web analytics

Kelvin Davis on the Christmas Island Detainees

Written By: - Date published: 8:45 am, October 25th, 2015 - 44 comments
Categories: australian politics, International, john key, national, same old national - Tags: ,

Serco protest Kelvin Davis David Clendon-1

Kelvin Davis has been performing sterling work on the issue concerning New Zealand detainees in Australia.

The Guardian has reported on his visit to Christmas Island to talk to some of them.  He stated that conditions were that bad there was talk of the prisoners rioting.

He recently talked about his experience.  From Stuff:

We were able to hear about all the alleged human rights violations and assess their health and well-being.

They’re angry, hungry, traumatised and so desperate to return to their homes in Australia they are even considering rioting.

These New Zealand born Australians are not murderers or rapists. They have served their time yet Australian authorities are treating them as though they are a terrorism threat.

The stories of the eight detainees we met were all consistent. They hate the isolation, the lack of family contact, and the lack of contact with legal support.

None of them want to take up John Key’s proposal to return to New Zealand to settle their visa applications. They think it’s a trick designed to prevent them from returning to their families and jobs in Australia.”

John Key labelled the visit a political stunt.  This is a funny claim.  As reported by Anthony Robins I thought Key’s initial claim that he had given the Australians a blunt message was the political stunt.  Because after the meeting with Turnbull it appears that nothing has been achieved.  Sure there was a suggestion that the Australian Minister of Immigration would go easy on Kiwis when considering their appeals but this was always going to happen.  The policy is a dog whistle anti immigrant policy so of course Kiwis would be treated less severe than others.

And the Australian Liberal Party was never going to move on the issue.  It is the party that won an election by fraudulently claiming that boat refugees were throwing their kids overboard to gain advantage.

The policy is already producing cruel and absurd cases.  Again from the Guardian:

A quadriplegic New Zealander has reportedly been deported after 36 years in Australia under a controversial new policy to remove convicted criminals from the country.

According to the New Zealand Herald, the 56-year-old, named only as Paul, was flown to Auckland three weeks ago with a voucher for a week’s accommodation.

The man, who uses a wheelchair, said he had no friends or family in New Zealand, having spent most of his life in Australia. Paul said he had been jailed in 2012 for 13 months for self-medicating with controlled painkillers.

“I feel like I’ve just been dumped – away from all my family and friends,” he said. “I have nothing here.”

Essentially the politics of the situation is that the Australian Government is totally indifferent to doing anything.  There is far too much political gain at stake.  It is a tribute to the hold that National has on the local media that there has been reporting of a “blunt message” and “the aussies will go easy on us”.  Of course this will be totally impossible to prove, at least in the short term.

But the policy is cruel.  Why should people who have spent decades living in Australia serve a prison sentence, be released but then be shipped off to an island thousands of kilometres away from the Australian mainland.

Well done Kelvin for standing up for ordinary Kiwis who through various life disasters find themselves paying twice the penalty the law requires Australians to.

44 comments on “Kelvin Davis on the Christmas Island Detainees ”

  1. RedLogix 1

    The core of the problem is the complete lack of effective democratic representation for the 600,000 odd New Zealanders who – by right of the decades old CER agreement – live and work in Australia.

    This is more than the population of the state of Tasmania.

    When the CER agreement was signed in 1966 the free movement of people between the two countries was an assumed given. People had been moving between the two for decades – and for this reason the CER document while it briefly refers to the matter, remains largely silent on the details.

    Since then the two nations have effectively merged on many levels. The totally free movement of capital has seen NZ essentially become a branch office of Australia. We share entire rafts of important technical and commercial standards across most industries. We share media organisations, banks, insurance and a wide segment of retail. NZ is Australia’s the third largest investment destination, the sixth largest trading partner and has an economy somewhere in size between NSW and VIC.

    Huge numbers of Australian and NZ families are inter-married, both countries are major visitor and tourism destinations for each other. Whether they like to say it out loud or not – NZ is important to Australia on many levels.

    I’m not arguing we are the same. No more than any sane Australian would argue that NT is the same as TAS. While members of a Federation, the states retain their identities and are fiercely loyal to them.

