web analytics

Ministry advised against concurrent referendum/election

Written By: - Date published: 11:15 am, June 26th, 2008 - 44 comments
Categories: child discipline, election 2008, slippery - Tags:

In line with Ministry of Justice advice, the Government has decided not to hold the child discipline referendum at the same time as the election. You can read the entire advice document here:

Holding a referendum at the same time as the general election is not recommended because 

“From 1999, we know that voters would be confused by the additional voting papers and would ask polling place staff questions about the issues and the process. Voters would take longer to mark their papers They would require help to find the right ballot box in which to place them.This would cause congestion and delays in the polling place.. [ and the count]…More polling place staff, including more inquiry officers, would be required to manage the additional workload…Combining CIR with the general election would increase the complexity of election day staff roles, the length and complexity of the training and the risks of staff training being inadequate “

Which is true. I was a Polling Clerk in 1999 and it was a nightmare.

The myth, invented by David Farrar, that holding a referendum separately from the election is more expensive is dispelled:

“To conduct referenda in conjunction with the 2008 General Election… would cost $7.3m… conducting referenda by postal vote in 2009 [would cost] $6.5m to $8.1”

Why isn’t a concurrent referendum cheaper? You don’t need polling place staff for a postal ballot but need more for one held with the election. 

Predictably, National has used this as another hit and run attack, despite the fact that Key himself said on KiwiFm yesterday “we’ve got no intention of changing the legislation unless we see good parents being criminalised for lightly smacking a child, and we don’t see any evidence of that”.

Is this really the level our politics has sunk to? Dishonest attacks over the timing of a referendum on a law that doesn’t affect most people and was never intended to affect most people? Does anyone really think this matters? How about a serious debate about wage levels? Of course, National will do anything it can to avoid a debate on serious issues like that, which is why it fills the void with this pathetic pap.

44 comments on “Ministry advised against concurrent referendum/election ”

  1. coge 1

    Steve, would you like me to outline the real reason Clark is fearful
    of this referendum happening on polling day?

  2. Electoral signs are taken down in the last few days to stop swing voters choosing the first sign they see on the way to polls as the party they’ll support. In turn I think a referendum where Family Fist may be writing the question (please correct me if I’m wrong on that) could distort the democratic process.

  3. coge. knock yourself out but don’t pretend that the Chief Electoral Officer hadn’t already advised against it back in April.

  4. Matthew Pilott 4

    IT, they already wrote the question, and it’s as poor as if I forced a referendum saying “Do you think the players of a game of rugby should be made criminals by the 1969 Crimes Act” (as is the case as I understand it). So yeah.

  5. “Should a loving smack be used as part of good parental correction?” – Or something to that effect. Full of rhetoric and I’m sure a professor of semantics like George Lakoff would be able to tear it to pieces.

  6. T-rex 6

    When they send out this referendum paper, is there going to be a 3rd box you can tick which says “That is the most f*cking retarded question I’ve ever heard”?

    I mean come on. “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”.

    By definition, no, because you specified “Good parental correction”. It is flat out stating that there are circumstances in which a smack is good, which is contrary to the views of a whole bunch of people.

    “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”.

    Damn that makes me mad. It forces a subjective judgement, and it’s leading, and it’s a dirty f*cking trick to play.

    Asking questions as terribly phrased as that should be a criminal offence in New Zealand.

  7. IT. Correct. the question is “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ”

    Arguably, the question as written doesn’t require a restoration fo the law as it was before the amendment to s59 last year or any law change.

  8. Essentially, the question asks whether something ‘good’ should be illegal. A first principle of any justice system should be that ‘good’ things aren’t illegal.

    Whether there is such a thing as a ‘good smack’ is another question.

    And the question gives us no clue as to whether the current law does an adequate job of seperating ‘good’ smacks from ‘bad’ smacks.

  9. T-rex 9

    Matt/Tiger – Glad I’m not alone here!

    “Do you think murderers should be put in jail, even if they’re great people and it wasn’t their fault and they’re guaranteed never to ever hurt anyone again and there will be a huge social cost to imprisoning them and no good will ever come of it because they’re really good people”.

    How about the REAL question, which is

    “Do you think it should be legal to strike a child in New Zealand if can be argued to be a corrective action”.

