before it ...
In most states, you cannot register a car without a valid driver’s license. However, there are a few exceptions to this rule. Exceptions to the RuleIf you are under 18 years old: In some states, you can register a car in your name even if you do not ...
Mazda, a Japanese automotive manufacturer with a rich history of innovation and engineering excellence, has emerged as a formidable player in the global car market. Known for its reputation of producing high-quality, fuel-efficient, and driver-oriented vehicles, Mazda has consistently garnered praise from industry experts and consumers alike. In this article, ...
Struts are an essential part of a car’s suspension system. They are responsible for supporting the weight of the car and damping the oscillations of the springs. Struts are typically made of steel or aluminum and are filled with hydraulic fluid. How Do Struts Work? Struts work by transferring the ...
Car registration is a mandatory process that all vehicle owners must complete annually. This process involves registering your car with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and paying an associated fee. The registration process ensures that your vehicle is properly licensed and insured, and helps law enforcement and other authorities ...
Zoom is a video conferencing service that allows you to share your screen, webcam, and audio with other participants. In addition to sharing your own audio, you can also share the audio from your computer with other participants. This can be useful for playing music, sharing presentations with audio, or ...
Building your own computer can be a rewarding and cost-effective way to get a high-performance machine tailored to your specific needs. However, it also requires careful planning and execution, and one of the most important factors to consider is the time it will take. The exact time it takes to ...
Sleep mode is a power-saving state that allows your computer to quickly resume operation without having to boot up from scratch. This can be useful if you need to step away from your computer for a short period of time but don’t want to shut it down completely. There are ...
Introduction Computer-Assisted Translation (CAT) has revolutionized the field of translation by harnessing the power of technology to assist human translators in their work. This innovative approach combines specialized software with human expertise to improve the efficiency, accuracy, and consistency of translations. In this comprehensive article, we will delve into the ...
In today’s digital age, mobile devices have become an indispensable part of our daily lives. Among the vast array of portable computing options available, iPads and tablet computers stand out as two prominent contenders. While both offer similar functionalities, there are subtle yet significant differences between these two devices. This ...
A computer is an electronic device that can be programmed to carry out a set of instructions. The basic components of a computer are the processor, memory, storage, input devices, and output devices. The Processor The processor, also known as the central processing unit (CPU), is the brain of the ...
Voice Memos is a convenient app on your iPhone that allows you to quickly record and store audio snippets. These recordings can be useful for a variety of purposes, such as taking notes, capturing ideas, or recording interviews. While you can listen to your voice memos on your iPhone, you ...
Laptop screens are essential for interacting with our devices and accessing information. However, when lines appear on the screen, it can be frustrating and disrupt productivity. Understanding the underlying causes of these lines is crucial for finding effective solutions. Types of Screen Lines Horizontal lines: Also known as scan ...
Right-clicking is a common and essential computer operation that allows users to access additional options and settings. While most desktop computers have dedicated right-click buttons on their mice, laptops often do not have these buttons due to space limitations. This article will provide a comprehensive guide on how to right-click ...
Powering up and shutting down your ASUS laptop is an essential task for any laptop user. Locating the power button can sometimes be a hassle, especially if you’re new to ASUS laptops. This article will provide a comprehensive guide on where to find the power button on different ASUS laptop ...
Dell laptops are renowned for their reliability, performance, and versatility. Whether you’re a student, a professional, or just someone who needs a reliable computing device, a Dell laptop can meet your needs. However, if you’re new to Dell laptops, you may be wondering how to get started. In this comprehensive ...
Two-thirds of the country think that “New Zealand’s economy is rigged to advantage the rich and powerful”. They also believe that “New Zealand needs a strong leader to take the country back from the rich and powerful”. These are just two of a handful of stunning new survey results released ...
In today’s digital world, screenshots have become an indispensable tool for communication and documentation. Whether you need to capture an important email, preserve a website page, or share an error message, screenshots allow you to quickly and easily preserve digital information. If you’re an Asus laptop user, there are several ...
A factory reset restores your Gateway laptop to its original factory settings, erasing all data, apps, and personalizations. This can be necessary to resolve software issues, remove viruses, or prepare your laptop for sale or transfer. Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to factory reset your Gateway laptop: Method 1: ...