    My argument is simple – it is time NZ activated the long standing provision in the Federation which allows NZ to become a member state. It was a missed opportunity 114 years ago – a decision made on the most appallingly narrow grounds at the time. Now would be a good opportunity to recognise reality and correct the mistake.

    While this is a long stretch from the treatment of these people Kelvin is advocating for – the issue arises because of this failure to progress the original CER agreement since 1966 to it’s logical conclusion.

    • Bill 1.1

      If NZ became a state, who would control macro economic policy?

      Isn’t it a recipe for NZ being forever locked into the position of economic backwater….a bit like southern European countries are to northern European countries? Put another way, would it be any different to the stupid SNP suggestion that an independent Scotland would share the pound with interest rates etc being set in England?

      Surely the sensible direction of travel is in the complete opposite direction with political and financial autonomy being vested in ever smaller and more accountable arrangements?

      On immigration, the simple solution is freedom of movement of people. Whereas it’s a nonsense to suggest that, all things being equal, money and financial flows will find a natural state of balance, it’s not a nonsense with regards people…all things being equal.

      • Madeleine 1.1.1

        yes equal, yes different. What’s the problem?

      • RedLogix 1.1.2


        NZ is already an economic appendage of Australia. Just one without even the rudiments of political clout in Canberra. Where is the advantage in that?

        If you want to argue for travelling in the opposite direction, then at what point do you stop? Arguing for ever finer and granular autonomy is easy – let’s start by separating out the North and South Island into separate states, or 20 or so tiny iwi states. Why stop there, when we could have 60 or so Local Body based autonomous states? What is the argument against giving every suburb, street or household ‘autonomy’?

        The ultimate destination of this logic is of course the abandonment of society and the acceptance of libertarian ideals. Of course you think I’m stuffing a strawman here – but if as a matter of principle you want to argue ipso facto that smaller units of political autonomy are always better than larger ones – you have to be able to answer the question – how small?

        By contrast when you head in the direction of wider horizons of political integration, you fairly quickly come to only one logical conclusion – a single global federation of governments.

        Federation with Australia being just a step in that process.

        • Bill

          What is the argument against giving every suburb, street or household ‘autonomy’?

          No compelling argument comes to mind. In fact, some decisions are mine to be made by me alone. Only those decisions that may or will affect others require the ‘body politic’ to be increased accordingly and temporarily…temporary federations if you like. The inevitable interaction between shifting, temporary, political entities and the relationships (always building, developing or dissolving and reiterating etc) that bind the people who constitute and re-constitute those entities is what gives rise to society. So you’re right, it’s a libertarian ideal; not the idiot (misnamed because it’s actually onerously dictatorial) market embedded libertarianism of ‘the right’ though.

          But to answer your question directly. How small? Sometimes one. How large? Potentially the entire population of the world if a decision would affect that many – the building of nuclear power stations or looking to develop a global vehicle industry running on fossil fuels might be such decisions.

          How would such things be structured or run? Well, apart from always being contingent – ie, temporary – as they say about the skinning of cats, so it is for the numbers of ways we can arrange ourselves to make decisions in ways that safeguard such notions as liberty etc.

          • RedLogix

            Well that is the point – political decisions and accountability should reside at the scale and level where they are most relevant.

            At the risk of stating the obvious – this is how society is already structured. You have a personal autonomy, despite being a member of a family, a community, a local govt resident and a citizen of a state. Each layer reflects wider concerns and communities of interest – without necessarily erasing, or diminishing those under them.

            Of course part of the ever fluid argument of politics is the art of maintaining a balance between the local and the global. I get that.

            On another thread we are discussing the balance between the state power of Wellington and the city power of Auckland; on this thread the balance between the state power of Australia and their diminished colony of New Zealand.

            Arguing for New Zealand to become part of the Australian Federation does indeed call for an opening up of the Great Australasian Book of Cat Skinning – but one thing it does not imply is any necessary dismantling of our existing layers of autonomy.

            The NZ Parliament would of course have to give up that part of it’s sovereignty that relates to the wider Federal interests – as do all the other States. Indeed there is the good argument that the unicameral NZ government has wield too much power for too long, and that having an effective Upper House imposed upon it from Canberra would be a welcome improvement.