  10. Exactly. No where in the amendment to S59 did it talk about smacking. All this law does is stop people like the “Timaru Lady” from getting away with giving their kids the bash with implements and getting away with it.

    The far right found an area which would always be protected by common sense, stripped it and exploited the public with a lie. If we are to have a referendum it should be on whether these groups should be held accountable for not telling the truth.

  11. mike 11

    It’s less about smacking and more about the Government undermining the judgement of good parents and simply reinforces the nanny-state label.
    If Helen had known how much damage this would cause Labour she would not of gone near it.

  12. Anita 12

    Your cost difference discussion is really confused.

    Firstly $6.5m greater than $5.9m – so you have reinforced the point it’s more expensive, not “dispelled the myth”.

    Secondly, I think you’ve used all the wrong figures, with might explain that 🙂

    Concurrent 2008, current legislation – conservative estimate $7.3m
    Concurrent 2008, amended legislation – conservative estimate $5.9m
    Postal 2009 – $4.8m to $6.4m
    Postal 2009, including advertising costs – $6.5m to $8.1m

    So some numbers are bigger than other numbers, and some are smaller 🙂

    It’s worth also noting

    Amended legislation – MoJ are not recommending this, they are saying it’s possible but would be “likely to be controversial”.

    Advertising costs – it’s unclear why they weren’t added to the concurrent cost, perhaps they could/should/might be.

    Ranges for postal – the higher number was the budget last time, the lower number was the actual (both then adjusted for inflation). They never explain why the difference, so it’s not clear whether we should expect the lower or the higher end.

    Given all that I think the strongest statement one can make is:

    The costs will be dependent on a variety of factors, and neither option looks reliably cheaper or more expensive.

    Perhaps followed by a somewhat facetious:

    If cost is the key driver we should change the law, not advertise the referendum and tell the electoral commission to do more with less.

  13. Liam 13

    I think that a lot of this issue has come through the general public’s poor understanding of what the law actually changes. I think that on this blog we are ‘preaching to the converted’.

    As far as the question goes it is just terrible. I really hope that the question is not placed like this when it comes time to vote.

    As someone that is doing research, formulating the question is no easy task. The question will need to be transparent and ever word needs to be clearly defined. There can be no assumptions.

    The word good is a terrible choice. Even the word smack. We all feel like we know what the words are, but defining them is a tough task.

    The worst thing about this whole bill is that Labour are the ones who are being hammered by it. Despite the greens starting it. National voting for it (and still support it because to change would mean another flip-flop and they have had enough of them). The media are clearly wanting a fresh new government with fresh new faces with fresh new stories. When in reality it is the 2005 policy with 1990’s MP’s.

    But like i said i am just ‘preaching to the converted’.

  14. Anita 14

    The question is completely consistent with the tradition of CIR questions so far.

    Starting with Norm Withers’:

    Should there be a reform of our justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?

    Paraphrased to: Do you love your mum, think summer is warm, wish the All Blacks well, like fluffy bunnies, and want the elderly put through a mincer to make sausages?

    Not to mention the firefighters’ no means yes:

    Should the number of professional firefighters employed full time in the New Zealand Fire Service be reduced below the number employed on 1 January 1995?

    Do you not want the government to not consider not being mean to firefighters (not)?

  15. vto 15

    mike’s onto it at 12.10

  16. Anita, as you point out, the highside numbers for a postal referendum are inflation-adjusted numbers for the amount budgeted for the 1998 postal referendum, the low-side is inflaiton-adjusted actual cost – I went with actual cost.

    You’re right about the amended vs current legislation issue, I’ll correct.

    Basically, the cost of a postal ballot is insignificantly different from the cost of doing it with the election.

  17. Anita 17

    Steve,

    1998 was a local body election year, I did wonder if that reduced the postal ballot referendum cost as some of the electoral role work would’ve been needed for the local body vote. Next year is not a local body election year, so that wouldn’t help.

    That said, it’s pure speculation, MoJ haven’t told us 🙂

  18. vto 18

    Actually, following from mike’s 12.10 post – imo this sort of legislation is at the core of many problems with todays society in that people’s responsibility for themselves and for their family and those around them is removed to a distant unrelated party – namely central govt.

    This legislation says that sorry good parents of NZ but you are not doing the job right and we are going to do part of it for you, by telling you how to raise your kids. Responsiblity is dislocated.

