- Date published:
12:30 pm, September 21st, 2016 - 201 comments
Categories: Maori Issues, maori party, nz first - Tags: marama fox, richard prosser, Treaty of waitangi
Hundreds of Māori from around the country have cancelled trips to Wellington to witness the signing of Treaty settlements at Parliament on Friday.
New Zealand First has pulled its support for the settlements and that move led to a tearful and angry Māori Party co-leader confronting one of its MPs during a chance encounter in Newshub’s Parliament office.
“We’ve had tears on our phone. They’ve waited 30 years to bring this to Parliament. They’ve been dicked around enough and you buggers on a whim, on a bloody whim – you don’t even care,” she said as a Newshub camera filmed.
WinstonFirst cannot be trusted.
He can be trusted in two respects only, to be untrustworthy, and to do whatever he perceives will be the best for himself.
I’m looking forward to his retirement (in early 2018?) and the implosion of his rag-tag bunch of sycophants.
I completely agree. The sooner he goes the better.
It is a shite state of affairs when every party in parliament is kissing the ground that Winston walks on.
The Maori party can’t be trusted either.
I don’t trust the Labour Party either, but that doesn’t matter.
What for you needs to happen before you would trust the Maori Party?
Yeah i dont trust any of them with the exception of the Greens who are the only principled party in parliament.
Lol, well that is not a surprise Chris. I would never trust the Maori party in it’s current form.
To borrow a phrase from many, many of your posts: Why don’t you answer the question?
I did answer the question. And how many posts have I asked “Why don’t you answer the question?”
“What for you needs to happen before you would trust the Maori Party.”
“I would never trust the Maori party in it’s current form.”
So, what form would the Maori Party have to take for you to trust them?
Walk away from the Nats completely, change the leadership and personnel and have substantive policies.
Do you think Labour needs to distance itself from the policies it had between 1999 and 2008 that screwed the poor (like getting rid of the special benefit in 2004 under urgency and jettisoning the long title of the 1938 Act from the 1964 Act etc etc) and apologise for that and promise it won’t vote with Key and the nats for anti-poor legislation like it did as recently as 2014, and declare now that it won’t vote again with the government for the latest set of attacks on the poor coming up soon?
That’s what I need to see before I even begin to start thinking about trusting Labour again.
I don’t think you were ever a Labour person to start with Chris, McFlock had you pegged right.
Ask the Labour party. You have asked candidates for the internal elections the same thing, and they have answered you. I suggest you follow the suggestion of Beth Houston “If you want to have more of a say, you should think about getting involved in our policy process if you aren’t already. There is so much work to do in this area and we always do with more involvement from people.”
I told you what I think Labour needs to do before I can even begin to think about ever trusting them again, and asked whether you agreed.
You didn’t say whether you agreed, but instead said that I should ask the Labour Party.
You also suggested that I should involve myself directly with Labour’s policy formation.
What’s any of that got to do with whether you agree or not that Labour should apologise for its policies during the Clark years that screwed the poor, and for voting with Key to do even more damage as recently as 2014?
For Labour supporters who believe that it’s the role of government to always ensure that the poor are looked after, I would’ve thought that they would need to be reassured that Labour won’t be promoting any more of this anti-poor legislation if they became the government.
So, if anyone else asked you the same question about whether you thought Labour should renounce and apologise for screwing over the poor and for voting with Key for anti-poor legislation as recently as 2014, would your answer simply be to “ask the Labour Party”, and to suggest that they should attempt to have direct input into Labour’s policy process?
Is that your answer?
You have concerns with the Labour party, they are the best people to address those concerns.
Have to say, while you are banging on about Labour of the past, you are avoiding the very heinous wrong doings of the Nats today.
The labour party cannot be trusted – that is if history is anything to go by, which it is.
In comparison, I trust the current Labour party over the Maori party. You cannot change the government without Labour. That’s the simple fact. John key and his Nats have to go.
How can needing Labour to change the government translate into trusting Labour more than the Maori Party?
Then your response to marty mars was mealy-mouthed.
No it wasn’t.
The Labour Party has broken more trust with the public than The Māori Party ever did or could and they did it willfully, deliberately, without caring about people or the country – it fucked the country by allowing neoliberalism in – remember the great scourge everyone here hates – So don’t talk to me about trust mate. The Māori Party are not in the same league as Labour and never will be when it comes to untrustworthiness.
remember and never forget leftie
“Rogernomics was characterised by market-led restructuring and deregulation and the control of inflation through tight monetary policy, accompanied by a floating exchange rate and reductions in the fiscal deficit. Douglas came from a background of Labour Party politics. His adoption of policies more usually associated with the political right, and their implementation by the Fourth Labour Government, were the subject of lasting controversy.”
I know – so long ago, why bring up the past… most of them are still living and it occurring within living memory.
And I fully respect you trusting whomever you want – just stop with the hypocrisy that The Māori Party are so bad and Labour so good – it is bullshit.
You act like National governments of the past were saints. I cannot blame the current Labour party for past administrations like I cannot blame John key for Muldoon, Sidney Holland, Bolger and Shipley. You are in denial re: the Maori party, that have over the last 8.5 years, shown to be untrustworthy, and that’s why the Maori party have lost a lot of support and are down to just one seat with Labour holding 6 out of the 7 Maori seats. Would Flavell have retained his seat without National’s cabinet club dinners?
Don’t forget the help Labour gave the Maori Party by refusing to work with Mana. Flavell got less votes than Mana and Labour. The Maori Party could’ve been history if Labour had shown a modicum of proper foresight.
That said, I predict the Maori Party might just surprise a lot of people before 2017. Hone hates Key, and the Maori Party ain’t neo-lib. I reckon somethin’s brewin’.
What party could work with Mana with Dotcom being involved Chris?
Would the Maori party really have been history in 2014? I doubt that, the Nats needed them, just in case.
Hone has correctly said that he won’t support any party that supports the Nats, if the Maori party refuse to walk away from them, where does that leave Hone? If the Maori party walk away prior to the election, people may feel, and rightly so, that the Maori party’s action is not trustworthy, that they will support the Nats after the election. I wouldn’t want to see Mana destroyed just to keep the Maori party afloat for the Nats.
Dotcom aside, Labour was more than pleased to keep Hone Harawira and Laila Harre out of Parliament.
Labour does not like competition on the left.