“You talking about me?”The neoliberal denigration of the past was nowhere more unrelenting than in its depiction of the public service. The Post Office and the Railways were held up as being both irremediably inefficient and scandalously over-manned. Playwright Roger Hall’s “Glide Time” caricatures were presented as accurate depictions of ...
Roger Partridge writes – When the Coalition Government took office last October, it inherited a country on a precipice. With persistent inflation, decades of insipid productivity growth and crises in healthcare, education, housing and law and order, it is no exaggeration to suggest New Zealand’s first-world status was ...
Rob MacCulloch writes – In 2022, the Curriculum Centre at the Ministry of Education employed 308 staff, according to an Official Information Request. Earlier this week it was announced 202 of those staff were being cut. When you look up “The New Zealand Curriculum” on the Ministry of ...
Chris Bishop’s bill has stirred up a hornets nest of opposition. Photo: Lynn Grieveson for The KākāTL;DR: The six things that stood out to me in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, poverty and climate from the last day included:A crescendo of opposition to the Government’s Fast Track Approvals Bill is ...
Monday left me brokenTuesday, I was through with hopingWednesday, my empty arms were openThursday, waiting for love, waiting for loveThe end of another week that left many of us asking WTF? What on earth has NZ gotten itself into and how on earth could people have voluntarily signed up for ...
Hello! Here comes the Saturday edition of More Than A Feilding, catching you up on the past week’s editions.State of humanity, 20242024, it feels, keeps presenting us with ever more challenges, ever more dismay.Do you give up yet? It seems to ask.No? How about this? Or this?How about this?Full story Share ...
Determining the hardest sport in the world is a subjective matter, as the difficulty level can vary depending on individual abilities, physical attributes, and experience. However, based on various factors including physical demands, technical skills, mental fortitude, and overall accomplishment, here is an exploration of some of the most challenging ...
The allure of sport transcends age, culture, and geographical boundaries. It captivates hearts, ignites passions, and provides unparalleled entertainment. Behind the spectacle, however, lies a fascinating world of financial investment and expenditure. Among the vast array of competitive pursuits, one question looms large: which sport carries the hefty title of ...
Introduction Pickleball, a rapidly growing paddle sport, has captured the hearts and imaginations of millions around the world. Its blend of tennis, badminton, and table tennis elements has made it a favorite among players of all ages and skill levels. As the sport’s popularity continues to surge, the question on ...
Abstract: Soccer, the global phenomenon captivating millions worldwide, has a rich history that spans centuries. Its origins trace back to ancient civilizations, but the modern version we know and love emerged through a complex interplay of cultural influences and innovations. This article delves into the fascinating journey of soccer’s evolution, ...
Tinting car windows offers numerous benefits, including enhanced privacy, reduced glare, UV protection, and a more stylish look for your vehicle. However, the cost of window tinting can vary significantly depending on several factors. This article provides a comprehensive guide to help you understand how much you can expect to ...
The pungent smell of gasoline in your car can be an alarming and potentially dangerous problem. Not only is the odor unpleasant, but it can also indicate a serious issue with your vehicle’s fuel system. In this article, we will explore the various reasons why your car may smell like ...
Our two-tiered system for veterans’ support is out of step with our closest partners, and all parties in Parliament should work together to fix it, Labour veterans’ affairs spokesperson Greg O’Connor said. ...
Stripping two Ministers of their portfolios just six months into the job shows Christopher Luxon’s management style is lacking, Labour Leader Chris Hipkins said. ...
It appears Nicola Willis is about to pull the rug out from under the feet of local communities still dealing with the aftermath of last year’s severe weather, and local councils relying on funding to build back from these disasters. ...
The Government is making short-sighted changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) that will take away environmental protection in favour of short-term profits, Labour’s environment spokesperson Rachel Brooking said today. ...
Labour welcomes the release of the report into the North Island weather events and looks forward to working with the Government to ensure that New Zealand is as prepared as it can be for the next natural disaster. ...
The Labour Party has called for the New Zealand Government to recognise Palestine, as a material step towards progressing the two-State solution needed to achieve a lasting peace in the region. ...
Some of our country’s most important work, stopping the sexual exploitation of children and violent extremism could go along with staff on the frontline at ports and airports. ...
The Government’s Fast Track Approvals Bill will give projects such as new coal mines a ‘get out of jail free’ card to wreak havoc on the environment, Labour Leader Chris Hipkins said today. ...
Cuts to frontline hospital staff are not only a broken election promise, it shows the reckless tax cuts have well and truly hit the frontline of the health system, says Labour Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall. ...
The Green Party has joined the call for public submissions on the fast-track legislation to be extended after the Ombudsman forced the Government to release the list of organisations invited to apply just hours before submissions close. ...
New Zealand’s good work at reducing climate emissions for three years in a row will be undone by the National government’s lack of ambition and scrapping programmes that were making a difference, Labour Party climate spokesperson Megan Woods said today. ...
More essential jobs could be on the chopping block, this time Ministry of Education staff on the school lunches team are set to find out whether they're in line to lose their jobs. ...
The Government is trying to bring in a law that will allow Ministers to cut corners and kill off native species, Labour environment spokesperson Rachel Brooking said. ...
Cancelling urgently needed new Cook Strait ferries and hiking the cost of public transport for many Kiwis so that National can announce the prospect of another tunnel for Wellington is not making good choices, Labour Transport Spokesperson Tangi Utikere said. ...
A laundry list of additional costs for Tāmaki Makarau Auckland shows the Minister for the city is not delivering for the people who live there, says Labour Auckland Issues spokesperson Shanan Halbert. ...
The Green Party has today launched a step-by-step guide to help New Zealanders make their voice heard on the Government’s democracy dodging and anti-environment fast track legislation. ...
The National Government’s proposed changes to the Residential Tenancies Act will mean tenants can be turfed from their homes by landlords with little notice, Labour housing spokesperson Kieran McAnulty said. ...
Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson is calling on all parties to support a common-sense change that’s great for the planet and great for consumers after her member’s bill was drawn from the ballot today. ...
A significant milestone has been reached in the fight to strike an anti-Pasifika and unfair law from the country’s books after Teanau Tuiono’s members’ bill passed its first reading. ...
New Zealand has today missed the opportunity to uphold the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, says James Shaw after his member’s bill was voted down in its first reading. ...
Today’s advice from the Climate Change Commission paints a sobering reality of the challenge we face in combating climate change, especially in light of recent Government policy announcements. ...
Minister for Disability Issues Penny Simmonds appears to have delayed a report back to Cabinet on the progress New Zealand is making against international obligations for disabled New Zealanders. ...
The Government’s newly announced review of methane emissions reduction targets hints at its desire to delay Aotearoa New Zealand’s urgent transition to a climate safe future, the Green Party said. ...
The Government must commit to the Maitai School building project for students with high and complex needs, to ensure disabled students from the top of the South Island have somewhere to learn. ...
Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey and his Government colleagues have made a meal of their mental health commitments, showing how flimsy their efforts to champion the issue truly are, says Labour Mental Health spokesperson Ingrid Leary. ...
Paul Goldsmith will take on responsibility for the Media and Communications portfolio, while Louise Upston will pick up the Disability Issues portfolio, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced today. “Our Government is relentlessly focused on getting New Zealand back on track. As issues change in prominence, I plan to adjust Ministerial ...
Recreational catch limits will be reduced in areas of Fiordland and the Chatham Islands to help keep those fisheries healthy and sustainable, Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones says. The lower recreational daily catch limits for a range of finfish and shellfish species caught in the Fiordland Marine Area and ...
Energy Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed an important milestone in New Zealand’s hydrogen future, with the opening of the country’s first network of hydrogen refuelling stations in Wiri. “I want to congratulate the team at Hiringa Energy and its partners K one W one (K1W1), Mitsui & Co New Zealand ...
The coalition Government is delivering on its commitment to improve resource management laws and give greater certainty to consent applicants, with a Bill to amend the Resource Management Act (RMA) expected to be introduced to Parliament next month. RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop has today outlined the first RMA Amendment ...
Overseas models for regulating the oil and gas sector, including their decommissioning regimes, are being carefully scrutinised as a potential template for New Zealand’s own sector, Resources Minister Shane Jones says. The Coalition Government is focused on rebuilding investor confidence in New Zealand’s energy sector as it looks to strengthen ...