    Less responsibility = more societal breakdown.

    Just like the dpb removed much of the responsibility of dads for looking after their kids.

    It is a fundamental flaw in an otherwise well intentioned approach by those that push these things.

  19. Anita 19

    Steve,

    I think you’ve corrected your post incorrectly – sorry mate 🙂

    $7.3m is under current legislation (not amended).

    I reckon we should write to MoJ and suggest they use tables in future briefings 🙂

  20. bill brown 20

    imo this sort of legislation is at the core of many problems with todays society in that people’s responsibility for themselves and for their family and those around them is removed to a distant unrelated party

    Does this also mean that you don’t believe a “distant unrelated party” should get involved if you lovingly smack your wife for not cooking your tea the way you like it?

  21. Vanilla Eis 21

    vto: where is there less responsibility? The law simply means you can’t make excuses for beating your children – in fact, it makes you more responsible for you actions. Or you think a horsewhip is an appropriate tool for discipline?

  22. Matthew Pilott 22

    mike’s onto it at 12.10

    Good. So the religious nuts can get out of it, we agree. Now the debate’s back to reality.

    What has the law done? No frivolous prosecutions. No criminalised parents. No police state. A huge increase in domestic violence reporting. A massive debate around the ethics of corporal discipline. Increased advocacy of non-violent parenting. A step in the right direction for our children.

    The stats won’t chagnge for years, I’ll be the first to admit. It is a step in the right direction.

    So I’ll question one of mike’s premises – that Labour would not have done it – you might be right, with hindsight it might not be worth it in terms of political expediency. But it was the right thing to do, unpopular or no.

    I’ll settle for ethics over political expediency any day.

  23. mike 23

    “Or you think a horsewhip is an appropriate tool for discipline?”

    That’s the the sort of comment you expect from a socialist, trying to govern to lowest denominator.
    Scaremongering to mask their craving to control everything. Pathetic

  24. vto 24

    ah yes bill and Vanilla, go ahead and assume that I am for the smack. That is not what I said.

    A strongly held opinion of mine is that increasing govt responsibility for much of our lives is a significant part of the cause of much of society’s breakdown. Responsibility for as much of our lives as is possible should rest at the coal face – be it individual, family or local community. Dislocate that and consequences follow. This legislation imo is a prime example of that dislocation.

    The ins and outs of both your points have been debated far and wide and I’m not going into it now. That was not the point I raised.

  25. bill brown 25

    go ahead and assume that I am for the smack. That is not what I said

    So what are you worried about then? You’ll never be affected by any of this.

  26. Renee van de Weert 26

    113/121 MPs voted for the Amendment which repealed the defence of reasonable force in the case of an assault on a child.
    Voting against repealing S59 were NZF, Peters, Paraone, Mark; UF Turner; ACT Hide, Roy; and Ind Copeland, Field.
    For repeal of S59 were Labour 49, National 48, Green 6, Maori 4, Prog 1, UF 1.
    The question as written on the Petition is ridiculous; it’s entirely subjective and achieves precisely nothing.

  27. Quoth the Raven 27

    vto – I’ve said it before about this hollow personal responsibility mantra of National supporters; if National acutally believed in personal responsibility they would call for an end to drug prohibition they would have voted for, instead of against prostitution reform, they would have voted against parental notification for abortions, for civil unions, etc, etc. The National party does not actually believe in personal responsibility, many of their conservative members views and their voting records show that.

  28. Matthew Pilott 28

    Renee – I think you’ll find Copeland was outside giving a press conference – or have I mixed events up?

    Agreed, I’d like to see if they’d be able to ask a useful question by changing it from its present form, but I guess that’s not what people signed for (though if you signed that petition without calling them out for a loaded and meaningless question, you’re not likely to be aware of what you were signing for in the first place).

  29. Vanilla Eis 29

    Mike, vto:

    Read my post again. The law, as written, allowed one person to successfully defend themselves for beating a child with a horsewhip. Removing this defense was, in my opinion, a credible reaction to such a ruling.

    I’m not accusing you of anything. I’m querying whether you think that it is appropriate to have such a defense available in the law.

    As has been stated, no one has been charged for simply smacking a child. When National agreed to vote in favour the bill, it was widely accepted that the police would use discretion whenever applying the law. What the bill did was remove the defense of ‘discipline’ to hitting a child.

    So, without attacking me for being a dirty socialist who just wants to interfere with the lives of good parents: Do you think that it was appropriate to have a legal defense for beating a child with a horsewhip?

    edit:

    MP: Copeland was outside at the time of the vote, but they allowed him to retrospectively have his vote against the bill added to the record. If it had been the difference between the bill passing or failing, I imagine they wouldn’t have.

  30. vto 30

    Quoth you have a point. It is a matter of degree of course. My opinion is that this govt goes too far. nats as you say arent a lot different. But that doesn’t detract from my point. The growth of central govt is an internationally slowly expanding bubble that I think has a way to go yet before it starts to leak and reduce its reach.

    Vanilla, I agree the law needed changing. To this? I am not convinced it was the best solution.

  31. Vanilla Eis 31

    Why, when it simply removed any possible defense? The problem really arises in the execution of the law – and the fear is that we will see a spate of frivolous assault charges laid against parents. I can understand that, but that doesn’t mean that there should be a legislated line of ‘allowed disciplinary measures’ in the sand that parents can’t cross. Isn’t that just interfering even more?

    My biggest problem right now is that I don’t think the question in the referendum accurately reflects the nature of the bill, and I fear that we will end up with the same backwards law we just managed to get rid of.

  32. Matthew Pilott 32

    The growth of central govt is an internationally slowly expanding bubble that I think has a way to go yet before it starts to leak and reduce its reach.

    Allow me to say the same of capitalism and unfettered power of corporations. I know which I prefer.

  33. Scribe 33

    illuminatedtiger,

    I think a referendum where Family Fist may be writing the question (please correct me if I’m wrong on that) could distort the democratic process.

    First off, it’s Family First, not Family Fist. (Do you complain about people calling Labour “Liarbore”? I think they’re equally childish and unfunny.)

    And I will take you up on the offer to correct you, because FF had nothing to do with the drafting of the question. They did encourage people to support the CIR, though, which (please correct me if I’m wrong on this) is their right.

  34. dave 34

    Steve has got a good handle on this, and for a change, is remarkably balanced as well.

    Essentially, the question asks whether something ‘good’ should be illegal. A first principle of any justice system should be that ‘good’ things aren’t illegal.

    Whether there is such a thing as a ‘good smack’ is another question.

    And the question gives us no clue as to whether the current law does an adequate job of seperating ‘good’ smacks from ‘bad’ smacks.
    Neither did the old law. but if a first principle of any justice system should be that ‘good’ things aren’t illegal, those “good things”, should most consider them to be good, are defined as good in the eyes of the public and should not be illegal, not just unprosecutable. Because we have police discretion, the lighter end of the scale of smacking has been unprosecutable for political rather than legal reasons.

    But a third principle is that upholding a law should not be based on police discretion – it should be based on clear law. The law isnt clear. It’s not good law.

    And the final principle is that if something is good, and most people, including the politicians and police, think it is good, it shouldn’t be illegal/unlawful and people shouldn’t be dobbed into the police for breaking that law. But as leaders have made it illegal, citizens should have a democratic right to confront it, and that’s what the referendum is trying to do.

  35. had enough 35

    So this government is confused. In the advice document about the CIR it says,

    “26. Finally, holding the CIR with the general election will compound the already difficult questions which are arising around the relationship between the different election finance rules set out in the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 and the Electoral Finance Act 2007.”

    So the Government has admitted that their own EFA is confusing them and is using this as an excuse about not having the referenda at the election.

    It will not cause voter confusion it will only cause government confusion and headaches.

  36. Draco TB 36

    But a third principle is that upholding a law should not be based on police discretion – it should be based on clear law. The law isnt clear. It’s not good law.

    The law can’t be that black and white because then you end up with too many loopholes and the law not working at all. It was this ‘black and white’, ‘letter of the law’ type thinking that allowed large anonymous donations to the National party in 2005 even though they were illegal. The answer to this method of getting around the law is to make the law as general as possible so that everything is caught up in it and then legislate for the few exceptions that are expected.

    The legislation that repealed s59 is excellent law because it’s flexible enough to be enforceable. An example of bad law is the 1993 electoral act that was so rigid as to be worked around effectively nullifying the intent of the law. It may as well not have been there.