The Lab/Green MoU and the call for other parties to join them in removing the government makes you very wrong Colonial Viper.
And attempting to reframe my question just so you can orchestrate another dig, still didn’t address the original question which is, “What party could work with Mana with Dotcom being involved?” Be honest.
Laila Harre endorses Labour
“What I think with Labour’s announcements in the weekend which was so important it may well start to drive the behaviour itself, I mean I’ve certainly said to people I know in that house buying generation that rather than work longer hours to pay an excessively high mortgage and put their deposit out there in an overheated market that they would be better to invest their time and any additional money in helping Labour to change the government it’s a far better investment for them make in getting their first home than anything else. “
Good luck to LAB/GR getting over 40% next year.
What about Lab/Greens/NZFirst? Enough the knock the Nats off its perch.
But many, many voters do.
And with bloody good reason, because the current Labour Party has not renounced or apologised for one fucking nasty thing they’ve done since 2008!!
What good will it do to keep on apologizing? Andrew Little apologized and yet those in the media and people like you want it said over and over, why? it doesn’t change the past. When Willy Jackson tried for an apology again I was so pleased that Andrew Little stood his ground and refused to be drawn into that farce. Will forcing John key, who has only ever apologized to Cameron Slater and Dotcom, for past National governments and for his own change “one fucking nasty thing” he done in almost 9 years. Will it make those bearing the brunt of his draconian, punitive and dictatorial misgovernance feel better?
“What good will it do to keep on apologizing?”
Show me where Labour has apologised once for screwing over the poor between 1999 and 2008, and for voting with the nats as recently as 2014 for anti-poor legislation?
Does apologizing for neolib and the Foreshore and Seabed count? If you are wanting an apology for a specific issue that will make you feel better, you should contact the Labour party Chris.
What good will it do to keep on apologizing?”
DC apologized for being a man, will that do you? It’s a pretty broad scope being a man I know but, we , honestly, I mean just ask the wife, end up at fault, with everything.
I think you’ll find CHris things are not allways black and white in the corridors of power.
ask yourself is their any other reason labour and maori could have fallen out over the foreshore and seabed?, power plays?, demands ?, what do you call it when one party refuses to sign unless there are sweeteners thrown in.
I agree it was bad, but I could not believe they were doing that simply for the reasons they publicized.
then again maybe it was.
Just don’t get toooo worked up about it, they are all snakes.
“ask yourself is their any other reason labour and maori could have fallen out over the foreshore and seabed?, power plays?, demands ?, what do you call it when one party refuses to sign unless there are sweeteners thrown in.”
Excellent point. There were obviously enough sweeteners from John key when the Maori party supported National’s Marine and coastal Act, that replaced the F&S, that forced Hone Harawira to walk away from the Maori party.
Both you two have zero credibility. Your opinions are just hateful rants. Bully boys smearing with zero evidence – more suited to the rwnj blogs than a place where serious issues are discussed.
I wouldn’t describe Leftie as a bully. I don’t think anyone could feel bullied by his insipid attempts to say anything.
You need to get a grip on yourself Marty Mars, your sensitivity around the Maori party is getting ridiculous. People have a right to their opinion and there is enough evidence to question the Maori party’s actions. And as posted in another comment, having a go at National’s Maori party is not having a go at the Maori people.
You are the one who has taken it upon yourself to make it a personal crusade to bully people into silence. You have turned a blind eye, and gone into outright denial, but it doesn’t mean the rest of us have to.
Re: Foreshore and Seabed.
“Well that was because of the perception, but the reality is I say is, all the coastal iwi supported the coastal legislation because they were talked to beforehand and you all remember, people like Api Mahuika, the Ngati Porou leader saying that over and over again and then of course as I said the Maori party went silent. Here are the facts when you make that statement about testing their rights at court well when the highest court in the country when they referred the matter back to the courts they said they could have that right but they couldn’t conceive of a circumstance where they would be successful. What the Maori party have done in their desperation to be relevant is to pile it up into some sort of cause but meanwhile housing health education and first world jobs first world wages have been utterly neglected by them and that’s what the Maori out there on the streets of this country and in the hamlets and villages really want and they have been utterly forgotten.”
Winston Peters @ 11:49 sec
Willy Jackson didn’t disagree, he said in response, “that’s a fair point.”
Did you say something of relevance Chris? …… thought not.
Maybe the current Labour Party leadership should take heed of Chris Trotters suggestion?
“Since 1984, no Labour leader (with the honourable exception of Jim Anderton) has unreservedly and steadfastly repudiated the ideological underpinnings of Rogernomics. A speech from Andrew Little in which he acknowledges the devastation wrought by Rogernomics, and spelling out how he proposes to right the wrongs it inflicted on working-class Kiwis, would almost certainly produce a similar galvanising effect as Brash’s 2004 speech to the Orewa Rotary Club.”
Chris Trotter is a big fan of John key and his Nats.
Like Andrew Little said to Willy Jackson, he is not responsible for what previous governments have done.
Chris Trotter isn’t a fan of John Key. He gave Key his own made up award on his blog for something like “politician of the year” or something, not because he liked Key but because he regarded Key as having out maneuvered the opposition during that particular year, which wouldn’t have be difficult given the state of the opposition. If you really believe that Trotter’s comments back then makes him “a fan of John Key” then nothing you say on this site can be taken seriously. I wouldn’t even describe you as one-dimensional. You’ve proved it’s possible to sink below that. I’m going to have to coin a new phrase. I don’t think anyone’s ever shown to have so little behind the eyes.
“Chris Trotter isn’t a fan of John Key.”
Wrong, and he’s written more glowing articles than just making John Key and Bill English New Zealanders of the year.
That doesn’t wash, when they obviously didn’t blame that much to vote Labour in for 3 terms last time.
I have no doubts that there are some older people who still hold a grudge, and feel totally justified. imo I think people have very short memories when it comes to the Nats. The horrors the Nats cause appears to be easily forgotten and forgiven.
Uh, the people who blamed Labour didn’t vote Labour even then and they never will again.
Helen Clark won her terms on the basis of white collar swing voters who largely benefited from neoliberalism, not from the traditional base of hard core Labour supporters which Labour itself has destroyed over time.
Oh Labour people voted Labour alright Colonial Viper, I bet you did before you got that big chip on your shoulder after not getting your way.
It’s funny that you should bring me into it.
I am one of those natural Labour voters, and I too am never voting for that party again.
rofl Well you are Labour… or were weren’t you? of course I would bring that up in response to your post. Fair question, are you still a member of the Labour party?
They still ask me for money, if that’s what you mean.
By the way – you avoided the key issue with your clever little game – I am one of many natural Labour voters who will never vote for that party again.
We never see anything clever on here from Leftie. Leftie’s blind support for Labour and refusal to accept one criticism of that party amounts to nothing less than trolling in its most insipid form.
I wasn’t being clever, and I didn’t avoid what you wrote, that’s what prompted me to ask if you are still a member of the Labour party. You are still being vague though, a simple yes or no will suffice.
How much responsibility do you take for that grudge you hold so dear? It is all Labour’s fault?
Who cares whether CV is still a member of the Labour Party? And why do you almost always resort to attacking the person at the point you decide to stop engaging in a discussion? You are a complete piece of work.
Hi Leftie, Labour will never have my vote again. And fuck you, mate, you ain’t my supervisor and I don’t answer to dickheads like you.
That’s rich coming from you Chris. You’re struggling. No one bends your arm to read my opinions, so don’t read them then.
Don’t be like that Colonial Viper, there is no need to get abusive.
You ARE attacking the person by asking about his membership. Own the ugliness leftie.
What a load of rot, he opened himself up to that and it’s not a flaming sin to ask. Why the big secret? You don’t have to be Einstein to work it out, do you? And how about you owning your ugliness Marty Mars.
CV hit it on the head when he said about traditional labour voters not voting labour because of neoliberal policies, I have been one of those on three terms, frankly the labour party I support, only now gets my support as it’s the lesser of the evils instead of because of the policies they have.
That’s a fact, that’s what’s wrong with labour, fads come and go, Labour switched to one neoliberal-dioherea to keep with public opinion at the time, by very poor leadership, and have failed to recognize this and alter course.
I’m pissed about it, time they got back to the working man and woman, the rock they were founded on. End of.
half of them look like university types who have never held a proper job whilst living on struggle street.
“frankly the labour party I support, only now gets my support as it’s the lesser of the evils instead of because of the policies they have.”
Bet Labour still welcomes your support very much Richard Rawshark. You never know, once the government is out and the new coalition is installed you may be pleasantly surprised. I remember Colonial viper’s commentary a few years back, it wasn’t all bitter and twisted like is now, he didn’t bang on relentlessly about Labour and rogernomics of decades ago in a continued hatefest and he was all for holding the Nats to account. So it does appear this grudge against the Labour party that Colonial Viper clings to like a comfort blanket is personal and one of his own making.
“I cannot blame the current Labour party for past administrations”
To me they sound and act exactly they way they did 3, 6, and 8 years ago.
mate I voted for them – and on my blog I noted all of their stuff from day 1 – I am not in denial in any way – I know more about them than you ever will.
I just can’t stand bullies, especially bullies who reflexively bully without deep thought, which truth be told is really most bullies. And double especially bullies who bully Māori because they don’t agree or meet their expectations.
So you stick to labour – you seem like a good fit.
Edit – you’ve changed your comment around Leftie – but mine will still stand.
Who is being a bully? Yeah you are in denial, you have turned a blind eye Marty Mars and how have I changed my comment around? you mean when I added to my comment in editing? Aren’t I allowed to do that?
of course but it changes how my response looks which I noted by the term edit.
So sorry about that Marty Mars. I should have edited my comment before I posted it. I like the 9 min time frame, and am inclined to do my editing then. I will try not do that in the future.
Marty mars, how are you enjoying the “respect” that the Labour status quo mindset accords to its supporters and voters.
That’s rich Colonial Viper, doesn’t it cut both ways? Haven’t seen any respect for opinions that differs from Marty Mars et al.
are you 12?
Thanks for proving my point.
labour are labour – I don’t usually get into them unless I want to show hypocrisy from their supporters which is so easy to do that it becomes like shooting fish in a barrel (chocolate fish that is as I would never really hurt the wee fishes)
proving my point again 🙂
Like you are proving my point again 🙂
MM, there is a major issue in NZ with Maori, being, the bullies themselves, out in the real world it’s Maori I see doing most of the stand overs, and specially amongst themselves.
You have got a cultural bullying problem with Maori, tell me i’m wrong.
Youre wrong dim
Is he? other ethnicities have bullying issues a well.
Cultural bullying – read before you spin buddy
I know what cultural bullying is Marty Mars, do you? you are denying its existence.
What is it?
That doesn’t answer the question. You tell me. You said Richard Rawshark is wrong, why do you think he is wrong?
LOL answer the question – you said you know – prove it – don’t worry I know you can’t – too many braincell’s gotta work in unison for that one.
For once I can agree with you marty mars.
Who’s running parliament?
If Marama really cared the Maori Party would not be helping to prop up this Government and all their inaction, e.g. housing, education.
Better for them to be at the table than across the other side of the road throwing stones !
Yes but when you lay with dogs you catch fleas.
Then every politican and party that has voted for and supported the gnats have fleas. But only one gets vilified – ironical really but not unexpected in this colonised land.
Refer to comment by Enviro Gal. Standing behind national is one thing, but supporting them in their cynical attacks on under privileged NZers etc, is another.
so some fleas are better than other fleas – bit elitist there TH
I don’t know if that’s irony, it may be more part of the parody you mention.
Good grief TopHat, is that why i see Andrew Little scratching endlessly ?
“Better for them to be at the table than across the other side of the road throwing stones”
not if you are at said table begging for scraps, But most of you craven RWNJ have no concept of self worth/dignity do you ..
Maori party = Uncle Tom
“not if you are at said table begging for scraps”
Scraps like these: http://www.maoriparty.org/our_achievements
And this doesn’t take into account:
– Breakfast in Schools
– Free healthcare for under 13’s
– Multiple treaty settlements including a groundbreaking settlement with Tuhoe
– Smokefree NZ 2025, including plain packaging for cigarettes
Of course they could have sat in opposition and achieved…what exactly?
You are also forgetting that the Maori Party is there to represent ALL Maori (and by extension all of NZ), not just the ‘left wing’ ones.
“–Smokefree NZ 2025,”
you are dumb enough to believe that ?
“Of course they could have sat in opposition and achieved…what exactly?”
how about NOT achieving political obliteration by disapearing from the benches next election
most Maori i have spoken to and know have had enough of their lies
How many of them are actually on the Māori roll and live in Waiariki? Because the Māori Party’s position is pretty secure as long as there’s no significant challenge to Te Ururoa Flavell’s seat.
Doesn’t that really depend on what Annette Sykes decides to do next year? A preferential vote system may well have turfed Flavell out in 2011 and 2014, for Sykes and Rawiri Waititi (Labour) respectively.
Well said Anno1701 and TopHat.
Breakfast in Schools and Free healthcare for under 13’s is not attributable to the Maori party alone, so Bob, in other words, not that much has been achieved in 8.5 years sitting at the table when poverty, homelessness and inequality, particularly for Maori, has reached unprecedented record levels. BTW the Maori party does NOT speak for all Maori.
but it does speak for some – unlike you leftie – or have you received votes???
No need to attack me personally for having an opinion that differs from yours Marty Mars, even though your comment is an admission that the Maori party does NOT speak for all Maori, which is the point I made in my post. Would have thought Mana should get the support over the Maori party any day. The Maori party will sabotage Mana to save itself if it got the chance imo. So whats your angle Marty?
Sorry I was not trying to attack you personally – just clarifying what you had written.
I am a Mana Movement supporter who doesn’t like Māori being unfairly picked on even if I don’t personally like them.
What about you Leftie – honestly, what is your angle?
I am not having a go at Maori, I am having a go at National’s support partner, the Maori party. There is a big difference, you know. I like Hone, I am worried that an association with the Maori party could seriously hurt the Mana party. My angle is simple, I want John key and his Nats and their cohorts gone. I support a Lab/Green/NZ First coalition to do that and I would like to see Hone back in parliament, but not with National’s Maori party.
Especially when “breakfast in schools” plays into the neo-lib ideal of less government, more charity (unless it’s across all schools regardless of decile, because then it’s cultural rather than class divisive).
While I have absolutely no support or sympathy for the Maori Party, if you run a counterfactual and the remaining Maori seat was with a Labour-led coalition, they’d have to be treated a whole bunch better than Labour have treated its coalition partners previously.
If Maori Party are so clearly prepared to put up their coalition price to National most of the way through a term, they will sure do it to Labour as well.
The Māori Party are REACTING to the gnat disregard for a settlement they have made with Māori. The Greens have agreed with the gnats that middle class conservation is more important than negotiated settlement rights with indigenous partners. Labour potentially could pull the cat out the bag, if they resist the easy middle class conservationist vote, and take a chunk of Māori votes. If they did get those seats they would be labour seats and labour can do what they’ve always done with their Labour Māori Seats.
The Māori Party being in coalition or something with Labour would always imo have the opt out option or some such similar tool to disengage if needed. Sadly NO one has forgotten the foreshore and seabed betrayal and The Māori Party least of all – and they will be careful about the treachery of labour – much more than labours worry about them.
National will always be more willing to keep life support to dying parties like the Maori Party, Act and United, because they won’t get into government without them.
Labour knows it’s in with the Greens for good and so can’t afford ever to alienate the middle class conservation vote.
The Maori Party have chosen this particular moment to put the government at risk – an excellent lesson of what would happen with a Labour-Greens coalition if it included the Maori Party.
Hard to see anyone trusting the Maori Party in government after this. May feel unfair to the Maori Party, but it’s the net political effect.
English has done the right thing shunting Smith out of it. But Findlayson should be in on the repair job as well. This is all saveable. So far.
Saveable for who though? the gnats, the sanctuary, the gnats relationship with the Māori Party, the middle class conservationists.
imo the big big winners could be Labour but I’m not really sure they’d trade off some middle class conservation votes for some Māori votes – the numbers wouldn’t stack up.
In regards to this moment and the risk they have placed the govt into – there is NO risk – the greens will vote with the gnats – they have the numbers.
Why not saveable (the Kermadec deal)? Are you suggesting the govt just pass the legislation and ignore Maori treaty rights?
It might be rather late, but the govt is doing the right thing to negotiate. After all is there really any other option. Both John Key and Bill English clearly understand this.
It is not just this deal but the wider relationship, not just with the Maori Party, but with iwi generally.
And the Greens have also caught up with the play judging by Meteria Turei’s interview this morning.
“Are you suggesting the govt just pass the legislation and ignore Maori treaty rights?”
No I’m saying the opposite to that.
Well said Ad.
“– Smokefree NZ 2025 = a bigger joke than predator free by 2050.
Breafast Free @ some schools and Free Medical for under 13’s @ some medical centers.
Well isn’t this bit of stupidness from both the Maori Party and National serving Maori well now.
Good grief, if the Nats cared about the bill going through why aren’t they going to be present to vote on it?
Why hasn’t Marama asked National why there wont be enough members present?
It’s just laughable that a bill cant be past because there isn’t enough support from NZF.
Since when have the Nats and Maori Party needed to care which way NZF votes?
So it’s better to sit at the table with the boss of the company you work for who’s increasing the costs and reducing the incomes of your people.
awesome I see now why it took so long for Maori to have worked out the old carbon copy contract trick from Waitangi.
Spot on Richard Rawshark.
+1 Enviro Gal
Winston Peters denied his party was behind the delay and said there was no reason for it in the first place.
“The reality is enough MPs will have to be in parliament to pass these bills,” he said.
That’s the constitutional position.
“These bills can all go through on time, but it will require members to be here and not on holiday.”
He said New Zealand First was demanding a party vote because “that’s the way parliament operates”.
“This is all the government’s making, it tried to rush these bills through via the business committee, when it should have kept to the democratic, standard procedure,” he said.
Funny how Winston’s concern about “the way Parliament operates” only popped up at the last minute, when he could get publicity out of it. Look at Prosser in the video – he’s clearly got no leg to stand on. “Oh, we have new information but you’d have to talk to Pita about that”. 100% stunt.
Prosser (in the video) seemed a little caught off guard, wasn’t given much of a chance and seemed unaware of what was fully going on. An easy target perhaps?
Rubbish. If he wasn’t aware of the full facts he could have said so. Instead he made excuses and couldn’t back them up.
“If he wasn’t aware of the full facts he could have said so”
He did, stating you’d have to talk to Pita about that.
Actually this still could go through at the time arranged without the support of NZF according to the universally acknowledged expert on standing orders, Philip Lyth. I think Marama may have been misled by the Nats. (BTW I am not defending NZF here)
@philiplyth 18h18 hours ago
Philip Lyth Retweeted Ben Thomas
(2/n) Ben descends to abusing NZ First (for whom I carry no torch) while ignoring the facts of what’s happened at the Business Cttee.
Philip Lyth @philiplyth 18h18 hours ago
(3/n) Two weeks ago, Business Cttee agreed that the House sit on Thur & Fri mornings this week, to complete five Treaty Settlement bills.
Philip Lyth @philiplyth 18h18 hours ago
(4/n) There was “no* agreement for voice vote rather than party vote, & I think it unlikely that there was such a determination made today.
Philip Lyth @philiplyth 18h18 hours ago
(5/n) So Brownlee is already guilty of making up his own facts, and Ben Thomas of megaphoning them. Tho’ Ben might be forgiven.
Philip Lyth @philiplyth 18h18 hours ago
(6/n) Still, there’s 8 hours of Extended Hours available. Plenty of time for Govt to pass the 5 Bills if Brownlee shows he is capable.
Philip Lyth @philiplyth 18h18 hours ago
(7/n) NZ First has a limited capacity to delay passage of the 5 Bills, but none at all to stop the rest of Parlt uniting to pass them.
Philip Lyth @philiplyth 18h18 hours ago
(8/n) A competent Leader of the House would know all this – and remember that a SO6 motion to suspend SO has been used on Peters before.
Philip Lyth @philiplyth 18h18 hours ago
@philiplyth oops. Standing Order 4, not SO6
Philip Lyth @philiplyth 18h18 hours ago
(9/n) So Brownlee still has the capacity to work with rest of Parlt and assure the 400 iwi members of the passage of the bills this week.
Thanks for sharing, Karen.
MPs go home on Thursdays and Fridays ?
I thought they were working on select committees when the house isnt sitting – or thats the impression.
But instead for backbenchers its -Im outta here
The nats could not raise enough votes,due to proxy constraints,
second procedural fail by national this month,
So it’s Nationals fault that New Zealand First suddenly pulls it’s support from a bill that it has supported the entire way through the process?
It’s Nationals fault that New Zealand First suddenly pulls it’s support from a bill that is unchanged from the last vote when New Zealand First unanimously supported the bill?
Its always nationals fault,
This is why we are paying them such high salaries to get the basics right.
Good point Poission.
And Labour MPs get paid high salaries for getting the basics of being “the Opposition” right, too.
So does other opposition MPs Chris. You’re obsessed
“Because they wanted to let their ministers and a whole raft of their MPs go home early.” as Peters says.
remember the visa ‘priceless’ ads. Especially making the most of the box it came in.
“They asked New Zealand First if we were prepared to agree to an informal variation of the 25% proxy rule so they could let their MPs naff off on recess early.
Their request to not call a party vote was all about their wanting to circumvent the 25% rule that says they can only have a quarter of their 59 MPs away.”
“Sort yourself out. John Key is on the record for saying Kiwis don’t want to work, that they are lazy and on drugs. Well, he’s right except it’s him and his MPs who are the idlers around here
What’s the fuss? Labour can assist National to pass any required legislation.
they’ll get fleas and be traitors and sellouts if they do… again
National would decline the help from Labour, just as they have the Greens.
That’s how important the Maori Party are to a 2017 National government.
You can’t “decline help” on a vote, you just have Labour or Green MPs voting for the legislation.
yep there is no decline help. The help would be used by key as evidence of how good he is and Labour would have played into his hands.
btw – where have the gnats declined the Greens helpful support?
Labour votes for NAT social welfare reform; so why not Treaty settlements (unless Labour is against them.)
indeed – hypocrisy is not unknown down them there parts
Hypocrisy is not unknown to the Maori party either.
You are just trolling now
But what about all the Nat legislation, including welfare, that Labour have opposed Colonial Viper?
What Nation have done to “decline the help” is shelve the bill.
They explicitly only want help from the Maori Party.
the polling will put it on the table again mark my words
would it not be easier to just make sure you have all the National MP’s show up for work?
No? Would be in the too hard basket, so lets blame the opposition for something they have nothing to do?
Labours fault again for National fucking up even the smallest of things?
Electorate MPs usually have “work” to do outside of Wellington if they did not expect to be required to be in the House.
In this case, well once more National fucked up. Their MP’s were required and once more did not show up for work. Lazy, useless, quite frankly, maybe they should import their Mp’s on the skill category. Hmm, wonder what Bill English has to say about that.
That’s it in a nutshell Sabine, +1’s on both of your comments.
…sure, the non-parliamentary duties of MPs are important (electorate or list!) but you can at least organise to have the requisite number stay in Wellington an extra day to ensure you can vote through required legislation on time.
No problem there. It’s got to a stage where it’s often not clear which way Labour’s going to go. Pretty damn telling.
For you maybe Chris and other natural Labour haters.
Tell me then, is Labour going to support the nats’ latest legislative attack on the poor that’s just had its second reading? It’d be great if they didn’t, and you would expect a Labour opposition not to support it. But as I say, recent history tells us that there’s no guarantee that they won’t. That’s why it’s not clear to me. So if it’s clear to you, can you tell me whether Labour’s going to support it or not? I’m really like to know.
You seem to know it all, tell me why your National government is attacking innocent kids, the poor, the vulnerable, the disadvantaged and the impaired Chris?
You said that you know whether or not Labour’s going to vote with the government for the latest legislative attacks on the poor. The Bill’s just had its second reading. Going on recent form I certainly don’t know whether they will or not. Please tell us which way they’re going to go!!!
No I didn’t say that, actually. You claim to know everything, you know it all. You say you can predict the future. You haven’t specified the bill in question, but regardless of what Labour do and say; Labour is damned if they do and damned if they don’t by Nat fan trolls like you. Like I said, whilst you bang on relentlessly bashing Labour you are completely avoiding discussion on the National government that has the numbers to reek havoc and destruction on this country and its people.
CV said: “What’s the fuss? Labour can assist National to pass any required legislation.”
Then I said: “No problem there. It’s got to a stage where it’s often not clear which way Labour’s going to go. Pretty damn telling.”
Then you said: “For you maybe Chris and other natural Labour haters.”
So, from that I took it that you do know which way Labour’s going to vote on the latest legislative attack on the poor that’s at the second reading stage.
Now you say that you don’t know, and that I said that I do know because I said I can predict the future.
I have said all along that I don’t fucking know! Can’t you fucking read?
I guess you don’t know because it looks like you haven’t bothered to look the Bill up. I certainly gave you enough clues for even a moron to find.
Anyway, I don’t know whether Labour will support it or not, either, but the reason I don’t know isn’t because I don’t know what Bill it is, it’s because the last time there was a nasty piece of legislation that proposed screwing over the poor Labour voted for it.
The current attack that’s ready to be launched is this one:
So, going on Labour’s most recent form, it won’t be surprising if they do it again. But of course, we don’t know.
Why do you see this question as unimportant?
Surely with a name like Leftie you must be interested to know whether the largest opposition party that calls itself left-wing or left of centre or whatever the fuck it calls itself at the moment, votes for nasty neo-lib attacks on the poorest citizens? Fuck!!!
As someone who generally finds Labour insufficient, I think given the previous debates on the bill that Labour will likely vote against it as the benefit redirection provisions (one of the two main objectionable parts) are likely to be a sticking point for them and I doubt the government will change its mind and remove them. It’s too bad the over-emphasis on employment requirements aren’t also an issue.
Yes, I hope you’re right. That said, almost all of Labour’s speeches and its rhetoric around the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill were very scathing but Labour supported it anyway, so there’s no guarantee. There was this weird disconnect between what they were saying and what they were doing. Seemed like they were talking a different language. I sense the same thing could be brewing this time, too. But yes, I do hope your prediction is correct.
I thought they were just supporting it to Select Committee to get submissions on how those two things needed to be removed?
The issue is essentially there are parts of the bill that are non-objectionable or arguably even needed, (Labour theoretically supports a rewrite of the legislation too, they just don’t like the policy changes included) so it’s reasonably standard practice to vote a mixed bag bill like that through to committee, then insist the terrible parts needed to have been removed on second reading and start voting against it.
Carmel outlines their position pretty well in her speech on the first reading, promising to vote against it if the objectionable parts aren’t removed: http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/43075
Yes, you are right. That was the reason for supporting the Bill to the select committee stage. There are more than two issues, though. A third is the ability to create regulations that either govern particular key aspects of the principal legislation or allow sections of the main Act to be overriden by regulation. Labour got the ball rolling in this respect with the 2007 amendment Act that allowed regulations to be created that changed the definition of income set out in the main legislation. The nats, as per usual, have picked up the baton and continued down that highly unconstitutional road with this Bill. And Labour has not renounced its policy position that supports the abuse of regulatory powers in this way.
My point, though, is that I do not believe Labour will automatically oppose the Bill if none of the suggested changes or amendments are rejected. Nobody saw it coming when Labour supported the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill – their rhetoric was firmly against it, but they voted with the government nonetheless. So this together with what they did between 1999 and 2008 really does point to there being no guarantee they won’t do the same thing again here. As I’ve said, I want to be wrong, but the most recent evidence is against us.
I’m pretty on-record as regarding Labour as insufficiently left, not particularly trustworthy, and wishy-washy, but even I think you’re not giving them enough credit there. Labour will definitely vote against that bill at second reading if it doesn’t dramatically improve.
The real thing that worries me is what happens if National does moderate the bill a bit, and it comes out as some centrist beneficiary bashing instead of right-wing beneficiary bashing, because that’s when we have to worry about a repeat performance of Labour’s earlier twofacedness on similar bills. Labour actually loves to put the boot in on beneficiaries if they think it will help them with working voters. (Which is why people who give a toss about what happens to anyone relying on a benefit at all should give your party vote to the Greens, as they’re the only ones with an acceptable welfare policy) The issue is this bill is too much for them to get behind, so even “tough-on-beneficiaries” Labour won’t support it.
“Labour will definitely vote against that bill at second reading if it doesn’t dramatically improve.”
Again, I hope you’re correct. I don’t really disagree with too much of what you’re saying. I guess the only difference is in the level of optimism. You’re correct about the problem of Labour supporting a watered down version, too, especially if the regulation making aspects remain. I don’t think Labour understands the severity of this, and if they do then you have to remember that they introduced this hideous mechanism of dealing to the poor in its 2007 amendment Act so they probably like it. For me this all goes back to my near complete lack of trust when it comes to Labour and social welfare legislation. There’s not one positive indication that they’ve sorted themselves out in this regard since they reneged on their promise to reverse the 1991 benefit cuts.
“I do hope your prediction is correct.” No you don’t Chris, you’re lying.
hehehe how many times does Matthew Whitehead have to tell you Chris before you stop fishing?, you obviously didn’t get the response you were looking for.
Why is it that your limp protestations never sound sincere Chris? And thanks for pointing out that I never made that assertion that your whole premise is solely based on your own false assumptions. You are the one full of predictions, foretelling the future, don’t you know what you write? And haven’t I already covered some time ago, in response to your usual rant, that legislative piece you bang on about ad nauseum, whereupon I gave no opinion on it, but posted a lengthy linked quote giving a detailed description as to the support being a question of law? A quick search produced the following from the govt legislative page that any moron like you could have easily checked for yourself, it said the following:
“New Zealand Labour Party minority view
While Labour supports the intent of this bill to hold those responsible for committing fraud within our benefit system to account, and stopping them from undermining the entire system for those who need it the most, we do so with grave reservations.
Labour believes that the new offence represents a departure from the general principles of criminal law in that
•a positive act is normally required to ground criminal liability
•knowledge of or failure to report another’s offending is normally insufficient to ground criminal liability.
There are already a number of existing criminal offences that cover the criminal liability of spouses or partners of beneficiaries. These offences cover situations where a spouse or partner commits a positive act by
•agreeing with the beneficiary that the beneficiary will commit fraud
•encouraging or assisting the beneficiary to make false statements in order to obtain a benefit, or rate of benefit, by fraud
•making false statements for the purpose of assisting the beneficiary to obtain a benefit
•omitting to inform MSD when questioned on matters
•attempting to conceal that offending or laundering money received.
Labour accepts the argument by the New Zealand Law Society that in the absence of a positive act, which would normally provide ground for criminal liability, the justification for making partners and spouses criminally liable is not apparent. Labour would support amendments to the bill for new provisions that aligned with the advice of the New Zealand Law Society.
We further support the view by the New Zealand Law Society that it is fundamentally unjust for a beneficiary’s spouse or partner to be liable for the full excess amount that the beneficiary obtained by fraud regardless of the spouse or partner’s benefit and that limiting recovery to the amount by which the beneficiary’s spouse or partner benefited would provide a more equitable outcome for relationship fraud.
Labour agrees with submitters who sought further protection of beneficiaries with dependents by calling for the suspension of debt recovery while a debt is in dispute under the review and appeal process, and to ensure that people with debt are not denied an opportunity to understand and challenge the debt established against them.
Labour objects to this Government’s obsession with welfare fraud, while it turns a blind eye to the more costly issue of tax fraud. It accelerates the pushing of legislation on beneficiary relationship fraud without equal effort towards those who misuse the tax system; the magnitude of tax fraud is significant and is just as wrong. While relationship fraud last year amounted to around $20 million, with this making up one third of welfare fraud prosecutions, the Inland Revenue Department estimates tax “discrepancies” amount to over $1.2 billion a year, while annual tax fraud is $141 million “at an absolute minimum”. The rate of taxation fraud is up to 150 times the rate of welfare fraud.
The double standards approach by this Government with its unrelenting focus on welfare fraud without equal focus on partners of white-collar fraudsters who commit fraud and tax evasion was commented on by Sarah Thompson of Auckland Action Against Poverty that “it highlights the prejudices we have against beneficiaries and that we’re judging them as different because of their work status.”
Labour supports the concerns expressed by many submitters that this bill exposes more people to MSD’s policy change where it no longer informs people that they are under investigation. MSD has given itself sweeping powers to gain information about people from those they interact with in their community without their knowledge or permission. These powers increase the potential risks for ongoing human rights and privacy violations plus greater risk of corrupt practices by government officials. These policy changes appear to encourage a new approach where every beneficiary is presumed guilty of relationship fraud up front rather than to be presumed innocent until they are proven guilty.”
I suggest for the latest legislative changes check Hansard for the debates, its all there, including reasons for supporting and not supporting certain legislation, it’s never as cut and dried as you seem to think it is Chris, but you just want to have a go for the sake of it, regardless that Labour, Greens and NZ First have also opposed punitive welfare reforms, while the Maori party, Peter Dunne and Act have been supported of it. As posted previously suggest you contact the Labour party directly with your issues, they are the ones that can answer your questions and Beth Houston also suggested you get involved when you questioned her on the same matter… remember?
@ Leftie. I haven’t followed this argument but suffice to say: Chris is not interested in facts. Especially if presented by those of us who are open and honest about our support for the Labour Party. So, I think your most recent effort will be in vain. Never mind, I found it interesting and informative. 🙂
Thanks so much Anne, and yes, you are correct in what you have said.
I read the Auckland Action Against Poverty submission at the time and they vehemently opposed every aspect to the Bill.
There were no amendments and Labour supported it. Even if Labour had managed to get an amendment or two in at the select committee they would’ve been minuscule compared with the pure nastiness that this law change represented overall. And Labour voted for it.
You put all your energy on here into stating the bleedin’ obvious about Key and the nats being the swines that they are, and display utter abhorrence and defensiveness towards every single criticism aimed at Labour.
Now you’re giving reasons why it was okay for Labour to support a nasty piece of nat anti-poor legislation.
There are no words to describe the irony here. It’s reached unfathomable heights.
“Chris is not interested in facts. Especially if presented by those of us who are open and honest about our support for the Labour Party.”
Let’s look at the facts:
1. Leftie and yourself don’t like John Key and the nats. I’m assuming neither of you have ever voted for him.
2. I said that given Labour’s support for the last legislative attack on the poor there’s no guarantee they won’t do it again with this latest attempt that’s just been reported back from the select committee. (The fact is that Labour supported the last Bill.)
3. Leftie attacked my opinion – that opinion being based on the fact that Labour supported a nat-driven nasty war-on-poor piece of legislation.
4. Leftie then provided justification for why Labour supported that nasty nat-driven war-on-the-poor law change.
So, Anne, I ask you, who is being honest about the facts?
I’m kind of surprised that you seem to agree with Leftie that Labour’s support for that law change in 2014 was okay, but then again looking back over the last week or so it does make sense. I suspect what’s really annoying you is that there have been a few moments recently when one or two of your deep-seated prejudices have been exposed. But don’t worry, queenie, the main thing is that you’re honest about the fact that you have them.
And thank you for being honest about your support for the Labour Party. I should add, however, that given your apparent belief that it was okay for Labour to vote with the nats for a law change that screwed over the poor, that support appears somewhat blind.
Yeah, sure you did Nat fan troll, whilst ignoring everything else, reasons are never relevant or important, are they?
“display utter abhorrence and defensiveness towards every single criticism aimed at Labour.” What a melodramatic drama queen you are, because If that were the case, given the often times open hostility against Labour on TS, I would be here 24 hours a day responding. Some posters have genuine gripes and they give reasons, they don’t mindlessly bash, like you do in a point scoring exercise.
Every Labour internal election candidate that has posted on here you have demanded an answer to the same question with your usual diatribe, no answer satisfies you, just like the number of posts you made to Mathew, saying the same thing over and over again, and although he didn’t actually say what you wanted to hear, you clearly just wanted to continue to bash ad nauseum. Do you know what it means to cry wolf too much? Mathew is smart, he stopped responding to you, but I’m the idiot for challenging your stalking & trolling.
Somewhat amusing that you won’t answer question that others have posted on the nasty Nats, you are certainly not all mouthy then, and you say nothing about the Maori party supporting punitive welfare reforms that screwed over the poor, so how’s your blindness Chris? I’m sure they have their reasons, but that’s obviously different isn’t ? because at the end of the day, no matter what occurs under National, its always going to be Labour’s fault anyway, and you can avoid confronting the heinous issues created by key and his National government.
Will say it again contact Labour and speak to them, they are the best ones to ask and it’s a fair and reasonable suggestion. But quite frankly, judging by some comments you have made when “sitting comfortably looking out your window with a cup of coffee at hand, feeling all warm and fuzzy with the world” I question the sincerity of your so called “concerns”. I don’t think you really give a stuff about those bearing the brunt of this 3 termed National government. You certainly made that pretty clear that day.
“Leftie and yourself don’t like John Key and the nats. I’m assuming neither of you have ever voted for him.’
What’s that got to do with anything? You have certainly given yourself away there. And as for the rest of your hysterical diatribe of patronizing hypocritical bull, awww… were your feelings hurt? You wouldn’t know facts if they slapped you in the face and you have the gall to speak about honesty? Nat fan troll.
You’re the one who’s saying that Labour’s support for nat-driven anti-poor legislation was justified. Surely even you must see the irony in that.
No I didn’t Nat fan troll. You can’t read, it must be due to that blindness you are afflicted with, being a troll will do that.
Then again that may not happen either Colonial Viper.
More grandstanding with the cameras rolling from fox to cover up their own inability to get the numbers. Being at the tables working well for them.
Offering NZF such an opportunity is politically inept as winnie will kick you everytime.
Fox is as opportunistic as shonky and seems just as bad with process as he is.
must be the fight of the Maori vote.
I follow WP and NZF on FB and according tot he comments i don’t think there is much love around from the MP.
Granted, i know very little about either party, but this really is just the feeling one gets from reading the comments section under any of the Winston Peters posts.
There is a ‘give em hell’ feel to the comments in regards to selling state assetts, selling farms to overseas interest, homelessness and any other issue.
So maybe you know the increase in NZ First voters is not so much National Party member that may be disgruntled but rather Maori Party Voters.
Yep TC, the Maori party is desperately trying to stay relevant and failing.
I don’t like what the Maori Party’s done over the last few years, either, and of course by going with Key they’ve sold Maori down the river in more ways than one. That’s what I believe. Lock that in, Leftie.
But your words mean nothing because you don’t address enough of the facts, the main one being that the Maori Party didn’t sign up with Key because they embrace nat policy. The Maori Party are not neo-libs. When it comes to core principles the Maori Party are more left wing than Labour (which means you, too, which is very, very funny, but I digress). The Maori Party selling Maori down the river occurred through a combination of nativity and a desire to punish Helen Clark. That position is changing because the Maori Party now aren’t quite as naive, and they’ve made their point by punishing Labour. I think they might be ready to cut Key loose.
So, Leftie, my prediction is (if you can comprehend this, which of course you won’t be able to because you don’t have a full dimension, not even one, so I know I’m whistling in the wind here), that within less than a year, maybe even six months, you’ll be eating your words. Remember, it’s a prediction.
Just in time for the election aye Chris? how convenient. That possibility has already been discussed. Burning question is, will people be so easily hoodwinked? You just wasted hours of your time writing that patronizing diatribe. A number of facts have been posted over a number of threads, and not just by me either, but you ignore that because it doesn’t suit your obsession.
Have you ever properly engaged in a discussion on this site with someone who might hold a different view to your own?
All you ever do is one of three things:
1. Defend anything and everything that Labour says or does without a modicum of critical analysis.
2. Rebuke anyone who has the temerity to criticise in any way your precious Labour Party.
3. Run around like a headless chook throwing your pathetic “+1″s or “+1000″s around like fucking confetti.
You are a fucking moron.
You do post a lot of pointless rubbish and abuse.
“Have you ever properly engaged in a discussion on this site with someone who might hold a different view to your own?”
Yes I have Chris, and they weren’t trolls like you.
There is no rule saying that I can’t show support for comments that I like or agree with. You will just have to suck it up.
Anyway, just a friendly reminder. You need to tell us whether Labour’s going to support the nats’ latest attack on the poor. You said that you know whether they will or not. I really need to know. You’ve responded to most of my comments but you’ve forgotten about this one. If you can let me know as soon as possible it’d be much appreciated. Cheers.
Why is your National government attacking innocent kids, the poor, the vulnerable, the disadvantaged and the impaired Chris?
Because they’re a pack of filthy greedy lying nasty bastards who don’t care about anyone except those who can enhance their interests, and who at times get the help of the Labour opposition to push through its legislative agenda.
Now, are you going say whether or not Labour is going to support the Bill? I do not know, but you’ve said that you do. Please tell us!!!
Lol so that’s it, a few chosen words and you think that covers it, so you can quickly move on to resume bashing Labour? What’s that you were saying about “critical analysis and being a moron”? You’re a hypocrite, Chris. Read that line from you before, it’s a lead in to a pointless dig at Labour. You’re a boringly predictable pretender. Where did I say that I know? You claim to know everything, you know it all. You say you can predict the future. You haven’t specified the bill in question, but regardless of what Labour do and say; Labour is damned if they do and damned if they don’t by Nat fan trolls like you. Like I said, whilst you bang on relentlessly bashing Labour you are completely avoiding discussion on the National government that has the numbers to reek havoc and destruction on this country and its people.
Chris stop linking to your other comments that are just up the same page.
Hmm was Winston pissed that TOKM decided that New Zealand should never have “Marine Sanctuaries”…Nah probably not…no idea then
Wince playing his race card. What an asshole, all those bus loads of whānau with trips cancelled not knowing when they will get their crown apology now.
Shrug it’s ok for TOKM to play the race card but not Winston?
It’s the ‘we had an agreement and settlement which you have decided to throw in the bin’ card – very powerful and not a racing card like winnies
Maori owned or part owned fishing companies caught zero tonnes in the proposed sanctuary area and that is out of a 450,000 tonne fishing quota which they fully exploit…so take your ghost fish catch and shove it pal!
Yes good conservation eh dimmy
That’s a point.
. Why is it alright for Colonial Viper to say “Fuck You” to Leftie.
, Cant’ the Viper control himself. ?
. CV clearly can’t discuss and debate anything seriously. Which is pitiful really
Hello Observer Tokoroa, thanks for saying that, much appreciated and I agree with you. He obviously felt that I put him on the spot so out came the claws. I notice he does do that to people. It is pitiful.
leftie can fuck off for being a nosey little prick; if he wants to know my Labour Party membership status he can go ask his mates at HQ.
I can’t and would never do that, even if I were in a position to, which I assure you that I am not, I wouldnt. You opened yourself up to those questions Colonial Viper, so maybe you should be directing that abuse to yourself. You are so hell bent in your grudge, that looks to be of your own making, you can’t even see where it’s taking you.
And what’s even weirder is your response, you hate Labour with such a blind vengeance and yet you cannot even bring yourself to openly state whether you are still a member of the party or not, a pretty simple question to answer, given your rants, instead you go into a complete tail spin. It’s just irrational and outright strange.