Emergency Management and Recovery Minister Mark Mitchell has today released the Report of the Government Inquiry into the response to the North Island Severe Weather Events. “The report shows that New Zealand’s emergency management system is not fit-for-purpose and there are some significant gaps we need to address,” Mr Mitchell ...
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith is today travelling to Europe where he’ll update the United Nations Human Rights Council on the Government’s work to restore law and order. “Attending the Universal Periodic Review in Geneva provides us with an opportunity to present New Zealand’s human rights progress, priorities, and challenges, while ...
Associate Agriculture Minister, Mark Patterson, formally reopened the world’s largest wool processing facility today in Awatoto, Napier, following a $50 million rebuild and refurbishment project. “The reopening of this facility will significantly lift the economic opportunities available to New Zealand’s wool sector, which already accounts for 20 per cent of ...
Hon Andrew Bayly, Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing At the Southland Otago Regional Engineering Collective (SOREC) Summit, 18 April, Dunedin Ngā mihi nui, Ko Andrew Bayly aho, Ko Whanganui aho Good Afternoon and thank you for inviting me to open your summit today. I am delighted ...
The Government is delivering on its commitment to bring back the Three Strikes legislation, Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee announced today. “Our Government is committed to restoring law and order and enforcing appropriate consequences on criminals. We are making it clear that repeat serious violent or sexual offending is not ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters has today announced four new diplomatic appointments for New Zealand’s overseas missions. “Our diplomats have a vital role in maintaining and protecting New Zealand’s interests around the world,” Mr Peters says. “I am pleased to announce the appointment of these senior diplomats from the ...
New Zealand is contributing NZ$7 million to support communities affected by severe food insecurity and other urgent humanitarian needs in Ethiopia and Somalia, Foreign Minister Rt Hon Winston Peters announced today. “Over 21 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance across Ethiopia, with a further 6.9 million people ...
Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Paul Goldsmith is congratulating Mataaho Collective for winning the Golden Lion for best participant in the main exhibition at the Venice Biennale. "Congratulations to the Mataaho Collective for winning one of the world's most prestigious art prizes at the Venice Biennale. “It is good ...
The Government is reforming financial services to improve access to home loans and other lending, and strengthen customer protections, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly and Housing Minister Chris Bishop announced today. “Our coalition Government is committed to rebuilding the economy and making life simpler by cutting red tape. We are ...
“China remains a strong commercial opportunity for Kiwi exporters as Chinese businesses and consumers continue to value our high-quality safe produce,” Trade and Agriculture Minister Todd McClay says. Mr McClay has returned to New Zealand following visits to Beijing, Harbin and Shanghai where he met ministers, governors and mayors and engaged in trade and agricultural events with the New ...
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has completed a successful trip to Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines, deepening relationships and capitalising on opportunities. Mr Luxon was accompanied by a business delegation and says the choice of countries represents the priority the New Zealand Government places on South East Asia, and our relationships in ...
New Zealand is demonstrating its commitment to reducing global greenhouse emissions, and supporting clean energy transition in South East Asia, through a contribution of NZ$41 million (US$25 million) in climate finance to the Asian Development Bank (ADB)-led Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM). Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced ...
The Government is today releasing a list of organisations who received letters about the Fast-track applications process, says RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop. “Recently Ministers and agencies have received a series of OIA requests for a list of organisations to whom I wrote with information on applying to have a ...
Attorney-General Judith Collins today announced the appointment of Wellington Barrister David Jonathan Boldt as a Judge of the High Court, and the Honourable Justice Matthew Palmer as a Judge of the Court of Appeal. Justice Boldt graduated with an LLB from Victoria University of Wellington in 1990, and also holds ...
Education Minister Erica Stanford will lead the New Zealand delegation at the 2024 International Summit on the Teaching Profession (ISTP) held in Singapore. The delegation includes representatives from the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) Te Wehengarua and the New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) Te Riu Roa. The summit is co-hosted ...
A stopbank upgrade project in Tairawhiti partly funded by the Government has increased flood resilience for around 7000ha of residential and horticultural land so far, Regional Development Minister Shane Jones says. Mr Jones today attended a dawn service in Gisborne to mark the end of the first stage of the ...
Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters will represent the Government at Anzac Day commemorations on the Gallipoli Peninsula next week and engage with senior representatives of the Turkish government in Istanbul. “The Gallipoli campaign is a defining event in our history. It will be a privilege to share the occasion ...
Science, Innovation and Technology and Defence Minister Judith Collins will next week attend the OECD Science and Technology Ministerial conference in Paris and Anzac Day commemorations in Belgium. “Science, innovation and technology have a major role to play in rebuilding our economy and achieving better health, environmental and social outcomes ...
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon held a bilateral meeting today with the President of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The Prime Minister was accompanied by MP Paulo Garcia, the first Filipino to be elected to a legislature outside the Philippines. During today’s meeting, Prime Minister Luxon and President Marcos Jr discussed opportunities to ...
The Government has announced that $20 million in funding will be made available to Westport to fund much needed flood protection around the town. This measure will significantly improve the resilience of the community, says Local Government Minister Simeon Brown. “The Westport community has already been allocated almost $3 million ...
The Government is proud to support the first ever Repco Supercars Championship event in Taupō as up to 70,000 motorsport fans attend the Taupō International Motorsport Park this weekend, says Economic Development Minister Melissa Lee. “Anticipation for the ITM Taupō Super400 is huge, with tickets and accommodation selling out weeks ...
Local Government Minister Simeon Brown has announced an increase to the Rates Rebate Scheme, putting money back into the pockets of low-income homeowners. “The coalition Government is committed to bringing down the cost of living for New Zealanders. That includes targeted support for those Kiwis who are doing things tough, such ...
The Coalition Government is investing in a project to boost survival rates of New Zealand mussels and grow the industry, Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones has announced. “This project seeks to increase the resilience of our mussels and significantly boost the sector’s productivity,” Mr Jones says. “The project - ...
Benefit figures released today underscore the importance of the Government’s plan to rebuild the economy and have 50,000 fewer people on Jobseeker Support, Social Development and Employment Minister Louise Upston says. “Benefit numbers are still significantly higher than when National was last in government, when there was about 70,000 fewer ...
The Government’s commitment to doubling New Zealand’s renewable energy capacity is backed by new data showing that clean energy has helped the country reach its lowest annual gross emissions since 1999, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says. New Zealand’s latest Greenhouse Gas Inventory (1990-2022) published today, shows gross emissions fell ...
The Government is bringing the earthquake-prone building review forward, with work to start immediately, and extending the deadline for remediations by four years, Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk says. “Our Government is focused on rebuilding the economy. A key part of our plan is to cut red tape that ...
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and his Thai counterpart, Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin, have today agreed that New Zealand and the Kingdom of Thailand will upgrade the bilateral relationship to a Strategic Partnership by 2026. “New Zealand and Thailand have a lot to offer each other. We have a strong mutual desire to build ...
RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop and Transport Minister Simeon Brown have today announced the Coalition Government’s intention to extend port coastal permits for a further 20 years, providing port operators with certainty to continue their operations. “The introduction of the Resource Management Act in 1991 required ports to obtain coastal ...
Today’s announcement that inflation is down to 4 per cent is encouraging news for Kiwis, but there is more work to be done - underlining the importance of the Government’s plan to get the economy back on track, acting Finance Minister Chris Bishop says. “Inflation is now at 4 per ...
Refreshed health guidance released today will help parents and schools make informed decisions about whether their child needs to be in school, addressing one of the key issues affecting school attendance, says Associate Education Minister David Seymour. In recent years, consistently across all school terms, short-term illness or medical reasons ...
Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones is streamlining high-level oceans management while maintaining a focus on supporting the sector’s role in the export-led recovery of the economy. “I am working to realise the untapped potential of our fishing and aquaculture sector. To achieve that we need to be smarter with ...
Associate Agriculture Minister Mark Patterson is speaking at the International Wool Textile Organisation Congress in Adelaide, promoting New Zealand wool, and outlining the coalition Government’s support for the revitalisation the sector. "New Zealand’s wool exports reached $400 million in the year to 30 June 2023, and the coalition Government ...
The Government is making legislative changes to make it easier for new early learning services to be established, and for existing services to operate, Associate Education Minister David Seymour says. The changes involve repealing the network approval provisions that apply when someone wants to establish a new early learning service, ...
Changes to the Resource Management Act will align consenting for coal mining to other forms of mining to reduce barriers that are holding back economic development, Resources Minister Shane Jones says. “The inconsistent treatment of coal mining compared with other extractive activities is burdensome red tape that fails to acknowledge ...
Trade, Agriculture and Forestry Minister Todd McClay has concluded productive discussions with ministerial counterparts in Beijing today, in support of the New Zealand-China trade and economic relationship. “My meeting with Commerce Minister Wang Wentao reaffirmed the complementary nature of the bilateral trade relationship, with our Free Trade Agreement at its ...
Asia Pacific Report Students and activist staff at Australia’s University of Sydney (USyd) have set up a Gaza solidarity encampment in support of Palestinians and similar student-led protests in the United States. The camp was pitched as mass graves, crippled hospitals, thousands of civilian deaths and the near-total destruction of ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James B. Dorey, Lecturer in Biological Sciences, University of Wollongong Australian teddy bear bees are cute and fluffy, but get a look at that massive (unbarbed) stinger! James Dorey Photography Most of us have been stung by a bee and we ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jen Roberts, Senior Lecturer, School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, University of Wollongong Aussie~mobs/FlickrVictor Farr, a private in the 1st Infantry Battalion, was among the first to land at Anzac Cove just before dawn on April 25 1915. Victor Farr ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gregory Moore, Senior Research Associate, School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, The University of Melbourne Gregory Moore I had the good fortune to care for the sugar gum at The University of Melbourne’s Burnley Gardens in Victoria where I worked for ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra BagzhanSadvakassov/Upsplash, CC BY-SA Australia’s inflation rate has fallen for the fifth successive quarter, and it’s now less than half of what it was back in late 2022. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Ong ViforJ, ARC Future Fellow & Professor of Economics, Curtin University Just when we think the price of rentals could not get any worse, this week’s Rental Affordability Snapshot by Anglicare has revealed low-income Australians are facing a housing crisis like ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Meighen McCrae, Associate Professor of Strategic & Defence Studies, Australian National University American and Australian stretcher bearers working together near the front line during the Battle of Hamel in 1918.Australian War Memorial While the AUKUS alliance is new, the Australian-American partnership ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tracey Holmes, Professorial Fellow in Sport, University of Canberra When the news broke last weekend that 23 Chinese swimmers had tested positive to a banned drug in early 2021 and were allowed to compete at the Tokyo Olympic Games six months later ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cally Jetta, Senior Lecturer and Academic Lead; College for First Nations, University of Southern Queensland Australian War MemorialAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains names and images of deceased people, as well as sensitive historical information ...
RNZ News Melissa Lee has been ousted from New Zealand’s coalition cabinet and stripped of the Media portfolio, and Penny Simmonds has lost the Disability Issues portfolio in a reshuffle. Climate Change and Revenue Minister Simon Watts will take Lee’s spot in cabinet. Simmonds was a minister outside of cabinet. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Lindenmayer, Professor, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University laurello/Shutterstock Some reports and popular books, such as Bill Gammage’s Biggest Estate on Earth, have argued that extensive areas of Australia’s forests were kept open through frequent burning by ...
Analysis - Christopher Luxon framing the demotion of two ministers as the portfolios getting "too complex" is a charitable way of saying they weren't up to the job. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra With Jim Chalmers’s third budget on May 14, Australians will be looking for some more cost-of-living relief – beyond the tax cuts – although they have been warned extra measures will be modest. As ...
Analysis: Melissa Lee has lost the media portfolio and her spot in Cabinet after multiple failed attempts to find solutions for a media industry in crisis. On Wednesday, the Prime Minister announced Lee would be losing her spot in Cabinet along with her media and communications ministerial portfolio. The job ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Wilmot, Senior Lecturer, Film, Deakin University Among the many Australian who served during the second world war, there is a small group of people whose stories remain largely untold. These are the Muslim men and women who, while small in number, ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kelly Saunders, PhD Candidate, University of Canberra There has been much analysis and praise of Justice Michael Lee’s recent judgement in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case against Channel Ten. Many people were openly relieved to read Lee’s “forensic” and “nuanced” application of law ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kathy Gibbs, Program Director for the Bachelor of Education, Griffith University zEdward_Indy/Shutterstock Around one in 20 people has attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It’s one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders in childhood and often continues into adulthood. ADHD is diagnosed ...
The Fairer Future coalition of anti-poverty groups say Whaikaha must be properly funded going forward, and that to argue that poor financial management of the new Ministry is a red herring by the Prime Minister. ...
The Taxpayers’ Union is today congratulating Hon. Paul Goldsmith on his appointment as Minister for Media and Communications and urges him to rule out state intervention in the private media sector. ...
Asia Pacific Report The West Papuan resistance OPM leader has condemned Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and US President Joe Biden, accusing their countries of “six decades of treachery” over Papuan independence. The open letter was released today by OPM chairman Jeffrey P Bomanak on the eve of ANZAC Day ...
Welcome to The Spinoff Books Confessional, in which we get to know the reading habits and quirks of New Zealanders at large. This week: writer and one of Time Magazine’s 100 most influential people of 2024, Lauren Groff.The book I wish I’d writtenIf I wish I’d written a ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Fechner, Research Fellow, Social Marketing, Griffith University mavo/Shutterstock Imagine having dinner at a restaurant. The menu offers plant-based meat alternatives made mostly from vegetables, mushrooms, legumes and wheat that mimic meat in taste, texture and smell. Despite being given that ...
“Three Strikes is a dead-end policy proposed by a dead-end government. The Three Strikes law ignores the causes of crime, instead just brutalising people already crushed by the cost of living.” ...
By Don Wiseman, RNZ Pacific senior journalist An Australian-born judge in Kiribati could well face deportation later this week after a tribunal ruling that he should be removed from his post. The tribunal’s report has just been tabled in the Kiribati Parliament and is due to be debated by MPs ...
With its clear mandate for police use, political nuances, and nuanced public trust, Denmark's insights provide valuable considerations for Australia and New Zealand. ...
Books editor Claire Mabey reviews poet Louise Wallace’s debut novel. A famous poet once said to me that he’s always suspicious when a poet publishes a novel. I never really understood why but maybe it’s something to do with cheating on your first form. Louise Wallace is a poet. She’s ...
For a few months at the turn of the millennium, TrueBliss burned bright as the biggest pop stars in the country. Alex Casey chats to two superfans who still hold the flame. During a humble backyard wedding in Nelson, 1999, one of the cordially invited guests had to excuse themselves ...
How will the recent wave of job cuts impact ethnic diversity in the media? In November last year, I was working a very busy day in the newsroom of a large online news site, interviewing whānau about their concerns over the imminent closure of one of the few puna reo ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ruth Knight, Researcher, Queensland University of Technology Have you ever felt sick at work? Perhaps you had food poisoning or the flu. Your belly hurt, or you felt tired, making it hard to concentrate and be productive. How likely would you be ...
Despite heavy criticism and an ongoing select committee process, the Police Minister says the Government will forge ahead with a ban on gang patches. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sam Whiting, Lecturer – Creative Industries, University of South Australia Shutterstock Everyone has a favourite band, or a favourite composer, or a favourite song. There is some music which speaks to you, deeply; and other music which might be the current ...
A new survey says ‘outlook not great’ for those charged with building infrastructure, while RMA changes delight farmers and depress environmentalists, writes Anna Rawhiti-Connell in this excerpt from The Bulletin, The Spinoff’s morning news round-up. To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here. First RMA changes announced ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Olli Hellmann, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Waikato Getty Images When New Zealanders commemorate Anzac Day on April 25, it’s not only to honour the soldiers who lost their lives in World War I and subsequent conflicts, but also ...
A leaked document shows the Canterbury/Waitaha arm of health agency Te Whatu Ora is scurrying to save $13.3 million by July. The “financial sustainability target”, which was “allocated” to Waitaha, is consistent with what’s happening in other districts, says Sarah Dalton, executive director of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists. ...
A look at the state of the previous government’s affordable housing scheme, and what could come next.Remind me: What’s KiwiBuild again?First announced in 2012, KiwiBuild was a flagship policy of the Labour Party heading into both its 2014 and 2017 election campaigns. With Jacinda Ardern as prime minister, ...
Labour in opposition will be shocked to learn which party had six years in power but squandered any chance to make real change. Grant Robertson’s valedictory speech was a predictably entertaining trip down memory lane. The acid-tongued incoming Otago University chancellor administered a sick burn to the coalition government. He ...
Opinion: It has been announced that nine percent of roles at Oranga Tamariki will be disestablished, presumably to help fund the tax cuts promised by the coalition Government. I am reminded of the graphics used to illustrate pandemic events, where five thousand people are standing in a field and then ...
After more than two sleepless days, running through savage terrain, Greig Hamilton didn’t know if he was going to finish one of the most gruelling psychological assaults in sport. He was metres away from the finish line, a yellow gate made famous in a Netflix documentary; a race he’d dreamed ...
Loading…(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){var ql=document.querySelectorAll('A[quiz],DIV[quiz],A[data-quiz],DIV[data-quiz]'); if(ql){if(ql.length){for(var k=0;k<ql.length;k++){ql[k].id='quiz-embed-'+k;ql[k].href="javascript:var i=document.getElementById('quiz-embed-"+k+"');try{qz.startQuiz(i)}catch(e){i.start=1;i.style.cursor='wait';i.style.opacity='0.5'};void(0);"}}};i['QP']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){(i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m)})(window,document,'script','https://take.quiz-maker.com/3012/CDN/quiz-embed-v1.js','qp'); Got a good quiz question?Send Newsroom your questions. The post Newsroom daily quiz, Wednesday 24 April appeared first on Newsroom. ...
The following interview with former Green Party MP Sue Kedgley came about because she features in the new memoir Hine Toa by activist Ngāhuia te Awekōtuku; the two knew each other at the University of Auckland in the early 70s, when they were both took on leadership roles in the ...
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry is seen some as its ‘silicon shield’ against invasion – but how will overseas expansion affect that protection? The post The state of Taiwan’s silicon shield appeared first on Newsroom. ...
There’s relief for building owners bending under the weight of earthquake strengthening rules – and costs – that came into force seven years ago. Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk has announced a scheduled 2027 review of the earthquake-prone building regulations will now start this year. Owners will also get ...
COMMENTARY:By Murray Horton New Zealand needs to get tough with Israel. It’s not as if we haven’t done so before. When NZ authorities busted a Mossad operation in Auckland 20 years ago, the government didn’t say: “Oh well, Israel has the right to defend itself.” No, it arrested, prosecuted, ...
NEWSMAKERS:By Vijay Narayan, news director of FijiVillage Blessed to be part of the University of Fiji (UniFiji) faculty to continue to teach and mentor those who want to join our noble profession, and to stand for truth and justice for the people of the country. I was privileged to ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Martin, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University Three weeks from now, some of us will be presented with a mountain of budget papers, and just about all of us will get to hear about them on radio, ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dan Lowry, Ice Sheet & Climate Modeller, GNS Science Hugh Chittock/Antarctica New Zealand, CC BY-SA As the climate warms and Antarctica’s glaciers and ice sheets melt, the resulting rise in sea level has the potential to displace hundreds of millions of ...
The government's plan to reintroduce a three strikes regime is being strongly opposed by lawyers, who argue there is no evidence it reduces crime or helps people rehabilitate. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Professor specialising in Internet law, Bond University Do Australian courts have the right to decide what foreign citizens, located overseas, view online on a foreign-owned platform? Anyone inclined to answer “yes” to this question should perhaps also ask ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Giovanni E Ferreira, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, Institute of Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney Last week in a post on X, owner of the platform Elon Musk recommended people look into disc replacement if they’re experiencing severe neck or back pain. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Hayward, Emeritus Professor of Public Policy, RMIT University anek.soowannaphoom/Shutterstock NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey caught the headlines yesterday, courtesy of a blistering speech condemning the latest GST carve-up. New South Wales, he claimed, would be A$11.9 billion worse off over the ...
While police are "broadly in favour", the government's proposed anti-gang laws are facing pushback from lawyers, rights groups and former gang members. ...
While police are "broadly in favour", the government's proposed anti-gang laws are facing pushback from lawyers, rights groups and former gang members. ...
By Miriam Zarriga in Port Moresby Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has arrived at Kokoda Station, Northern province, at the start of his state visit to Papua New Guinea. Both Albanese and Prime Minister James Marape will meet with the locals and the Northern Provincial government before they begin their ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Wallace, Professor, School of Politics Economics & Society, Faculty of Business Government & Law, University of Canberra Shutterstock An important principle was invoked by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese last week in defence of the government’s Future Made in Australia industry ...
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.