  37. KK 37

    Had enough? “So the Government has admitted that their own EFA is confusing them and is using this as an excuse about not having the referenda at the election.”

    As pointed out over and over on the Standard, the EFA will inevitably run into problems. It’s not a simple act. I don’t how anyone can try to make this EFA/S59 connection … clearly just like your mates on the right in Parliament just make stuff up like any good reactionary.

    Your mates BE and TR yesterday, in criticizing the Settlement yesterday pretty much said exactly the same thing. One second it was settlement critique, then watssup! watssup! watssup! (sorry spelling haven’t seen the badge) (that was their best argument), then moved into govt waste and arrogance (too predictable) and concluded with their reactionary, hit and run, referendum attack.

    Simplistic, unrelated …

    “It will not cause voter confusion it will only cause government confusion and headaches.”

    Not even worth arguing with, especially the former – I think that SP made this pretty clear

  38. Lew 38

    Just ignoring the very good reasons not to hold a referendum on election day (and there are very good reasons in political theory, as well as those given by MoJ), only one factor needs to be taken into account: electoral advantage.

    The government is free, like it or not, to hold the referendum at any time within the next 12 months. The calculation it has to make is whether the number of people who would typically not vote but would vote against Labour if given a strong reason to go to the polls (ie, the referendum) are greater in number than those who would be so incensed by the government’s refusal to hold the referendum and the election together that they would vote against Labour on that basis alone.

    I’m sure the government is taking other factors such as logistics into account, but ultimately nobody would have any recourse against them if they held it on the 364th day after the petition was presented, except recourse to the ballot box. Since National-aligned moral minority lobbies like Family First, the Sensible Sentencing Trust and parties like the Kiwi Party and the Family Party are all counting on the referendum to call out their mostly apathetic, politically unaware constituencies, Labour would have to be facing a fairly bloody big backlash against delaying the referendum for them to even consider holding it on election day.

    It’s DPF’s and the aforementioned moral minorities’ and others’ jobs to create this backlash and they are presently setting about doing so. But when an electorate isn’t worried that the main opposition party has declined to release any meaningful policy, that’s hoping for quite a lot.

    National is playing smart politics by holding off on policy; Labour will be playing smart politics if it delays the referendum. You and I and some others might see either or both courses of action as undemocratic, cynical or just plain wrong – but ultimately the final arbiter on these questions is the electorate.

    L

    Captcha: `preaching yes’. This thing is scary smart.

  39. KK 39

    Well, depends how well informed they are

    “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ’

    A subjective question like that certainly does not help.

    I don’t think that you really can compare labour’s decision not to hold a referendum with national’s policy strategy.

  40. Lew 40

    KK: “A subjective question like that certainly does not help.”

    What doesn’t it help? Accurately gauge the views of the electorate on the matter of child discipline? That’s not the purpose of a Citizen-Initiated Referendum, as Anita has explained.

    “I don’t think that you really can compare labour’s decision not to hold a referendum with national’s policy strategy.”

    I could and I did. I’m open to persuasion as to why my comparison is invalid.

    L

  41. Anita 41

    Lew,

    I think that it should be the purpose of a CIR, we just don’t seem to be very good at them 🙂

    I reckon MoJ (or whoever’s job it is to approve CIR questions) should have a broader remit to reject bad phrasing and suggest better phrasing.

    Should the law be changed to explicitly allow parents to use physical force to discipline their children?

    We’d probably all vote the same way, but at least we’d know what we were voting for/against.

    [Pedant request – if the plural of referendum is referenda, what is the plural of CIR? I had to mangle one of my sentences to avoid CIRs :]

  42. Lew 42

    Anita: “I think that it should be the purpose of a CIR, we just don’t seem to be very good at them”

    An important distinction, yes, but doomed in my somewhat jaded eyes. This is of course why CIRa (see what I did there?) shouldn’t be binding.

    L

  43. Anita 43

    Lew,

    Indeed! Although I kinda love the idea of a binding referendum about loving smacks – just imagine someone trying to draft legislation including a definition of love 🙂

    CIRa – awesome! (but probably wrong 🙁 )

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • NZ announces a third P-3 deployment in support of UN sanctions
    The Government has deployed a Royal New Zealand Air Force P-3K2 Orion (P-3) maritime patrol aircraft to support the implementation of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions imposing sanctions against North Korea, announced Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters and Minister of Defence Ron Mark. “New Zealand has long supported ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Pacific trade and development agreement a reality
    Pacific regional trade and development agreement PACER Plus will enter into force in 60 days now that the required eight countries have ratified it. Trade and Export Growth Minister David Parker welcomed the announcement that the Cook Islands is the eighth nation to ratify this landmark agreement. “The agreement represents ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Securing a pipeline of teachers
    The Government is changing its approach to teacher recruitment as COVID-19 travel restrictions continue, by boosting a range of initiatives to get more Kiwis into teaching. “When we came into Government, we were faced with a teacher supply crisis,” Education Minister Chris Hipkins said. “Over the past three years, we ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Border exceptions for a small number of international students with visas
    The Government has established a new category that will allow 250 international PhD and postgraduate students to enter New Zealand and continue their studies, in the latest set of border exceptions. “The health, safety and wellbeing of people in New Zealand remains the Government’s top priority. Tight border restrictions remain ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • First COVID-19 vaccine purchase agreement signed
    The Government has signed an agreement to purchase 1.5 million COVID-19 vaccines – enough for 750,000 people – from Pfizer and BioNTech, subject to the vaccine successfully completing all clinical trials and passing regulatory approvals in New Zealand, say Research, Science and Innovation Minister Megan Woods and Health Minister Chris Hipkins. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • International statement – End-to-end encryption and public safety
    We, the undersigned, support strong encryption, which plays a crucial role in protecting personal data, privacy, intellectual property, trade secrets and cyber security.  It also serves a vital purpose in repressive states to protect journalists, human rights defenders and other vulnerable people, as stated in the 2017 resolution of the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Ministry of Defence Biodefence Assessment released
    The Ministry of Defence has today released a Defence Assessment examining Defence’s role across the spectrum of biological hazards and threats facing New Zealand. Biodefence: Preparing for a New Era of Biological Hazards and Threats looks at how the NZDF supports other agencies’ biodefence activities, and considers the context of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New Approaches to Economic Challenges: Confronting Planetary Emergencies: OECD 9 October 2020
    New Approaches to Economic Challenges: Confronting Planetary Emergencies: OECD 9 October 2020 Hon David Parker’s response following Thomas Piketty and Esther Duflo. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, wherever in the world you might be. I first acknowledge the excellent thought provoking speeches of Thomas Piketty and Esther ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Kaipara Moana restoration takes next step
    A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed today at Waihāua Marae between the Crown, local iwi and councils to protect, restore and enhance the mauri of Kaipara Moana in Northland. Environment Minister David Parker signed the document on behalf of the Crown along with representatives from Ngā Maunga Whakahī, Ngāti ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • New Zealand and Uruguay unite on reducing livestock production emissions
    Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor and Uruguayan Minister of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries Carlos María Uriarte have welcomed the launch of a three-year project that will underpin sustainable livestock production in Uruguay, Argentina, and Costa Rica.  The project called ‘Innovation for pasture management’ is led by Uruguay’s National Institute of Agricultural ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • 3100 jobs created through marae upgrades
    Hundreds of marae throughout the country will be upgraded through investments from the Provincial Growth Fund’s refocused post COVID-19 funding to create jobs and put money into the pockets of local tradespeople and businesses, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones and Māori Development Minister Nanaia Mahuta have announced. “A total ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Health volunteers recognised in annual awards
    Health Minister Chris Hipkins has announced 9 teams and 14 individuals are the recipients of this year’s Minister of Health Volunteer Awards.  “The health volunteer awards celebrate and recognise the thousands of dedicated health sector volunteers who give many hours of their time to help other New Zealanders,” Mr Hipkins ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Community COVID-19 Fund supports Pacific recovery
    The Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio says a total of 264 groups and individuals have successfully applied for the Pacific Aotearoa Community COVID-19 Recovery Fund, that will support Pacific communities drive their own COVID-19 recovery strategies, initiatives, and actions. “I am keen to see this Fund support Pacific ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Community benefits from Māori apprenticeships
    Up to 50 Māori apprentices in Wellington will receive paid training to build houses for their local communities, thanks to a $2.75 million investment from the Māori Trades and Training Fund, announced Employment Minister Willie Jackson today. “This funding will enable Ngāti Toa Rangatira Incorporated to provide its Ngā Kaimahi ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Training fund supports Māori jobseekers
    Rapidly growing sectors will benefit from a $990,000 Māori Trades and Training Fund investment which will see Wellington jobseekers supported into work, announced Employment Minister Willie Jackson today. “This funding will enable Sapphire Consultants Ltd. to help up to 45 Māori jobseekers into paid training initiatives over two years through ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Ruakura Inland Port development vital infrastructure for Waikato
    The Government is investing $40 million to develop an inland port at Ruakura which will become a freight super-hub and a future business, research and residential development for the Waikato, Urban Development and Transport Minister Phil Twyford, and Māori Development Minister Nanaia Mahuta announced today. The funding has been has ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Appointments made to Defence Expert Review Group
    Defence Minister Ron Mark announced today the establishment of an Expert Review Group to review a number of aspects of the New Zealand Defence Force’s (NZDF) structure, information management and record-keeping processes.  The Expert Review Group’s work arises out of the first recommendation from the Report of the Government’s Inquiry ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • No active community cases of COVID-19
    There are no active community cases of COVID-19 remaining in the country after the last people from the recent outbreak have recovered from the virus, Health Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “This is a big milestone. New Zealanders have once again through their collective actions squashed the virus. The systems ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Clean energy upgrade for more public buildings
    More public buildings will be supported by the Government to upgrade to run on clean energy, the Minister for Climate Change James Shaw announced today. Minister Shaw announced that Lincoln and Auckland universities will receive support through the Clean-Powered Public Service Fund to replace fossil fuel boilers. Southern, Taranaki, and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Schools back donations scheme for the second year
    More schools have opted in to the donations scheme for 2021, compared to 2020 when the scheme was introduced. “The families of more than 447,000 students will be better off next year, with 94% of eligible schools and kura opting into the scheme,” Education Minister Chris Hipkins said. “This is ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Ruapehu cycle trails gets PGF boost
    The spectacular Mountains to Sea cycle trail in Ruapehu District will receive $4.6 million in funding from the Provincial Growth Fund for two additional trails, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones announced today. “This is an exciting development for the local community, and one that will provide significant economic opportunities ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Update to air border order strengthens crew requirements
    Additional measures coming into effect on Monday will boost our defence against COVID-19 entering New Zealand through the air border, Health Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “As part of our precautionary approach and strategy of constant review, we’re tightening the requirements around international aircrew,” Chris Hipkins said. The COVID-19 Public ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • A true picture of Māori business activity
    A better picture of the contribution Māori businesses make to the economy will be possible with changes to the way information is collected about companies and trading enterprises. Māori Development Minister Nanaia Mahuta and Small Business Minister Stuart Nash have announced a new option for Māori enterprises who are part ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • PGF funding for Taranaki projects
    The South Taranaki museum, a New Plymouth distillery and a Pasifika building firm will benefit from a Government investment totalling more than $1 million, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones says. The $1.05m in grants and loans from the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) will help the recipients expand and create ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Fijian Language Week 2020 inspires courage and strength during COVID-19 pandemic
    The Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio says the theme for the 2020 Fijian Language Week reflects the strong belief by Fijians that their language and culture inspires courage and strength that is strongly needed in times of emergencies, or through a significant challenge like the global COVID-19 pandemic ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Trades training builds on iwi aspirations
    An investment of $2.025 million from the Māori Trades and Training Fund will support Māori to learn new skills while making a positive difference for their communities, announced Employment Minister Willie Jackson today. “K3 Development Limited Partnership will receive $2,025,000 for its Takitimu Tuanui apprenticeship programme, which will support the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Conservation Minister plants two millionth tree in Raglan restoration
    A long-term conservation project led by the Whaingaroa Harbour Care group in the western Waikato reaches a significant milestone this week, with the planting of the two millionth tree by the Minister of Conservation Eugenie Sage. “Planting the two millionth tree crowns 25 years of commitment and partnership involving Whaingaroa ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Seniors – our parents and grandparents
    International Older Persons Day is a chance to think about the individual older New Zealanders we know and to confront ageism, Seniors Minister Tracey Martin said today. “What happened around COVID-19 is a reminder that our over-65s are a very large and diverse group of people and we need to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago