Fisking Farrar’s fisking

Written By: - Date published: 2:30 pm, July 9th, 2009 - 40 comments
Categories: election funding - Tags:

Yesterday David Farrar presented us with his analysis of Labour’s electoral finance submission. There is a lot of ‘Nya Nya I Told You So!’ in there every time Labour’s position changed from 2007 to now, and a fair bit of ‘Nya Nya They Haven’t Learned Anything!’ when its position did not change. That kind of partisan cheerleading is to be expected.

And he did make some good points about shortcomings in Labour’s submission, such as their treatment of the broadcasting allocation, their attitude towards parliamentary services expenditure during election campaigns, and their proposals to help out new parties. Despite being a proud Labour member, I agree with the general thrust of his critiques in those areas, and those positions are also reflected in my own submission.

But there are three other elements of his analysis that caught my eye:

1. Hypocrisy and Double Standards

David accuses Labour of proposing a self-serving solution that is only good for Labour. But then David’s own submission advocates no restrictions at all on budget or advertising streams for parallel campaigns, opens the door for large increases in party spending limits, retains the possibility of unlimited large corporate donations, opposes any public funding for political parties, and argues for a short regulated period where absolutely anything goes outside of the period. That sounds an awful lot like a self-serving solution for the party that gets the support of most of the wealthy people, no?

He also accuses Labour of making assertions in their submission without having evidence to back it up. But in his own submission he simply asserts that freedom of speech is more important than participatory fairness in a democracy, without presenting any evidence, and when there is actually some reasonable evidence (see paragraphs 7-8 in my submission) to the contrary. He asserts that ‘A disclosure limit of $1,000 would be far too low and discourage many supporters from donating’ without providing any evidence at all about that. And so on.

2. Silly Statements

Both the analysis of Labour’s submission and David’s own submission are liberally sprinkled with howlers. My favourites:

Commenting on Labour’s submission that any restrictions on voter registration constitute a barrier to participation, David exclaims: ‘Good God. Never before have I heard voter registration be called a barrier to participation.’ Given David is in the US, I suggest he go to the southern states and ask all the African Americans about their historical experience with restrictive voter registration laws, then come back and see if he wants to revise his statement.

Commenting on Labour’s submission about political television advertising, David says: ‘What decade are they in? How many people even watch TV ads now? Heard of My Sky.’ Earth to David: There is a world outside of Thorndon in which not everybody has My Sky. People advertise on TV because advertising on TV works.

In his own submission, David wants to allow things that are ‘unfair’ but are not ‘manifestly unfair’ on the grounds that the taller guy tends to win US Presidential elections. I am not making this up, honestly. He really submitted that to good people at the Ministry of Justice. He seems to believe that the proposed principles of electoral finance, as stated in the discussion document, would open the door to a declaration that all candidates have to be the same height. Earth to David: Come back, David! You can use your tin foil hat as a parachute.

3. Unworkable solutions

There aren’t many solutions proposed in David’s submission except for the catch-all ‘the gummint should butt out’, but some that are opposed are entirely silly. Again, my favourites:
David opposes any limit at all on how much a person or company or union can give to political parties, but says ‘if there is [a limit] it should be set as a percentage of a party’s total income.’ Which would mean that nobody would know the donation limit until after the election is over. Oops.

Voluntary compliance for parallel campaigners. Yes, we are back to voluntary compliance again. The last group who tried this on was the major industrial polluters, as I recall. And that sure worked a treat. Anyway, David reckons that we can fix the problem of parallel campaigns jamming the airwaives with unlimited ads by inducing them to voluntary accept a spending limit in return for wait for it legal advice! Because large lobbying organizations do not know any lawyers, you understand. Again, I promise I am not making this up.

– Rob Salmond

40 comments on “Fisking Farrar’s fisking ”

  1. lprent 1

    In other words DPF hadn’t bothered to engage his brain?

  2. r0b 2

    Good to see you commenting and posting here Rob (note to conspiracy theorists, r0b is not Rob). Loved your stuff at 08wire!.

    Thanks for this detailed commentary. I’m not up to speed on this issue, but as I understand it the process National has set out for electoral form looks good on paper – is that right? It would be good to get genuine multipartisan agreement on this issue and put it to bed for good…

  3. lbj 3

    well, he is a rotund no-mates so it’s to be expected I guess. he’s probably in cahoots with Ian Wishart as we speak

    • Maynard J 3.1

      Thanks for that idiotic comment. So stupid you managed a complete contradiction in two sentences.

    • Ari 3.2

      Farrar’s “rotundness” has shit all to do with the fact that he is, from time to time, a partisan, hypocritical, and an intellectual lightweight.

  4. roger nome 4

    “David accuses Labour of proposing a self-serving solution that is only good for Labour. But then David’s own submission advocates no restrictions at all on budget or advertising streams for parallel campaigns”

    lol – for someone who’s been spinning disinformation for the last decade and a half or so, Farrar doesn’t half leave himself open to some obvious corkers.

    “David exclaims: Good God”

    He often plays the pompous/sanctimonious wank without knowing.

    “Heard of My Sky’

    Fark – this takes the cake. It’s like his ego pump piece where he brags about “having a chat with Michael Laws in the Koru lounge”. He’s such an elitist toss-pot, so oblivious about it. Although sometimes i wonder whether he’s just enjoying himself with a bit of post-modern self-parody – who knows.

    “the taller guy tends to win US Presidential elections.”

    I’ve seen him use this argument to justify his supporting a flat rate of tax. Something about tall guys getting all the hot girls and him not getting any compensation for being short (as if he misses out just because he’s short). Really David – don’t be so disingenuous and superficial – look at napoleon, Hitler, Churchill etc – all were short-arses like you and all beat there taller counterparts to power.

    Let’s face it – Farrar wants a plutocracy, and he’s willing to advance all manner of sophistry and intellectual contortion to promote it. Like redbaiter, and all other libertarians, in practice, he regards democracy as a synonym for “socialism” – it’s the great unwashed wielding “undeserved” power.

  5. So Bored 5

    Rather amusing that Farrar runs an opinion polling company….given his views I wouldnt trust the veracity of the results. Amazes me the way his type bust a gut trying to join with and be accepted by a political class that is set up to preclude their entry.

  6. lbj 6

    np, oxy-moron is my middle name.

    Check this out:

    http://www.should-a.com/pmv7r3

    lol

  7. roger nome 7

    “David accuses Labour of proposing a self-serving solution that is only good for Labour. But then David’s own submission advocates no restrictions at all on budget or advertising streams for parallel campaigns’

    lol for someone who’s been spinning disinformation for the last decade and a half or so, Farrar doesn’t half leave himself open to some obvious corkers.

    “David exclaims: Good God’

    He often plays the pompous/sanctimonious jerk without knowing.

    “Heard of My Sky’

    Fark this takes the cake. It’s like his ego pump piece where he brags about “having a chat with Michael Laws in the Koru lounge’. He’s such an out-of-touch elitist, yet so oblivious about it. Although sometimes i wonder whether he’s just enjoying himself with a bit of post-modern self-parody who knows.

    “the taller guy tends to win US Presidential elections.’

    I’ve seen him use this argument to justify his supporting a flat rate of tax. Something about tall guys getting all the hot girls and him not getting any compensation for being short (as if he misses out just because he’s short). Really David don’t be so disingenuous and superficial look at napoleon and Churchill etc all were short-arses like you and all beat there taller counterparts to power.

    Let’s face it Farrar wants a plutocracy, and he’s willing to advance all manner of sophistry and intellectual contortion to promote it. Like redbaiter, and all other libertarians, in practice, he regards democracy as a synonym for “socialism’ it’s the great unwashed wielding “undeserved’ power.

  8. Rob Salmond 8

    Thanks to the Standardistas for letting me post here, and thanks also to r0b for the props.

    In answer to r0b’s question, yes I think the Nats’ process for the electoral finance review is pretty good. The big test, however, will be in crafting a proposed law that really does represent a fair compromise. As roger nome points out, DPF hasn’t been especially helpful in the that regard. Fingers crossed.

  9. DPF’s critique isn’t total criticism – he even agrees with Labour in parts.

    One interesting comment that appears to have been overlooked because DPF has mentioned it is the state funding of parties. The point that DPF makes is this effectively cuts the reliance on the parliamentary wing from the rank and file membership who raise the funds.

    This would clearly have an impact on party activists – on all sides – who would be able to wield significantly less control over the parliamentarians. Certainly a point worth considering, even if DPF did raise it.

    • Pascal's bookie 9.1

      I hear what his saying, but I’m not sure that it would be as big a problem as he makes out.

      One reason people don’t get involved more at the moment with party membership and what have you, is that fund raising is such a big focus. And not what activists want to spend time doing. Removing this task from the extra parliamentary party will leave them focussed on candidate selection, canvassing, policy remits, and the other more, err, exciting bits. Ok so ‘exciting’ takes it a bit far.

      An idea for public financing I keep coming back to, (in the hope that someone will smash the shit out of it), is what I call citizen directed public financing.

      Basic idea is that every eligible voter gets to throw their allocation of the public financing at the party of their choice. $5, $10 whatever it is. This could be done when registering to vote, (which is already compulsory and the forms are sent out to everyone) by ticking a box.

      The main advantages over other forms of public financing are that:

      – It’s not up to the pollies who gets how much.

      – Voters can feel free to give their money to a party that they might not feel confident voting for because of tactical or whatever other reason. (This makes it less sucky for the smaller parties that get punished in systems based on last elections results.)

      The obvious drawback is that the parties will want to campaign for this cash, making it essentially another election. I don’t see why we have to let them. Make each party give the electoral office a 1000 word pitch which would be posted on the interwebs or something and other than that the soliciting of these funds should be illegal.

      If it works this could actually develop into a system for involving citizens more in the process. If they wished, the citizen might be able to tick another box so that the party they fund could contact them about membership or activism etc.

  10. While pleased to see Rob agrees with some of my submission, he misses the point several times.

    First of all people should note both Labour and myself have argued for no fixed limit on third party spending.

    All I have suggested for party spending limits is they should be the same today as they were in 1996 – adjusted for inflation and population. Rob also misses that my main point was suggesting the limits be set based on actual emperical research of how much you need for an effective communication campaign with three million voters.

    And yes I support the status quo in terms of donation limits and state funding.

    But to suggest all my proposals benefit National is silly. I doubt National like me advocating they should lose $1 million of broadcasting allocation. I doubt they agree with me that they should be banned from spending their parliamentary budget during the regulated period. I doubt they agree with my position that all anonymous donations should be prohibited (Labour by the way wants to keep anonymous donations). I doubt they agree with my position that they publish audited accounts.

    Yes in a couple of cases I have made assertions also without proof. But Rob misses the point again. When you are advocating that someone should be banned from doing something – the onus is on you to make your case. I don’t think one should have to prove the desirability of freedom of speech for example. Given more time (I am not a political party with staff) I could have fleshed out arguments in more detail.

    The voter registration as a barrier to participation was domestically focused. Of course in other countries decades ago bad things happened with voter registration. But I don’t think Labour’s position of labelling it a barrier to participation is healthy.

    Rob misses the point on TV advertising. My point is it is no longer such a dominant medium it needs special laws than ban parties from buying broadcasting time. There is a difference between dominant and effective. The fact a medium is effective is a reason to allow parties to advertise on it I would have thought.

    And most of all you almost maliciously mischaracterise my statement on unfairness. The point I made about taller candidates winning (which I also made to half a dozen Ministry officials at an invite only roundtable on electoral finance) is that money is not the only factor that can affect how people vote, and that there are many factors that a party or candidates can have that can seem unfair to others. Hence my suggestion the test should be manifestly unfair. Only a moron or Rob being malicious would think I was advocating candidates need to be the same height.

    And finally Rob takes the mickey out of my suggestion of a voluntary limit for parallel campaigners. He ignores the fact I suggested there be significant incentives for parallel campaigners to voluntarily register and accept the limit. But what he doesn’t point out is his beloved Labour actually advocates there be no limit at all – I at least advocated for a limit for those who voluntarily register to gain benefits.

    Rob, being based in the US, should know that the US has certain voluntary spending limits. Obama is in fact the first candidate to exceed them I think. Hence my suggestion of incentives to comply with a voluntary limit is I think quite a reasonable thing to consider. It is a halfway house between Labour that says there should be no spending limit for parallel campaigners and those who say there should be a compulsory spending limit.

    The fact any compulsory spending limit is so easy to get around (you just set up multiple third parties) is another reason I proposed a voluntary regime as an alternative.

    Anyway as I said, I am glad Rob agreed with some of my points, and we obviously disagree on others.

    • Ari 10.1

      David, just because you aren’t arguing the National Party line does not mean you’re not arguing a very pro-National Party regime after criticising the Labour Party for doing the same thing.

      Rob, being based in the US, should know that the US has certain voluntary spending limits. Obama is in fact the first candidate to exceed them I think.

      Nope, plenty of republican candidates ditched the public funding and the spending limits that went with it. Obama ditched the limits because they’re designed to impede campaigns running on big donations- and his campaign exceeded the limit using small donations.

      And most of all you almost maliciously mischaracterise my statement on unfairness. The point I made about taller candidates winning (which I also made to half a dozen Ministry officials at an invite only roundtable on electoral finance) is that money is not the only factor that can affect how people vote, and that there are many factors that a party or candidates can have that can seem unfair to others. Hence my suggestion the test should be manifestly unfair. Only a moron or Rob being malicious would think I was advocating candidates need to be the same height.

      Why didn’t you give a real example then, and point out why your solution was the best way to avoid “fairness” provisions from giving advantaged candidates a slanted playing field? Talking about statistical coincidences made your point look vexatious and self-interested. It wasn’t just the way Rob characterised your argument.

      The fact any compulsory spending limit is so easy to get around (you just set up multiple third parties) is another reason I proposed a voluntary regime as an alternative.

      I think we could consider allowing unlimited funding of paralell campaigns in return for not accepting anonymous donations or donations from funds or trusts that could potentially “launder” donations because they don’t declare their own donors.

      Honestly, if there are aggressive rules around parallel campaigns that enforce accountability and transparency, I think we can experiment with letting them spend what they like.

      What specifics did you propose for your voluntary regime, anyway?

  11. Maynard J 11

    “Only a moron or Rob being malicious would think I was advocating candidates need to be the same height.”

    Only a moron would think that is what Rob was suggesting.

    • Frank 11.1

      (which I also made to half a dozen Ministry officials at an invite only roundtable on electoral finance)

      I like the fact that even in a rebuttal comment Farrar can’t help but boast about what an insider he is. Small man syndrome?

  12. jason 12

    You sure there’s not a spelling mistake in there, fisking?

  13. Rob Salmond 13

    David

    Welcome home and I hope you enjoyed the Koru Lounge you mentioned on Kiwiblog this morning.

    Taking your points in order:

    1. I also advocated no limit to parallel campaigns, so long as there is a limit on total political donations from one source (as in the US). Without that cap, the floodgates are open.

    2. Your second paragraph contradicts itself. You first say party spending limits should be simply adjusted from 1996 levels, then call for entirely new limits based on new empirical research about communication with voters.

    3. You know as well as I do that your proposal benefits your favourite party much more than it benefits their main opponents. So quit playing all innocent. (Also, my submission seeks to limit how much a union can give to Labour, so if you are innocent of favouritism then so am I.)

    4. When you make any empirical claim about the world, **any** claim, it is your job to back it up with evidence. If you don’t have the evidence, don’t make the claim. You fell short of that standard multiple times in your submission, which is why it is pretty rich for you to get up in arms when any other submitter does the same thing.

    5. I do not really understand the democratic reason for wanting to ban same day registration. Could the real reason be that it is because most same day registrants are likely to be poor and to vote for a left-leaning party? David, tell me this: why in a democratic society should someone who wants to vote, and is entitled by citizenship etc to vote, be turned away from the polls for purely administrative reasons? How is that democratic? I agree with Labour on this one every time that happens, someone has been denied their say in their democracy, and if it is an administrative rule that causes this then the rule is a barrier to that person’s participation.

    6. Maynard J is right only a moron would think I was accusing you of actually wanting a Candidate Height Rule. What you in fact argued was that, unless “manifestly’ made it into the principles, there was a danger of some idiot getting such a rule by arguing height constituted an “unfair’ advantage. Your argument here is specious and paranoid, and I called you on it.

    7. The other argument of yours I made fun of is not specious and paranoid, it is specious and rose tinted. You argue that big spending lobby groups will accept voluntary spending limits in return for free legal advice from the EC and the threat of Duncan Garner exposing them as big spending lobby groups if they resist. That aargument is laughable. It takes a cheque for around $80million to get US candidates to agree to these limits. (And on that, George Bush operated outside of those limits at least once, and I believe twice so no Obama is not the first.)

    Yes we do agree on some stuff David. But the same old PR tricks, with the same old game of seeking to advantage your own party lying underneath, are not going to help in getting a truly multipartisan compromise. I really do want to engage constructively, but if you are going to post nonsense I am going to call it nonsense.

    • Ari 13.1

      Was it just Bush? I was under the impression that Republicans had done that before Bush.

      • Rob Salmond 13.1.1

        Ari – It is entirely possible that candidates before Bush went without FEC matching funds. Once I had found out that David’s claim about Obama was wrong, I stopped looking.

    • Anita 13.2

      OT I know, but

      Welcome home and I hope you enjoyed the Koru Lounge you mentioned on Kiwiblog this morning.

      Why does he do that? Why why why?

      🙂

  14. Rob Salmond 14

    PS – David, I did note the point you have made in a number of forums about there being many dimensions to political participation other than money, and I specifically address it in my submission.

  15. Chris Diack 15

    On the whole DPF makes a better fist of a contribution than does Rob.

    Always hang on to your fundamental freedoms when government types and academics propose “balance’ among a list of meaningless statements or objectives.

    What it invariable means is the less free approach.

    Rob does catch on to the Ministry’s compromising of the freedom of speech and its non compromising of fairness which if one reads the prose is actually about substantive fairness a particular pattern of characteristics (money or whatever) between parties and candidates. Rob calls this participation which sort of begs the question about what the Ministry’s “participation’ means.

    What he misses in his canvassing of the variety of regulatory regimes around the world is that while each is invariably justified on the grounds of fairness, what they actually have in common is the fact that each promotes the interests of incumbents and usually dominant incumbents at that.

    Surprise surprise politicians around the world (incumbents) just LOVE regulating political competition. Their key concern and focus is always challengers.

    Let us take but one small example of where Rob gets things wrong:

    “If a person can expend massive resources on election campaigning then that person’s disproportionate influence, or just as importantly that person’s perceived disproportionate influence, in the election campaign would transcend what most New Zealanders might consider “fair.’

    He goes on to add the truism that there are just so many hours in the day but money is unlimited (Obamanomics?)

    There are just so many errors. First spending does not necessarily equal influence Rob simply dresses up the old argument that money can buy votes (its called influence now) he has no faith that New Zealanders will not be beguiled by big political spenders; that they cannot “balance’ (to use Rob’s word) this information with other information and process it. Nor should they be give the opportunity to learn this skill by experience; no they must be protected and sheltered from the magic of political ad men.

    And how great a risk it is really that this would happen? Does anyone have unlimited resources (money or otherwise); and if so would they irrationally apply them in political causes as Rob suggests.

    Non Party and candidate speech problems around the world are almost entirely a creation of the regulation of candidates and parties (both donation caps and spending rules and in the States the transfer rules within parties). In fact political cause money in politics is much like water: its goes where there is least resistance and can be most efficiently utilised generally. Therefore light regulation of parties and candidates will mean that most money for political causes will flow to them. The other occasion where political money flows to non candidate non party speech is where there is a fundamental shift in the political system going on thus it’s borne of a deep dissatisfaction with incumbents. What is the State’s interest in regulating this is it always to be the case that there will be the existing array of parties and politicians? Non candidate and non party speech can be the early sign of a new party system arising (take Labour’s pre 1916 speech for example and the long slow decline of the Liberal Party electoral coalition)

    Rob goes on to support the most nutty element of US political regulation; individual donor caps. This has not worked in the States indeed because it is a rule caused fundraising inefficiency, it actually advantages the wealthy as they are best able to afford to carry the cost of this inefficiency. Nor has it broadened the class of donors contributing to US political campaigns. It tends to support richer candidates of dominant parties and favours incumbents against challangers. Obama is a good example of the power that early adoption by the Millionaire/Billionaire set can provide – forget about all the internet fundraising myths. Obama also disproves the notion that leftwing candidates are necessarily unattractive to high net worth individuals.

    Rob’s proposal supports extending regulation to non candidate and party speech a regulatory nightmare which will chill non candidate and party speech.

    It is amusing the way all the detail of Rob’s extensive regulation of speech is in his footnotes.

    Like Labour’s submission a bare pass mark.

  16. Ari 16

    Rob goes on to support the most nutty element of US political regulation; individual donor caps. This has not worked in the States indeed because it is a rule caused fundraising inefficiency, it actually advantages the wealthy as they are best able to afford to carry the cost of this inefficiency. Nor has it broadened the class of donors contributing to US political campaigns. It tends to support richer candidates of dominant parties and candidates and favours incumbents against challangers. Obama is a good example of the power that early adoption by the Millionaire/Billionaire set can provide forget about all the internet fundraising nonsense. Obama also disproves the notion that leftwing candidates are necessarily unattractive to high net worth individuals.

    The point is not to eliminate the influence of the wealthy, the point is to make it not disproportionate to the influence of other voters. Per-person caps do this nicely.

  17. Chris Diack 17

    US evidence does not support your contention Ari.

    All the evidence in the US supports the notion the rule-required fundraising inefficiency supports those who are best able to carry this inefficiency i.e. the wealthy.

    They can spend their 24hrs arranging their affairs and those of others who are like them to comply.

    The other effect of the rule is to advantage incumbants over challangers as challangers must spend a greater deal of their time fundraising in smaller increments unless they are personally very wealthy themselves. You will note the trend in the US towards candidates with a higher net worth – this has a lot to do with the crazy regulation in the US the donor cap being the most significant of these along with the rules against intra party transfers.

    There is no evidence that the individual donation cap has upped the influence of voters (or confidence in the electoral system or the range of people contributing, nor corruption – all the various justifications for it).

    As I said its the nuttiest feature of the US regulation of political competition.

  18. Rob Salmond 18

    Chris

    First, thanks for taking the time to read and think about my submission. I mean that.

    It seems that you believe David’s to be a better submission because its conclusions fit more closely with your own ideas. I make this statement based on your first two paragraphs praising freedom and bemoaning academics and bureaucrats. If that is your decision rule for a “good submission’ then that, of course, is up to you. If applied broadly, however, that kind of thinking leads people to be receptive only to ideas they already agree with, running the risk of rigid rote learning of ideals. I do not suggest you have reached that point, of course, but it is a risk.

    On the specifics:

    1. I do not agree with your contention that “each [regulatory regime] promotes the interests of incumbents and usually dominant incumbents at that.’ For example, the German public funding regime, which gives parties more money for the first few votes they receive than for the subsequent votes they receive, advantages small (often new) parties at the expense of large incumbent parties.

    2. The evidence is clear candidates or parties who raise more money get more votes. As evidence, here is what even David Farrar said on this topic in his submission: “the amount of money raised and spent by a party has relatively minor (but not nil) influence of the votes they get.’ I, of course, would disagree with David about what counts as “relatively minor’ but it is telling that even he is forced to concede that there is a positive relationship between spending money and winning votes. Note that the studies finding this control for all sorts of other possible explanations about incumbency, longevity of the incumbent, challenger quality, larger trends, etc.

    3. At first glance, your claim that a per person donation cap which has the effect of decreasing likely giving by the rich, but does not affect behavior among the non-rich, would in fact **advantage the rich** sounds like Orwellian doublespeak of the highest order. I am not saying I do not believe your inefficiency argument I just have not seen the evidence. You say there is evidence for this can you point me to it? (Note that the trend to richer candidates over time is not good evidence of this, given that it the trend continues unabated even within the same donation cap regime, and that there are other good explanations on offer, such as increasingly mediated politics etc.)

    4. You say: “Rob’s proposal supports extending regulation to non candidate and party speech a regulatory nightmare which will chill non candidate and party speech.’ That is untrue. I specifically recommend against spending limits for parallel campaigns, so long as there are per person donation caps. The only act being regulated is the donation, which is being regulated the same way regardless of the recipient. So the regulatory nightmare that wakes you in a sweat a “chilled’ sweat I guess – does not arise.

  19. Ari 19

    All the evidence in the US supports the notion the rule-required fundraising inefficiency supports those who are best able to carry this inefficiency i.e. the wealthy.

    They can spend their 24hrs arranging their affairs and those of others who are like them to comply.

    I don’t actually get what you’re trying to say here, sorry. Are you talking about spending money fundraising on behalf of a campaign, or the rich just being more willing to donate? Because I don’t know if I really mind either of those.

    The other effect of the rule is to advantage incumbants over challangers as challangers must spend a greater deal of their time fundraising in smaller increments unless they are personally very wealthy themselves. You will note the trend in the US towards candidates with a higher net worth this has a lot to do with the crazy regulation in the US the donor cap being the most significant of these along with the rules against intra party transfers.

    It would be nice if there were also limits on the amount candidates can self-fund and loan to their campaigns.

    There is no evidence that the individual donation cap has upped the influence of voters (or confidence in the electoral system or the range of people contributing, nor corruption all the various justifications for it).

    As I said its the nuttiest feature of the US regulation of political competition.

    I think nutty behaviour in the USA is probably based around not shoring up the rules properly in hopes of taking advantage of the loopholes, rather than an inherent flaw in the idea of a per-person cap.

    Also, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 🙂

  20. Chris Diack 20

    Rob:

    “It seems that you believe David’s to be a better submission because its conclusions fit more closely with your own ideas.’

    No on the whole his reasoning is better. Actually I disagree with DPF in a number of places he is far far too fond of regulation and enforcement for my liking.

    “I do not agree with your contention that “each [regulatory regime] promotes the interests of incumbents and usually dominant incumbents at that.’ For example, the German public funding regime, which gives parties more money for the first few votes they receive than for the subsequent votes they receive, advantages small (often new) parties at the expense of large incumbent parties.’

    Well we have had this argument before the entire German set up mitigates against quick political change that its intention. Also they have not been immune to money in politics scandals: Mrs Merkel was the bangperson for Kohl (when she was CDU party Treasurer) and he wasn’t unique he engaged in practices widespread among German political parties. German political parties are pretty sickly due to their dependence on the state funding. The Germans quite like them being creatures of the State given their history.

    “The evidence is clear candidates or parties who raise more money get more votes’

    Labour/Green spent more than National/ACT last time did they get more votes?
    ACT until the last election consistently spent more than any other non Labour/National political party did it get more votes? It sometimes was close to Labour and National in its spend has it ever got anything close to the votes or either of the broad church parties?

    Your statement is nonsense. It’s far truer to observe that incumbents tend to raise more money and get more votes than challengers. And in the US incumbents win more elections than challengers. It’s a fundamental error to assume money = votes. It really depends. Money can follow electabilty not cause it. But what isn’t disputed is the higher co relation between incumbent re-election and regulation.

    I would be interested in surveys you cite suggesting controlling for every other variable that prove the contention that money spent = votes. The “controlling’ for all these variables will tell the tale I suspect.

    “your claim that a per person donation cap which has the effect of decreasing likely giving by the rich, but does not affect behavior among the non-rich, would in fact **advantage the rich** sounds like Orwellian doublespeak of the highest order’

    I never said that I don’t know what you are on about. What I said is that rule caused fundraising inefficiency advantages those best able to carry this inefficiency – wealthy donors, wealthy candidates and those who can purchase or who hold specialist knowledge.

    The rise of the millionaire candidate in the US has resulted from the regulation of political competition there; making it hard to solicit meaningful donations advantages those who don’t have to fundraise; it also the pushes funds that would otherwise go to parties and candidates into non party and non candidate speech especially if that candidate is highly electable (attracting more financial support than they can actually take on an individual basis). The cap incentives both because of the drop in real value over time. As you know almost every electable US pol has shadow organisations – these exist almost exclusive because of the regulation – without almost all probably wouldn’t.

    “4. You say: “Rob’s proposal supports extending regulation to non candidate and party speech a regulatory nightmare which will chill non candidate and party speech.’ That is untrue. I specifically recommend against spending limits for parallel campaigns, so long as there are per person donation caps.’

    You dissemble: first you say that there is no speech urging voting for or against parties or candidates (is that not regulating non candidate non party speech?). You then want to regulate issue advocacy (whatever that is) during the regulated period by suggesting that organisations not running candidates are “political organisations’ and thus subject to your donation regulation. How on earth does one cast a rule to define “political organisation” And if it doesn not take donations at all it can freely but inefficient speak (because it cant be direct) but one that must soliticit donations must do so in small increments?

    And of course there is the arrogance of the “species politicus’; assuming that all speech about politics is “parallel campaigning’ it’s a sort of an “its all about me’ type attitude. It’s a fundamental right of New Zealanders to both bag and praise politicians what is the state interest in regulating this? The purpose of the freedom of expression is to express. Again what are you afraid of: can New Zealanders not process this information; can they not handle ideas.

    Again Rob you simply repeat the old prejudice: money spent on advocating ideas can buy elections. It’s nonsense. Money is necessary but it isn’t sufficient for political success.

    Rudely you define your “parallel campaigning” as issue advocacy – this is an extreme position.

    Trust me: you cannot “balance’ all political speech its impossible and unwise to even attempt it thankfully Labour seems to have given up on this. I don’t know why you would even attempt bring non candidate and non party speech into a regulatory regime.

    And the donation and definition rules you suggest one could drive a bulldozer through them if one had the time and money; hello Mr Wealthy again.

    Surely its better to lightly regulate candidates and parties so what most money for political causes flows there – where it is generally most efficiently spent.

    • Duncan 20.1

      Chris Diack, aren’t you the guy who tried to steal the Labour Party’s house?

      Speaking of unethical behaviour, ask Roger about that Red Seal rort he was into next time you talk to him.

  21. Chris Diack 21

    Duncan

    Ad hominem attack is sooooo boring. Try to keep up or please go onto another thread.

    I am taking the issues Rob raises seriously you should try making a tiny contribution to the sum total of human understanding too.

  22. Chris Diack 22

    Ari:

    The high net worth individuals arrange their affairs to comply with cap because they can afford to carry the costs involved in complying. Yes they also involve themselves in soliciting funds for their preferred candidates as well.

    It’s called bundling it’s a US phenomenon also entirely caused by the regulation.

    Yes high net worth candidates who do not have to fundraise in low increments are advantaged.

    Both of these advantages prompted largely by the regulation of political competition in the US results in Congressional demand for further regulation.

    As to your contention that the US does not try to enforce its regulation more money is spent on compliance and enforcement in the US than any other nation for none in the Anglo-American world have as much regulation.

    Its looks like the Robert’s Supreme Court will start rolling the regulation back the Chief Justice has said he wants to hear a case on the regulation of donations from corporations and the biographical films issue.

  23. burt 23

    All this concern for fair and balanced electoral finance laws is refreshing on the standard. The tables have changed and now DPF is defending “his team” trying to queer the pitch while you guys are opposing it.

    Politics, a game all partisans can play with great dexterity while still being too bloody stupid to notice they are just changing sides fighting over the same things all the time thinking they are better than the other team.

  24. Rob Salmond 24

    Chris

    Taking your points, again, in order:

    1. On Germany, I do not remember arguing that the German system was without blemish. But I did argue that the aspect of their system which I highlight in my submission does not, as you had claimed, advantage the incumbents.

    2. On the link between money and votes, anybody can pick out exceptions to a trend, write only the exceptions down, and then say there is no trend. But that doesn’t make the statement true. I suggest you read the studies. David Farrar has and, despite his ideological reservations, had to conclude that raising money really does help a candidate win votes, all else equal.

    3. “I never said that I don’t know what you are on about.’ Chris, take your statement immediately following that one and substitute the specific rule I proposed in place of your description of that rule as “rule caused inefficiency’, then you have a statement saying exactly what I said you said. You repeated your earlier logic as to why the rich might benefit from a per person donation cap. It **is** interesting logic. In an earlier comment you said there was some evidence to back this up. Can you point me to evidence beyond the rise of rich candidates? (As I said before, I do not find that one fact persuasive here.)

    4. On parallel campaigns, I do not think the definitional problems are as insurmountable as you appear to think they are.

    Chris, you have a position which reifies “free speech’ over other principles. I can understand how your proposals flow from that position. But I take a different view on the principles. I think that participatory fairness and freedom of speech are sometimes in conflict, and that it is not obvious that freedom of speech should win every time. So does the MOJ by the look of it, and so do most of the world’s democracies. More importantly, I have at least a little evidence that the majority of New Zealanders share my view on these principles. I have not heard evidence from the other side that their view on the principles has majority support.

  25. Chris Diack 25

    Rob:

    It’s a bit tiring to hear the “well reasonable people can disagree argument’ trotted out.

    As DPF correctly observes, it for those propose proposing removing fundamental freedoms to make out their case.

    Remember the freedom of expression is recognised in the NZBORA. Accordingly to abridge it the obligation is upon you to show that the limitation is justified; and further to outline what significant objective you seek to achieve by the limitation and whether the policy you propose is rational and proportionate.

    Substantive fairness or equity (your value of primacy) isn’t a NZBORA right. Nor is a right existing outside the NZBORA. Rather it is a mere public policy choice.

    Parliament has determined the issue of values by including the freedom of expression and not included your substantive fairness or equity.

    So Rob the duty is on those who want to remove fundamental freedoms to make out a compelling case.

    Regarding the MOJ document what you point to as a positive attribute of their work I interpret as pre judgement and poor drafting.

    Regarding what New Zealanders want regarding taxpayer contributions towards political competition, I am sure if they where aware of the probably close to $30m a triennium the taxpayer contributes towards Labour MP’s doing their jobs and competing with other parties I am sure they would say that that is enough fairness already.

    Using your numbering:

    1 Germany

    96% of all public funding goes on the parties in the Diet. One third of the Parties income is from state funding; one third from party membership and other donations and one third from levies on public officerholders for those parties. Both the members fees and the individual donations and levies are to some extent (generous) tax deductible. Parliamentary Blocs can also receive donations the transfer of which to the Party are also tax deductible.

    I should not have to say this but any funding system that relies on a formula based on previous voting in an immediate past Federal or European Election; and then on the tax deductibility of generously paid officeholder contributions at Federal, State and Municipal levels of course favours incumbents.

    That is not to mention all the funding available to party blocs at Federal, State and Municipal for their public duties. The Germans have quite some gravy train in operation.

    I mentioned the German problems not to illustrate perfection (or lack of it) but rather to show that German politicians are also functioning under the thicket of regulations and that the key justification for public funding (avoiding corruption and its appearance) doesn’t actually work even in system where the overall State contribution to political competition is very significant.

    2. On the link between money and votes, you offered research that controlled for incumbency that shows that shows those candidates getting more money win elections. I would be interested in the links to these.

    Certainly this contention isn’t supported in New Zealand. DPF has done some work on the actual returns of party donations and expenses that does not support the contention.

    I actually don’t believe that one can get meaningful research that controls for everything else but I would welcome the details of this.

    3 Individual donor caps are a rule required fundraising inefficiency by definition. I did not say that high net worth individuals benefit from them, what I said was that as candidates, donors and fundraisers they are best placed to afford to carry the costs of this inefficiency.

    It is simple economics really. To collect $20k from an individual is cheaper than collecting 20 x 1K increments. Thus the pressure goes on the reduce transaction costs. Reducing transaction costs favours the wealthy because they can afford this better.

    Rule based fundraising inefficiency must by necessity disadvantage low net worth political minority candidates since being a political minor necessarily means a narrow base of support. And so the University prof from Hyde Party might be moved to give a radical candidate 10K in one transaction but is prevented from doing so and simply isn’t rich enough to arrange is or her affairs to comply and nor to act as a fundraiser for the candidate. The Hyde Park radical must be electable enough to gainer the support of those who can arrange their affairs and those of people like them to fund, like Silicon Valley millionaires and billionaires.

    4. On parallel campaigns, you propose outlaw express political advocacy at a time when citizens are actually most interested in politics, in favour of issues based advocacy which you then propose to regulate the soliciting of donations for (which again favours high net worth individuals and organisations that don’t need popular support to provide their income. What is actually “parallel’ about issue advocacy and why isn’t this erosion of the fundamental right of New Zealanders who are not candidates or political parties to bag, praise or ignore politicians and parties in their speech?

  26. Rob Salmond 26

    Chris

    I will not be as thorough as you indoor soccer and delicious beverages beckon.

    Most importantly, if you honestly do not believe that reasonable people can disagree on controversial political issues like election financing, then you have failed to learn lesson one of political science one. Think about the depth of the arrogance contained in the statement “people either agree with me or are stupid.’

    To the numbers:

    1. Abstracting from Germany a bit, if the opposite of regulation is Darwinian free competition in which the strong survive and the weak perish, aren’t incumbents almost always “the strong’ and therefore advantaged viz the rest in free competition as well? So even if you are right about the incumbency advantage in regulated systems, removing the regulation does not remove the advantage. And, as I have pointed out, some regulatory systems have elements that try to undo some of that incumbency advantage.

    2. You ask for references: I would start with Gary Jacobson’s 1978 article in the American Political Science Review, then look at a follow-ups from Jacobson, from Don Green and Jonathan Krasno, and from Erikson and Thomas Palfrey, then look for articles that cite these or that these cite. I don’t have the URLs off the top of my head, but if you google the authors and “campaign finance’ you should find them OK.

    3. In the issue of donor caps, twice I have asked you to point me to the evidence you mentioned earlier, and twice you have not done so. If there is evidence (as opposed to “argument”), point me to it.

    4. Nobody is seeking to ban you from saying nasty things about politicians you do not like. What we are regulating is you employing others (be they newspaper printers or television technicians or pamphlet printers and deliverers etc) to bag politicians on your behalf.

  27. Chris Diack 27

    Rob

    My comment about reasonable people disagreeing is not about intelligence or an attempt to be insulting it is really about ignoring the burden of proof you carry when you advocate abridging fundamental rights like the freedom of expression. As I said Parliament has spoken about this value it has put it in the law.

    It isn’t merely a matter or taste; you have much more work to do when advocating a position that reduces the freedom of expression. Whereas, I have much less lifting to do because I support no restrictions on non candidate and non party expression; and lighter regulation of candidates and parties generally.

    1 On Germany you claimed their regulation of political competition didn’t favour incumbents I established that on the whole it very clearly does. Further, that German political parties are highly reliant on direct and indirect taxpayer support; that their entire set up mitigates against dramatic political change.

    Remember the issue is ensuring that parliament represents the major streams of political thought in New Zealand. The key to that is to ensure that challengers can make their case. Most regulation both here and abroad advantages incumbents against challengers. You are correct that Parliamentary incumbents are generally advantaged by virtue of being in Parliament that is why the regulation of political competition should not add to that as you would propose.

    Using your numbering:

    2. You mean this Prof Gary Jacobson:

    “Meanwhile, I think it would be foolish to make policy on the assumption that bias is, in fact, substantial; the greatest likelihood remains that restrictions on campaign money will have the general effect of hurting challengers (Jacobson, 1979).

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/h08j13135144qt16/

    3. You must be pre occupied by the indoor soccer Rob; have you not see the moves to regulate both bundling and the millionaire exception in Congress the irony being of course that both of these problems arise almost entirely because of the cap on individual donations.

    As I said you are attempting to introduce the most nutty element of US scheme you are going to have to do better.

    4. This statement boarders on legal illiteracy you cannot be serious.

  28. Rob Salmond 28

    Chris – This is the last time I will post on this thread. 1. On Germany, I never made the broad system-wide claim you say I made – that may have been the source of the confusion. 2. Jacobson was talking in the context of the localised, candidate centered, individualistic US system. Would the same conclusion hold in a nationalised party-based system? I don’t think Jacobson would profess to know. In addition, you have framed the whole discussion as “incubments vs challengers” whereas most political party-level competition in all PR democracies is between incumbents and incumbents. 3. I note that for a third time you have failed to supply the evidence you had earlier alluded to. 4. I’ll judge your statement that you do not intend to be insulting with a grain of salt, given your final statement about illiteracy.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Still doing a good 20
    Hello! Here comes the Saturday edition of More Than A Feilding, catching you up on the past somewhat interrupted week. Still on the move!Share Read more ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    4 hours ago
  • Coalition of the Unwilling?
    What does Budget 2024 tell us about the current government? Muddle on?Coalition governments are not new. About 50 percent of the time since the first MMP election, there has been a minority government, usually with allied parties holding ministerial portfolios outside cabinets. For 10 percent of the time there was ...
    PunditBy Brian Easton
    17 hours ago
  • Of red flags and warning signs in comments on social media
    Somewhat surprisingly for what is regarded as a network of professionals, climate science misinformation is getting shared on LinkedIn, joining other channels where this is happening. Several of our recent posts published on LinkedIn have attracted the ire of various commenters who apparently are in denial about human-caused climate change. Based ...
    17 hours ago
  • All good, still
    1. On what subject is Paul Henry even remotely worth giving the time of day?a. The state of our nationb. The state of the ACT partyc. How to freak out potential buyers of your gin palace by baking the remains of your deceased parent into its fittings2. Now that New ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    19 hours ago
  • The looting is the point
    Last time National was in power, they looted the state, privatising public assets and signing hugely wasteful public-private partnership (PPP) contracts which saw foreign consortiums provide substandard infrastructure while gouging us for profits. You only have to look at the ongoing fiasco of Transmission Gully to see how it was ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    20 hours ago
  • The Illusion of Power: How Local Government Bureaucrats Overawe Democratically-Elected Councillors..
    The Democratic Façade Of Local Government: Our district and city councillors are democratically elected to govern their communities on one very strict condition – that they never, ever, under any circumstances, attempt to do so.A DISINTEGRATION OF LOYALTIES on the Wellington City Council has left Mayor Tory Whanau without a ...
    23 hours ago
  • Lowlights & Bright Spots
    I can feel the lowlights coming over meI can feel the lowlights, from the state I’m inI can see the light now even thought it’s dimA little glow on the horizonAnother week of lowlights from our government, with the odd bright spot and a glow on the horizon. The light ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    1 day ago
  • Weekly Roundup 14-June-2024
    Another week, another roundup of things that caught our eye on our favourite topics of transport, housing and how to make cities a little bit greater. This Week in Greater Auckland On Monday, Connor wrote about Kāinga Ora’s role as an urban development agency Tuesday’s guest post by ...
    Greater AucklandBy Greater Auckland
    1 day ago
  • The Hoon around the week to June 14
    Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: The podcast above of the weekly ‘hoon’ webinar for paying subscribers features co-hosts and talking with:The Kākā’s climate correspondent about the National-ACT-NZ First Government’s moves this week to take farming out of the ETS and encourage more mining and oil and ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    1 day ago
  • Climate policy axed in broad daylight, while taxpayer liabilities grow in the dark
    In 2019, Shane Jones addressed the “50 Shades of Green” protest at Parliament: Now he is part of a government giving those farmers a pass on becoming part of the ETS, as well as threatening to lock in offshore oil exploration and mining for decades. Photo: Lynn GrievesonTL;DR: Here’s the ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    1 day ago
  • Rage Bait!
    Hi,Today’s newsletter is all about how easy it is to get sucked into “rage bait” online, and how easy it is to get played.But first I wanted to share something that elicited the exact opposite of rage in me — something that made me feel incredibly proud, whilst also making ...
    David FarrierBy David Farrier
    1 day ago
  • Bernard's Dawn Chorus and pick 'n' mix for Friday, June 14
    Seymour said lower speed limits “drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow rules they knew made no sense.” File Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: My six things to note in Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Friday, June 14 were:The National/ACT/NZ First ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    1 day ago
  • Friendly but frank talks with China Premier
    It sounded like the best word to describe yesterday’s talks between Chinese Premier Li Qiang and his heavyweight delegation of Ministers and officials and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and New Zealand Ministers and officials was “frank.” But it was the kind of frankness that friends can indulge in. It ...
    PolitikBy Richard Harman
    1 day ago
  • Skeptical Science New Research for Week #24 2024
    Open access notables Wildfire smoke impacts lake ecosystems, Farruggia et al., Global Change Biology: We introduce the concept of the lake smoke-day, or the number of days any given lake is exposed to smoke in any given fire season, and quantify the total lake smoke-day exposure in North America from 2019 ...
    2 days ago
  • Geoffrey Miller: China’s message to New Zealand – don’t put it all at risk
    Don’t put it all at risk. That’s likely to be the take-home message for New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in his meetings with Li Qiang, the Chinese Premier. Li’s visit to Wellington this week is the highest-ranking visit by a Chinese official since 2017. The trip down under – ...
    Democracy ProjectBy Geoffrey Miller
    2 days ago
  • The Real Thing
    I know the feelingIt is the real thingThe essence of the soulThe perfect momentThat golden momentI know you feel it tooI know the feelingIt is the real thingYou can't refuse the embraceNo?Sometimes we face the things we most dislike. A phobia or fear that must be confronted so it doesn’t ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    2 days ago
  • Gordon Campbell on how moderates empower the political right
    Struth, what a week. Having made sure the rural sector won’t have to pay any time soon for its pollution, PM Christopher Luxon yesterday chose Fieldays 2024 to launch a parliamentary inquiry into rural banking services, to see how the banks have been treating farmers faced with high interest rates. ...
    2 days ago
  • Bernard's Dawn Chorus and pick 'n' mix for Thursday, June 13
    In April, 17,656 people left Aotearoa-NZ to live overseas, averaging 588 a day, with just over half of those likely to have gone to Australia. Photo: Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: My six things to note in Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Thursday, June 13 ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    2 days ago
  • Our guide to having your say on the draft RLTP 2024
    Auckland’s draft Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) 2024 is open for feedback – and you only have until Monday 17 June to submit. Do it! Join the thousands of Aucklanders who are speaking up for wise strategic investment that will dig us out of traffic and give us easy and ...
    Greater AucklandBy Connor Sharp
    2 days ago
  • The China puzzle
    Chinese Premier Li Qiang arrives in Wellington today for a three-day visit to the country. The visit will take place amid uncertainty about the future of the New Zealand-China relationship. Li hosted a formal welcome and then lunch for then-Prime Minister Chris Hipkins in Beijing a year ago. The pair ...
    PolitikBy Richard Harman
    2 days ago
  • Fossil fuels are shredding our democracy
    This is a re-post of an article from the Climate Brink by Andrew Dessler published on June 3, 2024. I have an oped in the New York Times (gift link) about this. For a long time, a common refrain about the energy transition was that renewable energy needed to become ...
    2 days ago
  • Life at 20 kilometres an hour
    We are still in France, getting from A to B.Possibly for only another week, though; Switzerland and Germany are looming now. On we pedal, towards Budapest, at about 20 km per hour.What are are mostly doing is inhaling a country, loving its ways and its food. Rolling, talking, quietly thinking. ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    3 days ago
  • Hipkins is still useless
    The big problem with the last Labour government was that they were chickenshits who did nothing with the absolute majority we had given them. They governed as if they were scared of their own shadows, afraid of making decisions lest it upset someone - usually someone who would never have ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    3 days ago
  • Exercising with the IDF.
    This morning I did something I seldom do, I looked at the Twitter newsfeed. Normally I take the approach of something that I’m not sure is an American urban legend, or genuinely something kids do over there. The infamous bag of dog poo on the front porch, set it on ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    3 days ago
  • Helm Hammerhand Anime: First Pictures and an Old English ‘Hera’
    We have some news on the upcoming War of the Rohirrim anime. It will apparently be two and a half hours in length, with Peter Jackson as Executive Producer, and Helm’s daughter Hera will be the main character. Also, pictures: The bloke in the middle picture is Freca’s ...
    3 days ago
  • Farmers get free pass on climate AND get subsidies
    The cows will keep burping and farting and climate change will keep accelerating - but farmers can stop worrying about being included in the ETS. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: My six things to note in Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Wednesday, June 12 were:The ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    3 days ago
  • Six ideas to secure Te Huia’s Future
    This is a guest post by our friend Darren Davis. It originally appeared on his excellent blog, Adventures in Transitland, which features “musings about public transport and other cool stuff in Aotearoa/ New Zealand and around the globe.” With Te Huia now having funding secure through to 2026, now is ...
    Greater AucklandBy Darren Davis
    3 days ago
  • The methane waka sinks
    In some ways, there may be less than meets the eye to the Government announcement yesterday that the He Waka Eke Noa proposal for farmers to pay for greenhouse gas emissions has been scrapped. The spectre of farmers still having to pay at some point in the future remains. That, ...
    PolitikBy Richard Harman
    3 days ago
  • At a glance – Does positive feedback necessarily mean runaway warming?
    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 ...
    4 days ago
  • Climate Change: Farmers get what they wanted – for now
    Since entering office, National has unravelled practically every climate policy, leaving us with no effective way of reducing emissions or meeting our emissions budgets beyond magical thinking around the ETS. And today they've announced another step: removing agriculture entirely. At present, following the complete failure of he waka eka noa, ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    4 days ago
  • Presumed Innocent?
    The blue billionaireDistraction no interactionOr movement outside these glazed over eyesThe new great divideFew fight the tide to be glorifiedBut will he be satisfied?Can we accept this without zoom?The elephant in the roomNot much happens in politics on a Monday. Bugger all in fact. Although yesterday Christopher Luxon found he ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    4 days ago
  • Gordon Campbell on our doomed love affair with oil and gas
    What if New Zealand threw a fossil fuel party, and nobody came? On the weekend, Resources Minister Shane Jones sent out the invitations and strung up the balloons, but will anyone really want to invest big time in resuming oil and gas exploration in our corner of the planet? Yes, ...
    WerewolfBy lyndon
    4 days ago
  • Building better housing insights
    This is a guest post by Meredith Dale, senior urban designer and strategist at The Urban Advisory. There’s a saying that goes something like: ‘what you measure is what you value’. An RNZ article last week claimed that Auckland was ‘hurting’ because of a more affordable supply of homes, particularly townhouses ...
    Greater AucklandBy Guest Post
    4 days ago
  • Putin would be proud of them
    A Prime Minister directs his public service to inquire into the actions of the opposition political party which is his harshest critic. Something from Orban's Hungary, or Putin's Russia? No, its happening right here in Aotearoa: Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has announced the Public Service Commission will launch an ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    5 days ago
  • Resources for debunking common solar and wind myths
    This is a repost from a Yale Climate Connections article by SueEllen Campbell published on June 3, 2024. The articles listed can help you tell fact from fiction when it comes to solar and wind energy. Some statements you hear about solar and wind energy are just plain false. ...
    5 days ago
  • Juggernaut
    Politics were going on all around us yesterday, and we barely noticed, rolling along canal paths, eating baguettes. It wasn’t until my mate got to the headlines last night that we learned there had been a dismayingly strong far right result in the EU elections and Macron had called a ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    5 days ago
  • Numbers Game.
    Respect Existence, Or Expect Resistance? There may well have been 50,000 pairs of feet “Marching For Nature” down Auckland’s Queen Street on Saturday afternoon, but the figure that impresses the Coalition Government is the 1,450,000 pairs of Auckland feet that were somewhere else.IN THE ERA OF DRONES and Artificial Intelligence, ...
    5 days ago
  • Media Link: AVFA on post-colonial blowback.
    Selwyn Manning and I discuss varieties of post colonial blowback and the implications its has for the rise of the Global South. Counties discussed include Palestine/Israel, France/New Caledonia, England/India, apartheid/post-apartheid South Africa and post-colonial New Zealand. It is a bit … Continue reading ...
    KiwipoliticoBy Pablo
    5 days ago
  • Policy by panic
    Back in March, Ombudsman Peter Boshier resigned when he hit the statutory retirement age of 72, leaving the country in the awkward (and legally questionable) position of having him continue as a temporay appointee. It apparently took the entire political system by surprise - as evinced by Labour's dick move ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    5 days ago
  • PSA: NZ's Richest Company, Zuru, Sucks
    Hi,Today the New Zealand press is breathlessly reporting that the owners of toy company Zuru are officially New Zealand’s wealthiest people: Mat and Nick Mowbray worth an estimated $20 billion between them.While the New Zealand press loses its shit celebrating this Kiwi success story, this is a Webworm reminder that ...
    David FarrierBy David Farrier
    5 days ago
  • Bernard's Dawn Chorus and pick 'n' mix for Monday, June 10
    TL;DR: The six things to note in Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty in the past day to 8:36 pm on Monday, June 10 were:20,000 protested against the Fast-track approval bill on Saturday in Auckland, but PM Christopher Luxon says ‘sorry, but not sorry’ about the need for ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    5 days ago
  • In Defence of Kāinga Ora
    Given the headlines around the recent findings of the ‘independent’ review of Kāinga Ora by Bill English, you might assume this post will be about social housing, Kāinga Ora’s most prominent role. While that is indeed something that requires defending, I want to talk about the other core purpose of ...
    Greater AucklandBy Connor Sharp
    5 days ago
  • Baby You're A Rich Man
    “How does it feel to beOne of the beautiful peopleNow that you know who you areWhat do you want to beAnd have you traveled very far?Far as the eye can see”Yesterday the ACT party faithful were regaled with craven boasts, sneers, and demands for even more at their annual rally.That ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    5 days ago
  • Stopping a future Labour government from shutting down gas exploration
    A defiant Resources Minister Shane Jones has responded to Saturday’s environmental protests by ending Labour’s offshore oil exploration ban and calling for long-term contracts with any successful explorers. The purpose would be to prevent a future Labour Government from reversing any licence the explorers might hold. Jones sees a precedent ...
    PolitikBy Richard Harman
    5 days ago
  • 2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23
    A listing of 32 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, June 2, 2024 thru Sat, June 8, 2024. Story of the week Our Story of the Week is Yale Climate Connection's Resources for debunking common solar and wind myths, by ...
    6 days ago
  • Fission by the river
    This is where we ate our lunch last Wednesday. Never mind your châteaux and castles and whatnot, we like to enjoy a baguette in the shadow of a nuclear power plant; a station that puts out more than twice as much as Manapouri using nothing more than tiny atoms to bring ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    6 days ago
  • Fact Brief – Is the ocean acidifying?
    Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. This fact brief was written by John Mason in collaboration with members from the Gigafact team. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline. Is the ocean acidifying? Acidification of oceans ...
    7 days ago
  • 20,000+ on Queen St.
    The largest protest I ever went on was in the mid 90s. There were 10,000 people there that day, and I’ve never forgotten it. An enormous mass of people, chanting together. Stretching block after block, bringing traffic to a halt.But I can’t say that’s the biggest protest I’ve ever been ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    7 days ago
  • Josh Drummond's Columns
    Hi there,I wanted to put all of Josh Drummond’s Webworm pieces all in one place. I love that he writes for Webworm — and all of these are a good read!David.Why Are So Many “Christians” Hellbent on Being Horrible?Why do so many objectively hideous people declare themselves “Christian”?Meeting the Master ...
    David FarrierBy David Farrier
    7 days ago
  • Bernard’s Saturday soliloquy and weekend Pick ‘n’ Mix for June 8/9
    Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: On reflection, the six things to note in Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty this week were:The Government-driven freeze in building new classrooms, local roads and water networks in order to save cash for tax cuts is frustrating communities facing massive population ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    1 week ago
  • The no-vision thing
    Hello! Here comes the Saturday edition of More Than A Feilding, catching you up on the past somewhat interrupted week. Still on the move!Share Read more ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    1 week ago
  • When Journalists are Disingenuous
    Hi,One of the things I like the most about Webworm is to be able to break down the media and journalism a little, and go behind the scenes.This is one of those times.Yesterday an email arrived in my inbox from journalist Jonathan Milne, who is managing editor at Newsroom.I don’t ...
    David FarrierBy David Farrier
    1 week ago
  • Me, elsewhere: Just say you’ll do the thing
    Wrote something over at 1/200 on a familiar theme of mine: The way we frame the economy as a separate, sacred force which must be sacrificed to, the way we talk about criminals as invaders who must be repelled, the constant othering of people on the benefit, people not in ...
    Boots TheoryBy Stephanie Rodgers
    1 week ago
  • A Voyage Among the Vandals: Accepted
    A nice bit of news today: my 4600-word historical fantasy-horror piece, A Voyage Among the Vandals, has been accepted by Phobica Books (https://www.phobicabooks.co.uk/books) for their upcoming Pirate Horror anthology, Shivering Timbers. This one is set in the Mediterranean, during the mid-fifth century AD. Notable for having one of history’s designated ...
    1 week ago
  • Ministerial conflicts of interest
    Since the National government came to power, it has been surrounded by allegations of conflicts of interest. Firstly, there's the fast-track law, which concentrates power in the hands of three Ministers, some of whom have received donations from companies whose projects they will be deciding on. Secondly, there's the close ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    1 week ago
  • The 2024 Budget Forecasts Are Gloomy Prognosis About The Next Three Years.
    There was no less razzamatazz about the 2024 Budget than about earlier ones. Once again the underlying economic analysis got lost. It deserves more attention.Just to remind you, the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update (BEFU), is the Treasury’s independent assessment and so can be analysed by other competent economists (although ...
    PunditBy Brian Easton
    1 week ago
  • A government that can't see twenty feet ahead
    There are two failings that consistently characterise a National government. One is a lack of imagination, the other is their willingness to look after their mates, no matter what harm it might do to everyone else.This is how we come to have thousands of enormous trucks carving up our roads. ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    1 week ago
  • A post I hope is incorrect
    In May, we learned that National MP David MacLeod had "forgotten" to declare $178,000 in electoral donations. Filing a donation return which is false in any material particular is a crime, and the Electoral Commission has now referred MacLeod to police, since they're the only people who are allowed to ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    1 week ago
  • Māori Cannot Re-Write New Zealand’s Constitution By Stealth.
    The Kotahitanga Parliament 1897: A Māori Parliament – at least in the guise of a large and representative body dedicated to describing the shape of New Zealand’s future from a Māori perspective – would be a very good idea.THE DEMAND for a “Māori Parliament” needs to be carefully unpicked. Some Pakeha, ...
    1 week ago
  • Cowpats and Colonials.
    Dumbtown, is how my friend Gerard refers to people like ZB listeners - he’s not wrong.Normally on a Friday I start by looking at Mike Hosking’s moronic reckons of the week which he vomits down the throats of his audience like helpless baby birds in a nest, grateful for the ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    1 week ago
  • Gordon Campbell on cutting the sick leave of vulnerable workers
    Should sick leave be part and parcel of the working conditions from Day One on the job, just like every other health and safety provision? Or should access to sick leave be something that only gradually accumulates, depending on how long a worker has been on the payroll? If enacted ...
    WerewolfBy lyndon
    1 week ago
  • Nobody Move: Ageing Boomers, Laurie & Les, Talk Politics.
    So long as we live in a democracy, economic policy can never be anything other than social-democratic.“HEH!”, snorted Laurie, as he waved his debit card over the EFTPOS machine. “Same price as last week. I guess budgets aren’t what they used to be.”“I wouldn’t know,” replied the young barman, wearily, ...
    1 week ago
  • In Search Of Unity.
    Kotahitanga: New Zealand’s future belongs to those who do not fear a nation carved out of unity and solidarity, and are willing to trust the carvers. Some New Zealanders will be required to step up, and others, perhaps for the first time in their lives, will be expected to step ...
    1 week ago
  • Weekly Roundup 7-June-2024
    Welcome to another Friday roundup! Here are some recent links and stories that caught our eye, perfectly timed for your watercooler discussions and weekend reading. As always feel free to share more in the comments. Our header image this week is by Patrick Reynolds, and shows Te Komititanga from above. ...
    Greater AucklandBy Greater Auckland
    1 week ago
  • The Hoon around the week to June 7
    As Workplace Relations and Safety Minister, ACT’s Brooke van Velden is fronting proposed changes to sick pay regulations and The Holiday Act. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: The podcast above of the weekly ‘hoon’ webinar for paying subscribers features talking with:The Kākā’s climate correspondent talking about the ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    1 week ago
  • Did we boil the oceans by cutting pollution?
    Lowering aerosol emissions from shipping has altered clouds, with potentially drastic effects. Photo: Getty ImagesTL;DR: Here’s the top six news items of note in climate news for Aotearoa-NZ this week, and a discussion above between Bernard Hickey and The Kākā’s climate correspondent Cathrine Dyer:New evidence is increasingly pointing at efforts ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    1 week ago
  • Skeptical Science New Research for Week #23 2024
    Open access notables Abrupt reduction in shipping emission as an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock produces substantial radiative warming, Yuan et al., Communications Earth & Environment: Human activities affect the Earth’s climate through modifying the composition of the atmosphere, which then creates radiative forcing that drives climate change. The warming effect ...
    1 week ago
  • Fragments
    The best observation I’ve read this week about the deep, profound harm Trump is doingTrump has hurled threats and smears at witnesses, jurors and the judge (including his family)... [he] has tried to intimidate witnesses and delegitimize the New York courts as corrupt. In continuing to incite his mob (that ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    1 week ago
  • March for Nature
    Do do do do do do do doDo do do do do doDi di di di di di di di di di diNature enter me…In 2018 the Labour lead government banned new oil and gas exploration in Aotearoa. A change welcomed by those who care deeply for our environment and ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    1 week ago
  • Bernard’s Dawn Chorus and pick ‘n’ mix for Thursday, June 6
    The Transport Minister is trying to push through urgent legislation that would allow him to change emissions standards for car imports without approval from Parliament, after only consulting car importers. Photo: Lynn GrievesonTL;DR: Just as two major reports showed fossil fuel burning was warming the planet to dangerous levels and ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    1 week ago
  • A Better Broadway: Act 2
    This is a guest post by reader Grant A, the second of a pair about how to fix Broadway. If you missed the beginning of the show, here’s the link to Act 1 from yesterday. Yesterday, I discussed changing traffic circulation around Broadway in Newmarket. This included implementing a car-free ...
    Greater AucklandBy Guest Post
    1 week ago
  • National breaks another health promise
    National has broken another manifesto health promise, apparently to save only $550,000. It will now train an additional 25 med students next year rather than the 50 it promised. This comes on top of the delays caused by National’s coalition partners in pushing ahead with the Waikato Medical School and ...
    PolitikBy Richard Harman
    1 week ago
  • Climate Adam: Coping as the world’s best known climate scientist
    This video includes conclusions of the creator climate scientist Dr. Adam Levy. It is presented to our readers as an informed perspective. Please see video description for references (if any). Katharine Hayhoe is quite possibly the world's most famous climate scientist. She's produced wide ranging research, and communicated climate change with ...
    1 week ago
  • SIS “evidence” isn’t, again
    Back in 2016, then-Internal Affairs Minister Peter Dunne cancelled a New Zealand woman's passport, claiming she was a terrorist. The basis for his decision was a secret briefing by the SIS, which claimed that if she was allowed to travel, the woman would "engage with individuals who encourage acts of ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    1 week ago
  • As Low As You Go
    Taking you as low as you goAs low as you goA sense of Déjà vu this morning. How many times have I begun a newsletter, “just when you thought they couldn’t go any lower…” Only for the groundhog to reappear, more pissed off than the day before.Another day with headlines ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    1 week ago

  • High Court Judge appointed
    Attorney-General Judith Collins today announced the appointment of Auckland King’s Counsel Gregory Peter Blanchard as a High Court Judge. Justice Blanchard attended the University of Auckland from 1991 to 1995, graduating with an LLB (Honours) and Bachelor of Arts (English). He was a solicitor with the firm that is now Dentons ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    18 hours ago
  • Health workforce numbers rise
    Health Minister Dr Shane Reti says new data released today shows encouraging growth in the health workforce, with a continued increase in the numbers of doctors, nurses and midwives joining Health New Zealand. “Frontline healthcare workers are the beating heart of the healthcare system. Increasing and retaining our health workforce ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    19 hours ago
  • Government to overhaul firearms laws
    Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee has today announced a comprehensive programme to reform New Zealand's outdated and complicated firearms laws. “The Arms Act has been in place for over 40 years. It has been amended several times – in a piecemeal, and sometimes rushed way. This has resulted in outdated ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    22 hours ago
  • Government delivers landmark specialist schools investment
    The coalition Government is delivering record levels of targeted investment in specialist schools so children with additional needs can thrive. As part of Budget 24, $89 million has been ringfenced to redevelop specialist facilities and increase satellite classrooms for students with high needs. This includes: $63 million in depreciation funding ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Major health and safety consultation begins
    A substantial consultation on work health and safety will begin today with a roadshow across the regions over the coming months, says Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden.  This the first step to deliver on the commitment to reforming health and safety law and regulations, set out in ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Growing the potential of New Zealand’s forestry sector in partnership
    Forestry Minister Todd McClay, today announced the start of the Government’s plan to restore certainty and confidence in the forestry and wood processing sector. “This government will drive investment to unlock the industry’s economic potential for growth,” Mr McClay says. “Forestry’s success is critical to rebuilding New Zealand’s economy, boosting ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Government cancels forestry ETS annual service charges for 2023-24
    Annual service charges in the forestry Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will be cancelled for 2023/24, Forestry Minister Todd McClay says. “The sector has told me the costs imposed on forestry owners by the previous government were excessive and unreasonable and I agree,” Mr McClay says. “They have said that there ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Speech to the LGNZ Infrastructure Symposium
    Introduction Thank you for having me here today and welcome to Wellington, the home of the Hurricanes, the next Super Rugby champions. Infrastructure – the challenge This government has inherited a series of big challenges in infrastructure. I don’t need to tell an audience as smart as this one that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Government boosts Agriculture and food trade with China
    Trade and Agriculture Minister Todd McClay and Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard welcomed outcomes to boost agricultural and food trade between New Zealand and China. A number of documents were signed today at Government House that will improve the business environment between New Zealand and China, and help reduce barriers, including on infant formula ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • NZ and China launch Services Trade Negotiations
    Trade Minister Todd McClay, and China’s Commerce Minister Wang Wentao, today announced the official launch of Negotiations on Services Trade between the two countries.  “The Government is focused on opening doors for services exporters to grow the New Zealand’s economy,” Mr McClay says.  As part of the 2022 New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Upgrade ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Prime Minister Luxon meets with Premier Li
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon met with Chinese Premier Li Qiang at Government House in Wellington today.  “I was pleased to welcome Premier Li to Wellington for his first official visit, which marks 10 years since New Zealand and China established a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership,” Mr Luxon says. “The Premier and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Government and business tackling gender pay gap
    The coalition Government is taking action to reduce the gender pay gap in New Zealand through the development of a voluntary calculation tool. “Gender pay gaps have impacted women for decades, which is why we need to continue to drive change in New Zealand,” Acting Minister for Women Louise Upston ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Funding Boost for Rural Support Trusts
    The coalition Government is boosting funding for Rural Support Trusts to provide more help to farmers and growers under pressure, Rural Communities Minister Mark Patterson announced today. “A strong and thriving agricultural sector is crucial to the New Zealand economy and one of the ways to support it is to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Latest data shows size of public service decreasing
    Spending on contractors and consultants continues to fall and the size of the Public Service workforce has started to decrease after years of growth, according to the latest data released today by the Public Service Commission. Workforce data for the quarter from 31 December 23 to 31 March 24 shows ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Speech to the Law Association
    Thank you to the Law Association for inviting me to speak this morning. As a former president under its previous name — the Auckland District Law Society — I take particular satisfaction in seeing this organisation, and its members, in such good heart. As Attorney-General, I am grateful for these ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • 25 years on, NZ reaffirms enduring friendship with Timor Leste
    New Zealand is committed to working closely with Timor-Leste to support its prosperity and resilience, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.   “This year is the 25th anniversary of New Zealand sending peacekeepers to Timor-Leste, who contributed to the country’s stabilisation and ultimately its independence,” Mr Peters says.    “A quarter ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Inquiry requested into rural banking
    Promoting robust competition in the banking sector is vital to rebuilding the economy, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says.  “New Zealanders deserve a banking sector that is as competitive as possible. Banking services play an important role in our communities and in the economy. Kiwis rely on access to lending when ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Ministry for Regulation targets red tape to keep farmers and growers competitive
    Regulation Minister David Seymour, Environment Minister Penny Simmonds, and Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard have today announced a regulatory sector review on the approval process for new agricultural and horticultural products.    “Red tape stops farmers and growers from getting access to products that have been approved by other OECD countries. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Government to reverse blanket speed limit reductions
    The Coalition Government will reverse Labour’s blanket speed limit reductions by 1 July 2025 through a new Land Transport Rule released for public consultation today, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says.  The draft speed limit rule will deliver on the National-ACT coalition commitment to reverse the previous government’s blanket speed limit ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Chair appointments for NZSO, CNZ and NZ On Air
    Minister Paul Goldsmith is making major leadership changes within both his Arts and Media portfolios. “I am delighted to announce Carmel Walsh will be officially stepping into the role of Chair of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, having been acting Chair since April,” Arts Minister Paul Goldsmith says.  “Carmel is ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Government focus on long-term food, fibre growth
    Food and fibre export revenue is tipped to reach $54.6 billion this year and hit a record $66.6b in 2028 as the Government focuses on getting better access to markets and cutting red tape, Agriculture Minister Todd McClay and Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones say. “This achievement is testament ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Govt consulting on cutting red tape for exporters
    A new export exemption proposal for food businesses demonstrates the coalition Government’s commitment to reducing regulatory barriers for industry and increasing the value of New Zealand exports, which gets safe New Zealand food to more markets, says Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard.  “The coalition Government has listened to the concerns ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • New Zealand and Philippines elevating relationship
    New Zealand and Philippines are continuing to elevate our relationship, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.   “The leaders of New Zealand and Philippines agreed in April 2024 to lift our relationship to a Comprehensive Partnership by 2026,” Mr Peters says. “Our visit to Manila this week has been an excellent ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Paid Parental Leave increase to help families
    Workplace Relations and Safety Minister, Brooke van Velden says paid parental leave increase from 1 July will put more money in the pockets of Kiwi parents and give them extra support as they take precious time off to bond with their newborns. The increase takes effect from 1 July 2024 ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Defence increases UN Command commitment
    The number of New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel deployed to the Republic of Korea is increasing, Defence Minister Judith Collins and Foreign Minister Winston Peters announced today.  NZDF will deploy up to 41 additional personnel to the Republic of Korea, increasing the size of its contribution to the United ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • New Zealand to attend 'Summit on Peace in Ukraine' in Switzerland
    New Zealand will be represented at the Summit on Peace in Ukraine by Minister Mark Mitchell in Switzerland later this week.    “New Zealand strongly supports Ukraine’s efforts to build a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace,” Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.   “Minister Mitchell is a senior Cabinet Minister and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Big step forward for M.bovis programme
    Farmers’ hard work is paying off in the fight against Mycoplasma bovis (M. bovis) with the move to a national pest management plan marking strong progress in the eradication effort, says Biosecurity Minister Andrew Hoggard.  “The plan, approved by the Coalition Government, was proposed by the programme partners DairyNZ, Beef ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Build To Rent opening welcomed by Housing Minister
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Housing Minister Chris Bishop formally opened a new Build to Rent development in Mt Wellington this morning. “The Prime Minister and I were honoured to cut the ribbon of Resido, New Zealand’s largest Build to Rent development to date.  “Build to Rent housing, like the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Agriculture to come out of the ETS
    The Government will deliver on its election commitment to take agriculture out of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS) and will establish a new Pastoral Sector Group to constructively tackle biogenic methane, Coalition Government Agriculture and Climate Change Ministers say. Agriculture Minister Todd McClay says New Zealand farmers ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Luxon Tokyo-bound for political and business visit
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon will travel to Japan from 16-20 June, his first visit as Prime Minister.   “Japan is incredibly important to New Zealand's prosperity. It is the world’s fourth largest economy, and our fourth largest export destination.  “As you know, growing the economy is my number one priority. A strong economy means ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Bayly travels to Singapore for scam prevention meetings
    Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Andrew Bayly, travels to Singapore today to attend scam and fraud prevention meetings. “Scams are a growing international problem, and we are not immune in New Zealand. Organised criminal networks operate across borders, and we need to work with our Asia-Pacific partners to tackle ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • More help for homeowners impacted by severe weather
    People who were displaced by severe weather events in 2022 and 2023 will be supported by the extension of Temporary Accommodation Assistance through to 30 June 2025. Social Development and Employment Minister Louise Upston says the coalition Government is continuing to help to those who were forced out of their ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Government to reverse oil and gas exploration ban
    Removing the ban on petroleum exploration beyond onshore Taranaki is part of a suite of proposed amendments to the Crown Minerals Act to deal with the energy security challenges posed by rapidly declining natural gas reserves, Resources Minister Shane Jones says. “Natural gas is critical to keeping our lights on ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • New Zealand and Malaysia to intensify connections
    New Zealand and Malaysia intend to intensify their long-standing, deep connections, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.    “Malaysia is one of New Zealand’s oldest friends in South-East Asia – and both countries intend to get more out of the relationship," Mr Peters says.   "Our connections already run deep and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Ending contracted emergency housing motels in Rotorua
    The end of Contracted Emergency Housing (CEH) motels in Rotorua is nearing another milestone as the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announces it will not renew consents for six of the original 13 motels, Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka says. The government is committed to stop using CEH ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • First Home Grant closure exemptions
    The Government is providing a narrow exemption from the discontinuation of the First Home Grant for first home buyers who may face unfair situations as a result, Housing Minister Chris Bishop says. “The First Home Grant scheme was closed with immediate effect on 22 May 2024, with savings being reprioritised ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Faster consenting for flood protection projects in Hawke's Bay
    Work to increase flood resilience in Hawke’s Bay can start sooner, thanks to a new fast consenting process, Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery Mark Mitchell and Environment Minister Penny Simmonds say.  “Faster consenting means work to build stop banks, spillways and other infrastructure can get underway sooner, increasing flood ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Judge Craig Coxhead and Nathan Milner newest Māori Land Court appointments
    Tangata tū tangata ora, tangata noho tangata mate. Minister for Māori Development Tama Potaka today announced acting Deputy Chief Judge Craig Coxhead as the new Deputy Chief Judge, and Nathan Milner as Judge of the Māori Land Court. "I want to congratulate Judge Coxhead and Mr Milner on their appointments ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government signs Indo-Pacific Economic agreements to boost trade
    Trade Minister Todd McClay and Climate Change Minister Simon Watts, today signed three Indo Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) agreements that will boost investment, grow New Zealand’s digital and green economies and increase trade between New Zealand and the 14 IPEF partners. IPEF’s partners represent 40 per cent of global GDP ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government signs Indo-Pacific Economic agreements to boost trade and cooperation
    Trade Minister Todd McClay and Climate Change Minister Simon Watts, today signed three Indo Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) agreements that will boost investment, grow New Zealand’s digital and green economies and increase trade between New Zealand and the 14 IPEF partners. IPEF’s partners represent 40 per cent of global GDP ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

Page generated in The Standard by Wordpress at 2024-06-14T22:53:01+00:00