            • Bill

              You have a personal autonomy, despite being a member of a family, a community, a local govt resident and a citizen of a state. Each layer reflects wider concerns and communities of interest – without necessarily erasing, or diminishing those under them.

              We part company at that point. Local government absolutely diminishes or robs the agency or the autonomy of the people within the communities and societies it governs over. Some might call it the dictatorship of bureaucracy. And bearing down on that layer, there’s the regional layer, and then the national layer squats over and above that one. I won’t mention the jackboot of ISDS that’s about to plant its heel atop the whole shebang.

              Anyway. A neighbour wants to build a two story house. It’ll block the sun or view and what-not of neighbouring buildings. Do they have to consult with the people who’ll be affected? No. All they have to do, perhaps aside from working some loop-holes, is abide by the ‘one size fits all’ bureaucratic rules and regulations that are in place.

              The NZ Transport Agency decides (reasonably) that a bus stop is too close to traffic lights. It consults with no-one and moves the bus-stop 200m up the road where there is no shelter and passengers have to wait in the elements. Some years later (this is a true story) after committees have been formed, petitions signed and objections submitted, the bus stop is finally shifted 50m back towards where it came from. It’s far enough away from the lights and passengers have an awning to stand beneath.

              The point is that a huge amount of time and energy was wasted combating the idiot action of a remote bureaucracy. The affected community – passengers, bus drivers and car drivers – could have acknowledged, agreed to and carried out an intelligent solution in five minutes of an afternoon.

              And if people with the relevant skills and knowledge required to negotiate a somewhat torturous bureaucratic process hadn’t been around or hadn’t had the time or energy…. See,that’s often the case, so local, regional and national bureaucracies (not to mention usually larger private business interests) routinely trample roughshod over genuine local concerns. That couldn’t happen in a functioning democracy…one that promotes the genuine empowerment of a citizenry.

              • RedLogix

                That is just the nature of a complex society – the politics reflects this.

                Your bus stop story is a perfectly fine example of this. You are arguing that the design and location of bus stops should be a local matter; which makes fine sense as long as the bus users are purely local.

                But the moment you involve non-locals and non-local bus operators – there is a requirement for standardisation or some level of nationally imposed consistency.

                Will the global operator always get it right? Of course not. Logically they should not be involved in executive decision making at a local level, because the people on the ground have the most information and skin in the game. But the national/global player may well have a role to set general bus stop standards, then negotiate and audit consistent outcomes that everyone can live with.

                I’ve no problem with the time and energy taken to achieve this. That is just the price you pay for getting it right. While everyone likes to shit on ‘tortuous bureaucratic process’, the alternatives are all worse.

                • Bill

                  Not sure you’re addressing the point. As I’m reading your comment, it would seem you’re suggesting that companies make the decisions.

                  The point I was making in that ‘small fry’ example was that it ought to be the bus drivers, their passengers and any other affected road users who make such decisions.

                  And if locals ‘up there’ don’t want seats in their bus-stops, while those ‘down yonder’ do, then each to their own. I can’t see that standardisation has anything to offer. All that matters is that drivers know where their stops are and that passengers know where the stops are and that passengers wait for buses in conditions they find acceptable. Actually, I’d argue against standardisation on the grounds that it doesn’t work out very well. The open fronted bus stops we have down this way, work in some locations and are hopelessly compromised by prevailing winds in others.

                  Also, the example was purely local – ie, a local bus stop used by locals. Inter-city stops and the like tend to be in entirely different locations.

                  Totally lost on the negotiate and audit consistent outcomes that everyone can live with. Why introduce a top down bureaucracy policing a code that everyone must adhere to? If people aren’t getting what they want and have the power and wherewithal to change what they have, then they’ll wind up with what they want. They (we) don’t need any permanent, centralised and powerful bureaucracy to organise us. We can do it just fine ourselves.

                  • weka

                    Where standardisation is important is things like safety and disability access. I assume some of that’s already in place nationally (rules on how close to a blind corner you can put a bus stop, access for disability etc). What the standardisation means is that there are basic requirements for all bus services, but that doesn’t stop local governance designing local bus systems that are appropriate to their locale.

                    One concern of devolving everything is that not every local governance would have the expertise to know what is safe or needed for access etc. You could then have a neighbourhood design their service that doesn’t work very well for people in wheelchairs because they don’t have anyone living there that needs that service (or anyone on the committee aware of the need), but then the following year they do, or there are people wanting to visit that neighbourhood that need accessability but can’t because it wasn’t designed properly.

                    None of that requires the kind of heirarchy that Red is talking about. Nor even the kind of heirarchy we have now. It does require some kind of beyond the neighbourhood, immediate concerns input though.

                    • Bill

                      ,i>or anyone on the committee aware of the need

                      What ‘committee’? If there was a lack of disabled access because no-one had been bothered to take it into account (something I’d be quite surprised at) and a disabled person ‘dropped’ into the community, then things would be changed/altered accordingly.

                      Flipping to the other side of he coin, at present all buses around here require disabled access. That means all buses are 40 or 45 seaters…on all runs and regardless of patronage or presence of disabled people.

                      No bus can carry bikes…because. Okay, I’m being facetious. The stated reason is that the bus must be equipped with a front end bike rack and the bike must be large enough to be secured on said bike rack. (Kids bikes are too small). None of the buses on this semi-rural route have bike racks. Apparently they make the bus to long on some of the tighter corners…which is odd, because I full well remember different style bike racks on buses that doing this route years back.

                      Anyway. Couple of points. A bit of retro-fitting could see the exiting racks carry children’s bikes. Not allowed to do that though. Bikes could be fixed to wheelchair points on the bus. Not allowed to do that though. There are other workable options too. But…’not allowed to do that though’.

                      And mini buses could easily be retrofitted to take wheelchairs….remove one seat and fix requisite floor studs/anchor points. Guessing ‘not allowed to do that though’ would be the final end point of any such suggestion.

                      And so it goes on – common sense, intelligence and ingenuity breaking against dull, immovable bureaucracy (and page 42, paragraph 7, subsection 3a ii….)

                    • weka

                      What ‘committee’?

                      Committee is just a synonym for group. Or are you suggesting that communities organise without using groups. How would that work?

                      If there was a lack of disabled access because no-one had been bothered to take it into account (something I’d be quite surprised at) and a disabled person ‘dropped’ into the community, then things would be changed/altered accordingly.

                      You left out the bit where someone from outside the neighbourhood wants to visit but can’t. Existing need being ignored.

                      Why would things change once a disabled person arrived on the scene? We’re quite capable of ignoring all sorts of needs.

                      Besides, it’s an incredibly inefficient way to design systems that have complex infrastructure. What say they just finished a ten year plan and had bought buses that aren’t suitable? Now they have to replace them?

                      I don’t really understand the rest of your example because those are all design issues that could be ignored/fucked up by neighbourhoods as easily as by councils. Or solved by each.

                    • Bill

                      All I’m saying in essence Weka is that communities can deal with needs and respond to them a lot better (various measures of ‘better’) than an impersonal bureaucracy.

                      If an unforeseen problem crops up, they are more likely able to respond more quickly, efficiently and intelligently than any paper dredged and rule bound bureaucracy can.

                      You’ll have to explain to me how locally vested power is an incredibly inefficient way to design systems that have complex infrastructure. Complexity arises quite naturally from simple initial conditions all of the time with no imposition of any ‘big hand’ guiding, crafting or planning.

                      Some musicians have played with it by taking three or four basic elements and then letting them run and loop to ‘self create’ surprisingly complex pieces of music. Living examples of simple initial conditions giving rise to functioning complex systems are all around us. Just look in your garden, at almost any level of focus, from a single leaf to the vast complex interplay of any eco-system…No ‘big hand’. For want of a better expression or explanation, it just ‘happens’.

                      Quick edit. Attempts to impose order or mandate it from the outside or above tends to create chaos. Just saying.

                  • RedLogix

                    Well we were using Bus Stops as a model. You are free to argue Bus Stops can be organised pretty much according to whatever local whim wins the day. (Or not as weka suggests.)

                    But I can think of plenty of other examples where you definitely want standardisation. For instance – what side of the road we are going to drive on.

                    Or how are we going to solve fossil carbon induced climate change?

                    • Bill

                      The road thing is interesting. I believe the convention of left hand driving kind of just emerged…organically if you will…and was legislated for in a retrospective fashion. I could be wrong about that. But it’s certainly imaginable, no? And there is no rule or regulation that says vehicles coming down a hill will give way to vehicles going up a hill. Yet people tend to adopt the convention.

                      Carbon induced climate change? Had we had democracy in the first place, then given the knowledge we had, the car industry would never have gotten off the ground. And the cure is simple enough – stop burning fossil fuels. It only gets convoluted and mired when vested interests seek to protect the power they enjoy that comes from the fossil fuel dependent market economy….another thing that would never have got off the ground in a democratic environment.

                • weka

                  “But the national/global player may well have a role to set general bus stop standards, then negotiate and audit consistent outcomes that everyone can live with.”

                  But isn’t that the situation already? That NZTA and local councils already have protocols around rule setting and they just don’t do it very well. In the situation that Bill describes, there is no reason that there couldn’t be local consultation expcept there the overarching organisations are getting to big, powerful and unweildy. To me it looks like the bigger and more powerful the governance the less capable it is of responding to the local and the less willing. Over arching governance should serlve the local not dictate to it.

                  As for the smallest unit, there is no reason why you can’t have nested governance rather than devolved to the individual vs global. So create structures that give neighbourhoods processes and power to make decisions within their own rohe that are also in the context of the wider nation’s ideals. The NZTA could have standards around bus stops, but it should also have a local organisation that is part of the neighbourhood governance and can tailor solution to that particular local. There is no way that NZTA nationally could understand what was needed in Bill’s neighbourhood.

                  From a sustainability design perspective, solutions always need to be local and contextual, nested within larger concerns but not dominated by them.

                  I have no problem with iwi having more power of governance for their people. In fact I suspect we all could learn a lot from tradition Māori ways of organising and governing esp at the hapū level and concepts of kaitiakitanga and resource management.

                  • RedLogix

                    I think you’ve just re-stated exactly what I was saying.

                    In other words – there is no real objection to NZ becoming part of the Australian Federation if we work to retain the decision-making powers that are important to us.

                    • weka

                      No, I’m saying the opposite. The bigger you go the less able the more powerful structures are to serve the less powerful. Nesting and heirarchy aren’t the same thing at all.

                      You appear to be arguing that NZ could gain power by being under the Australian Federal system. I think it would disempower the least powerful and consolidate power with the most powerful (and that’s not even getting to the cross cultural issues, or Te Tiriti). The Australian government already is bad at devolving power. Why do you think that it would get better at that in NZ’s favour?

                    • RedLogix

                      I really am at a loss to explain why it is you so completely and regularly mis-read, mis- represent and screw up every fucking thing I say.

                      I’m withdrawing from this thread in complete and utter defeat before it degenerates into a brawl.

            • Draco T Bastard

              and that having an effective Upper House imposed upon it from Canberra would be a welcome improvement.


              There’s no such thing as an “effective Upper House”.

              Although I agree that NZ’s parliament has too much power a dual house system isn’t the answer. We just have to look to Australia, the US and the UK to see that.

              No, the correct answer seems to be a written constitution that can be used to hold the government to account to the people, to ensure that the government is actually doing what the people want and not what the corporations want. Something that we don’t have at the moment.

              • RedLogix

                I’d suggest even the most passing familiarity with Australian Federal politics shows their bi-cameral system has saved them time and again from precipitate and extreme policies … or at the very least slowed things down to the point where some compromise was achieved.

                It isn’t perfect, but it is a step away from the absolutism of our system.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  From what I’ve seen it’s far less than perfect which is why I tend to oppose it. Far better, IMO, to look for a better system even if that means inventing an entirely new one.

                  Yes, our system is in some ways worse but all you’re calling for is a limit to decision making which NZ doesn’t have. A constitution would provide that limit especially if it allowed the people to have a say on policies.

                  • Grindlebottom

                    The hardest part be getting any constitution which limits the government’s power drafted, put through the system, and into effect. Argument over what constituted appropriate powers and limits for government would be fractious and it’s hard to see in our current political environment how one could avoid the governing bloc dominating the process, labouring mightily and delivering a mouse.

                    I couldn’t see either the previous Labour dominated administration, or the current National dominated one, nor any future possible government at the moment even seriously contemplating such an idea, though I personally like it. Arguments for a Constitution always seem to result in the government response that we already have one in the form of the exisiting legal conventions, the BoRA, & the ToW, and to ultimately be dismissed.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      It would be difficult no doubt but it could be done. It needs a serious bottom up push.

                    • Grindlebottom

                      Yup. And I personally favour it. But what do you reckon the chances are at present? I would say zero.

                      Not sure what needs to happen to create enough support for the idea, but it would have to appeal as a solution to younger voters/members of our society to ever get off the ground. I don’t think such issues even get on their radar.

      • Huginn 1.1.3

        ‘Isn’t it a recipe for NZ being forever locked into the position of economic backwater…?’

        As things stand now, New Zealand is a small state up against a federation of states.

        If we were to join, New Zealand would be a state among states. That’s a big shift in the balance of power.

        • Bill

          As it stands, NZ is an independent nation state that decides its own foreign policy, taxation regime, macro economic policy settings etc, etc.

          As a federated part of Australia…not so much.

        • Madeleine

          Total power between two, is ideal- total control, yet beauty of movement.

        • Aaron

          “a small state up against a federation of states”

          Yes in EITHER case we’re a small state up against a federation of states.

          I guess if you think the EU worked for Greece you might think NZ joining Australia a good idea.

  2. Gas Kranken 2

    I must say I had my reservations about Kelvin, given the way he and and various others shat on Hone but given his sterling work on uncovering and highlighting the Serco debacle here in Aotearoa and now the Australian authorities treatment of kiwis in their detention centres, all is forgiven Kelvin. You da man. Keep up the good work please mate.

    • Lanthanide 2.1

      Since he’s such an effective MP, it’s pretty astounding and shameful that he was given such a low and therefore un-winnable list position, isn’t it?

      • BM 2.1.1

        Wrong type of genitals.

        • weka

          According to your argument if he was a woman he’d be further down list (more men than women up to Davis’ position).

      • mickysavage 2.1.2

        Obviously the party wanted a better result. Kelvin would have been second next list MP elected if he did not win his seat.

      • Anne 2.1.3

        He’s on the front bench Lanthanide and it wasn’t an unwinnable list position. You’re getting muddled with his 2011 position which saw him knocked out of parliament.
        You can be assured the council and caucus were left in no doubt what the membership thought about that little fiasco.

        • David H

          The bit that makes me not trust him was the way he won his seat. The deals with the Nats and NZ First, to get rid of Hone. The fact that a Labour politician did a deal with the Nats, well you lose my vote right then and there.

  3. Lloyd 3

    Couple of Points

    1. As I understand it the proportion of New Zealanders liable for expulsion from Australia is predominantly Maori/Polynesian often because of racially biased policing and judicial decisions, and therefore represents racism on the part of Australia. Why hasn’t donkey attacked that part of the Australian policy? Note that even more Pacific Islanders are being biffed out of Australia at the same time as the New Zealanders. = MORE RACISM. The White Australia Policy continues. Remember also that the tougher immigration laws introduced by Australia, upon which these deportations are the result, were designed to keep Polynesians out of Australia. Isn’t that racism?

    2. If New Zealand joins Australia will we demand that the Australian government signs the Treaty of Waitangi first? How about demanding the Australian government signs an equivalent treaty with all the first Australians? What would happen to the landholdings of the wealthiest Australians if under a Waitangi Tribunal they had to give back even a small portion of their land that was stolen from the first Australians? Who would be the owners of BHP for example? Would the whites be evicted/ Could New Zealand handle the refugees? Would we let them sail in boats to New Zealand?

  4. john 4

    So… some on here seem to be promoting, becoming a state of Australia.
    Were you incidentally, opposed to TPP because large companies could sue us for any stupid laws that impacted them that we may have made.
    Imagine, how our sovereignty would be impacted with a federal (Australian dominated) govt. overseeing everything.

  5. john 5

    As I understand it.
    The detainees were given an option.
    1. Return to NZ and pursue your case from there.
    2. be held in detention awaiting your case to be heard.

    So, if you are in a detention centre………it was YOUR choice to be there.

    and you had to be a reasonable serious criminal for this to apply.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1

      Yes, because reasonably serious criminals don’t have human rights. That’s how it works, eh.

      The right wing declaration of human rights has two articles:

      1. Human rights are subjective. I deserve them.

      2. Everything that happens to everyone else is their personal responsibility.

      • john 5.1.1

        1. Human rights include the right of Aussies not to put up with foreign criminals.
        We have the same rights!!! They are just putting out the garbage, just happens that some of the garbage, to our embarrassment, is ours.
        2. Everyone, whether you like it or not, whether you think it is “fair” or not…IS and always will be responsible for their own actions.
        Action and consequence is an unwavering and indisputable rule of physics and society. No matter where you live.
        The consequences of YOUR actions are not always written in the laws of the land but sure as eggs there will be consequences.

        • One Anonymous Bloke

          Reckons Physics is Sociology. Employs hate speech. Lies about personal responsibility.

          What a peach.

          • john

            So…no argument then….just ridiculous accusations and failure to accept the truth.

            • One Anonymous Bloke

              Calling people garbage is hate speech.

              Pretending that right wing personal responsibility exists and is backed by the laws of Physics is pathetic.

              You’re the one making the false claims: you’re the one who has to back them up with evidence.

              Asserting your beliefs a third time won’t validate them, it’ll just demonstrate that you’re incapable.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • COVID-19 vaccine slated for possible approval next week
    The green light for New Zealand’s first COVID-19 vaccine could be granted in just over a week, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said today. “We’re making swift progress towards vaccinating New Zealanders against the virus, but we’re also absolutely committed to ensuring the vaccines are safe and effective,” Jacinda Ardern said. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    14 hours ago
  • New ACC Board members announced.
    The Minister for ACC is pleased to announce the appointment of three new members to join the Board of ACC on 1 February 2021. “All three bring diverse skills and experience to provide strong governance oversight to lead the direction of ACC” said Hon Carmel Sepuloni. Bella Takiari-Brame from Hamilton ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    16 hours ago
  • Economic boost for Southland marae
    The Government is investing $9 million to upgrade a significant community facility in Invercargill, creating economic stimulus and jobs, Infrastructure Minister Grant Robertson and Te Tai Tonga MP Rino Tirikatene have announced.  The grant for Waihōpai Rūnaka Inc to make improvements to Murihiku Marae comes from the $3 billion set ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Celebrating the Entry Into Force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
    [Opening comments, welcome and thank you to Auckland University etc] It is a great pleasure to be here this afternoon to celebrate such an historic occasion - the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This is a moment many feared would never come, but ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Supporting disabled people to stay connected
    The Government is providing $3 million in one-off seed funding to help disabled people around New Zealand stay connected and access support in their communities, Minister for Disability Issues, Carmel Sepuloni announced today. The funding will allow disability service providers to develop digital and community-based solutions over the next two ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Voluntary saliva testing offered to quarantine workers from Monday
    Border workers in quarantine facilities will be offered voluntary daily COVID-19 saliva tests in addition to their regular weekly testing, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. This additional option will be rolled out at the Jet Park Quarantine facility in Auckland starting on Monday 25 January, and then to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Next steps in firearms buy-back
    The next steps in the Government’s ambitious firearms reform programme to include a three-month buy-back have been announced by Police Minister Poto Williams today.  “The last buy-back and amnesty was unprecedented for New Zealand and was successful in collecting 60,297 firearms, modifying a further 5,630 firearms, and collecting 299,837 prohibited ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Jobs for Nature projects target iconic ecosystems
    Upscaling work already underway to restore two iconic ecosystems will deliver jobs and a lasting legacy, Conservation Minister Kiri Allan says.  “The Jobs for Nature programme provides $1.25 billion over four years to offer employment opportunities for people whose livelihoods have been impacted by the COVID-19 recession. “Two new projects ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • New Public Housing Plan announced
    The Government has released its Public Housing Plan 2021-2024 which outlines the intention of where 8,000 additional public and transitional housing places announced in Budget 2020, will go. “The Government is committed to continuing its public house build programme at pace and scale. The extra 8,000 homes – 6000 public ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Prime Minister congratulates President Joe Biden on his inauguration
    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has congratulated President Joe Biden on his inauguration as the 46th President of the United States of America. “I look forward to building a close relationship with President Biden and working with him on issues that matter to both our countries,” Jacinda Ardern said. “New Zealand ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Jobs for Nature funding will create training and employment opportunities
    A major investment to tackle wilding pines in Mt Richmond will create jobs and help protect the area’s unique ecosystems, Biosecurity Minister Damien O’Connor says. The Mt Richmond Forest Park has unique ecosystems developed on mineral-rich geology, including taonga plant species found nowhere else in the country. “These special plant ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Pre-departure testing extended to all passengers to New Zealand
    To further protect New Zealand from COVID-19, the Government is extending pre-departure testing to all passengers to New Zealand except from Australia, Antarctica and most Pacific Islands, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “The change will come into force for all flights arriving in New Zealand after 11:59pm (NZT) on Monday ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Bay Cadets learn skills to protect environment
    Bay Conservation Cadets launched with first intake Supported with $3.5 million grant Part of $1.245b Jobs for Nature programme to accelerate recover from Covid Cadets will learn skills to protect and enhance environment Environment Minister David Parker today welcomed the first intake of cadets at the launch of the Bay ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Cook Islanders to resume travel to New Zealand
    The Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern and the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands Mark Brown have announced passengers from the Cook Islands can resume quarantine-free travel into New Zealand from 21 January, enabling access to essential services such as health. “Following confirmation of the Cook Islands’ COVID ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Supporting communities and landowners to grow employment opportunities
    Jobs for Nature funding is being made available to conservation groups and landowners to employ staff and contractors in a move aimed at boosting local biodiversity-focused projects, Conservation Minister Kiritapu Allan has announced. It is estimated some 400-plus jobs will be created with employment opportunities in ecology, restoration, trapping, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Border exception for some returning international tertiary students
    The Government has approved an exception class for 1000 international tertiary students, degree level and above, who began their study in New Zealand but were caught offshore when border restrictions began. The exception will allow students to return to New Zealand in stages from April 2021. “Our top priority continues ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Tiwai deal gives time for managed transition
    Today’s deal between Meridian and Rio Tinto for the Tiwai smelter to remain open another four years provides time for a managed transition for Southland. “The deal provides welcome certainty to the Southland community by protecting jobs and incomes as the region plans for the future. The Government is committed ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • New member for APEC Business Advisory Council
    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has appointed Anna Curzon to the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC). The leader of each APEC economy appoints three private sector representatives to ABAC. ABAC provides advice to leaders annually on business priorities. “ABAC helps ensure that APEC’s work programme is informed by business community perspectives ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Govt’s careful economic management recognised
    The Government’s prudent fiscal management and strong policy programme in the face of the COVID-19 global pandemic have been acknowledged by the credit rating agency Fitch. Fitch has today affirmed New Zealand’s local currency rating at AA+ with a stable outlook and foreign currency rating at AA with a positive ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Additional actions to keep COVID-19 out of NZ
    The Government is putting in place a suite of additional actions to protect New Zealand from COVID-19, including new emerging variants, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “Given the high rates of infection in many countries and evidence of the global spread of more transmissible variants, it’s clear that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • 19 projects will clean up and protect waterways
    $36 million of Government funding alongside councils and others for 19 projects Investment will clean up and protect waterways and create local jobs Boots on the ground expected in Q2 of 2021 Funding part of the Jobs for Nature policy package A package of 19 projects will help clean up ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • New Zealand Government acknowledges 175th anniversary of Battle of Ruapekapeka
    The commemoration of the 175th anniversary of the Battle of Ruapekapeka represents an opportunity for all New Zealanders to reflect on the role these conflicts have had in creating our modern nation, says Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Kiri Allan. “The Battle at Te Ruapekapeka Pā, which took ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago