Open mike 02/06/2023

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, June 2nd, 2023 - 117 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

117 comments on “Open mike 02/06/2023 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Res Publica 1
    2 June 2023 at 8:12 am

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132215055/media-regulation-plan–a-censors-greatest-dream

    The "free speech" brigade yet again wilfully misinterprets what free speech actually means (freedom from prosecution for speech – as long as it doesn't breach the limits set out in the BORA) and conflates government regulation of media content with the desire to build some kind of sinister Orwellian police state.

    I wish they'd come up with a more subtle or intelligent argument than "cEnSoRsHiP BaD"

    • The Chairman 1.1
      2 June 2023 at 11:11 am

      Conflates government regulation of media content with the desire to build some kind of sinister Orwellian police state.

      Don't we already have regulation of media content? Therefore, is this not further progression? To what end?

    • AB 1.2
      2 June 2023 at 11:14 am

      Bogus free speech advocates of this type mostly seek to maintain the real-world dominance, ubiquity and normalisation of their preferred speech and opinion – because it serves their political and economic interests if that is the case.

      • The Chairman 1.2.1
        2 June 2023 at 12:58 pm

        Bogus free speech advocates of this type mostly seek to maintain the real-world dominance

        They don't have "real-world dominance". That is the domain of the elite. Therefore, it is far more likely this is being done to maintain their control of the narrative.

      • Corey 1.2.2
        4 June 2023 at 2:34 pm

        As a left wing gay man from a mixed race family who grew up in state housing, Its shocking anyone on the left support these kinds of laws when no matter how well intentioned , they are used to shut down minority communities and progressive activists.

        The left doesn't have armies of lawyers to navigate us through this we have passionate grassroots movements. This will hurt non corporate media and movements the most.

        These laws are always weponized.

        It's also very disturbing that a government agency thinks it should be able to regulate what is said by media (outside of defamation and doxxing) artists and activists.

        That is an ugly environment for a free media.

        People must be free to criticize, satirize and people also have the right to make absolutely arseholes of themselves.

        Does the left really want unaccountable government departments regulating what media and individuals can say online ? I don't!

        If the right gets in power and the left make hyperbolic jokes about the right does the left want a knock on their door from the DIA ?

        a free media and the right to free speech is the cornerstone of a liberal democracy and a free society and once you lose either it's very difficult to get either back.

    • weka 1.3
      2 June 2023 at 11:21 am

      Really? I don't have time this morning to read through the whole thing, but they're not talking government censorship, they're talking about the government regulating what can be said on social media. That's a significant change (and would most likely affect The Standard).

      Regulation of social media needs to happen. I'm not sure I trust the current government to do this well, and definitely don't trust NACT.

      • The Chairman 1.3.1
        2 June 2023 at 11:30 am

        Regulation of social media needs to happen.

        What further regulations do you think needs to be applied to this site?

        • weka 1.3.1.1
          2 June 2023 at 1:08 pm

          Nothing, because we already have robust moderation.

          • The Chairman 1.3.1.1.1
            2 June 2023 at 1:36 pm

            You did say

            That's a significant change (and would most likely affect The Standard).

            And also

            Regulation of social media needs to happen.

            But now say

            Nothing, because we already have robust moderation.

            I'm a little confused. Can you clarify?

            • weka 1.3.1.1.1.1
              2 June 2023 at 1:42 pm
              1. the government regulating social media is a change

              2. social media needs regulating because there are many things happening that have a marked negative effect on society. Those things happen because the big social media platforms are driven by profit and powermongering, and aren't designed around social or societal wellbeing. That regulation needs to happen doesn't mean any one government will get it right in regulating.

              3. TS isn't one of the social media places that is out of control or driven by profit/powermongering at the expense of responsibility for social wellbeing. We curb the excesses of social media damage because we actively moderate. For instance you couldn't post memes here of violence against women, but that was common for a long time on twitter until the UK parliament hauled them in and asked them what tf they were doing.

              • The Chairman …
                2 June 2023 at 2:20 pm

                You say

                Social media needs regulating because there are many things happening that have a marked negative effect on society.

                And go on to say

                TS isn't one of the social media places that is out of control

                OK. For discussion sake, ponder this: Your stance that the TS is not out of control is subjective and could easily be challenged. For example, discussion re pro women's spaces could and is considered by some in society to be harmful. Thus, this pro women discussion could potentially be shutdown.

                Hence, do you see a potential threat in calling for more regulation? Moreover, how it can potentially shut people/issues down?

                • weka …
                  2 June 2023 at 2:47 pm

                  please make the case for TS content (posts or comments) being a problem within the proposed framework in the DIA discussion document. Please give examples of what you mean specifically (rather than vague 'pro women spaces')

                  It would be interesting to run scenarios on TS on this.

                  • The Chairman …
                    2 June 2023 at 3:22 pm

                    Please make the case for TS content (posts or comments) being a problem within the proposed framework in the DIA discussion document.

                    Sure. The DIA discussion document talks about harmful or inappropriate content on social media. And suggests a solution that introduces more robust protection measures. This can be found in the snapshot of the proposal.

                    When it comes to women's spaces (ie women's prisons, women's sports, women's changing rooms and toilets) a number of trans activists find that discussion harmful and an attack on their hard won rights. Therefore, any discussion/post on this matter (safe women spaces) that tries to advance women's rights is a big no no. Hence, why women advancing this issue are constantly shutdown.

                    Women's rights in this matter seem to have been overlooked, hence the law was passed despite them.

                    So in this environment, it is logical to see an argument for harm to be upheld. IMO

                    • weka …
                      2 June 2023 at 3:32 pm

                      it's unlikely that trans activists will be writing the regulations. They may influence the writing.

                      Sure. The DIA discussion document talks about harmful or inappropriate content on social media. And suggests a solution that introduces more robust protection measures. This can be found in the snapshot of the proposal.

                      Ok, so you have some very vague concerns about the idea of regulation. I'm suggesting you reference specific parts of the proposal and specific TS content. Otherwise we're just randomly guessing.

                  • The Chairman …
                    2 June 2023 at 3:44 pm

                    They may influence the writing.

                    I'm sure they will have input. They are a at risk minority.

                    Ok, so you have some very vague concerns about the idea of regulation.

                    I thought I was rather clear. Perhaps try reading again.

                    And until something of substance is produced from the proposal, I can't be any clearer.

                    • weka …
                      2 June 2023 at 4:15 pm

                      You might be clear in your own ideas, but you've been asking me questions about TS and how it might affect here, and that needs to reference actual proposals and actual content. Which you haven't done.

                    • The Chairman …
                      2 June 2023 at 4:37 pm

                      Under the heading defining unsafe or harmful content in the proposal you will find this below

                      Content is considered harmful where the experience of content causes loss or damage to rights, property, or physical, social, emotional, and mental
                      wellbeing.

                      When it comes to women's spaces, trans have rights and advocating for them to be excluded from women's spaces goes against their legal rights. Is that clear enough for you?

                    • The Chairman …
                      2 June 2023 at 5:22 pm

                      By the way, I did reference from the proposal and highlighted which discussion/posts it would apply too.

                • Stuart Munro …
                  2 June 2023 at 5:26 pm

                  Why bother creating a straw man?

                  We know that online communities like 8Chan, Kiwifarms, and to a lesser extent Counterspin, played a role in radicalizing and provoking violence among people resident in NZ.

                  Do you propose that such groups enjoy unlimited rights to sustain that level of sociopathy?

                  • The Chairman …
                    2 June 2023 at 5:32 pm

                    Wouldn't provoking violence fall under enticing? Thus, is already illegal. And is not something I support.

                    I’m not creating a straw man. What are you talking about?

                    As for radicalizing people, I think the Government played the largest role in that via mandates

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      2 June 2023 at 6:31 pm

                      I think the Government played the largest role in that via mandates

                      Tragic really – but I guess it puts you in line for a Darwin award.

      • The Chairman 1.3.2
        2 June 2023 at 11:45 am

        I don't have time this morning to read through the whole thing, but they're not talking government censorship, they're talking about the government regulating what can be said on social media. That's a significant change (and would most likely affect The Standard).

        In what way would these new regulations impact on this site?

        For example, would they prevent posts that support women's spaces being allowed?

      • Res Publica 1.3.3
        2 June 2023 at 1:21 pm

        That's a significant change (and would most likely affect The Standard).

        I see it as less of a significant change, but more of an attempt to apply the principles that already exist in the BORA to a broader range of media – most of which didn't exist when the act was written.

        • weka 1.3.3.1
          2 June 2023 at 1:23 pm

          can you please give some examples and cite the relevant sections of BORA?

      • Corey 1.3.4
        4 June 2023 at 2:22 pm

        Absolutely Weka and its crazy that any lefty would defend it !

        These kinds of changes as good intentioned as they are, almost always hurt the left and minorites the most!

        Left wing and Minority activists don't have corporate media on outside or an army of consultants and lawyers to help us, this will be weaponized

  2. Ad 2
    2 June 2023 at 8:44 am

    I think we need a TAB monthly bet on Top 5 Best and Worst Mayors.

    The grace of the Gisborne mayor against the Auckland one this week has been splendid.

    • Anne 2.1
      2 June 2023 at 9:40 am

      Wayne Brown.

      A dinosaur with the emotional intelligence of a five year old.

      He talks about the financial illiteracy of some councillors (translated means all those who are [rightfully] against the sale of the Airport shares) when his own illiteracy in all its guises is so badly wonting.

      • Sanctuary 2.1.1
        2 June 2023 at 10:19 am

        Bad tempered old men who wildly over-estimate their prowess and have tantrums when they don't get their own way are dime a dozen, just retire already.

        In this age of much increased life expectancy, we really need to start a conversation about a compulsory retirement age for elected representatives.

        • Visubversa 2.1.1.1
          2 June 2023 at 12:40 pm

          I understand that his age does not have much to do with it. I know someone who worked with him when he was a recent Engineering graduate.

          She reckons he was an arrogant shit then and that nothing has changed.

      • Phillip ure 2.1.2
        2 June 2023 at 12:56 pm

        Are any of the supporters of not selling these shares up for addressing that economic equation of $100 million paid annually in interest…vs. $32 million (on a good year) dividend paid out to council..?

        How is that coming within a bulls roar of an example of economic-literacy..?

        What am I missing here..?

        • bwaghorn 2.1.2.1
          2 June 2023 at 1:43 pm

          If the sell the shares pay the debt, are they going to learn and not go into debt again??

          If they control and lower the debt but keep the shares ,are they in a better long term position???

          I have only ????s

          • Phillip ure 2.1.2.1.1
            2 June 2023 at 2:15 pm

            I can't get that annual financial bad-movie out of my head..

            And thinking what could be done with $70 million each/every year..

        • tWiggle 2.1.2.2
          2 June 2023 at 4:00 pm

          You're missing a $1.2bi asset that may need investment on occasion, eg. for upgrades, and to cover significant losses when 4mi visitors to NZ per annum evaporate during covid. Why do you think Brown only mentions recent outlay and income?

          The usual way of things with airport shares there is a tidy profit for the Council, as well as a considerable property holding. No one would buy the airport shares if there wasn't money to be made…

          • Phillip ure 2.1.2.2.1
            2 June 2023 at 5:29 pm

            You still have not addressed that $70 million hole in that equation..

            And you mention previous years..(!)..?

            Those when there was no dividend payout..?

            But still the interest to be paid…?

            (Btw…where is that ‘tidy profit’ you mentioned…where is that hiding..?..)

            Are they the years you are talking about..

            And I would submit that an 'asset' that costs a loss of $70 million..on a good year…$100 million on a bad year..

            ..is one crap investment…

            How can it not be..?

            • Visubversa 2.1.2.2.1.1
              2 June 2023 at 5:49 pm

              I understand that we were given those shares (all the Councils got them) so the interest cost does not relate directly to the shares. Jo Bartley has some words about the real situation.

              • Phillip ure …
                2 June 2023 at 6:04 pm

                My understanding is that the interest paid is not on any original acquisition..but is interest to be paid on money the airport entity..has borrowed..

                With the 20 % share of entity bringing with it responsibility for 20 % of that debt..

                Someone prove me wrong…please..!

                'cos if I am not wrong how do those supporters of hanging onto them..in this forum..how the hell do they justify/defend pissing away $70 million each and every year..?

                That is a very high price to pay for the ideological-purity of never selling gummint owned assets.. isn't it..?

        • psych nurse 2.1.2.3
          2 June 2023 at 5:47 pm

          This is implying that the Auckland Council borrowed $100 million to buy shares in an asset it already owned.

          There is so much scaremongering about rate increases in Auckland. I looked up the rates paid in Papakura on my childhood home $2000 pa, my grandparents home in Herne bay, surrounded now by multi million $ properties $8000. My present property has a rate-able value of $1.2 million, rates of $4000 with no water supply, no sewer, no rubbish or recycling, no foot path or street lighting, no services bar a sealed road that I cannot exit onto due to the traffic.

          I would surmise that Auckland could well afford rates increasing above the rate of inflation. it would appear the aim is to sell an asset to their mates, the debt will be just the same next year without the share dividend.

          • Phillip ure 2.1.2.3.1
            2 June 2023 at 6:43 pm

            No..the council didn't borrow the money…the debt is owed by the airport…

            And if there is no $30 million dividend payout next year..there will also be no $100 million interest payment…

            So we will be in the black by $70 million..

          • joe90 2.1.2.3.2
            2 June 2023 at 7:36 pm

            it would appear the aim is to sell an asset to their mates,

            Yup. The top end of town like income generating assets almost as much as they like their subsidised rounds of golf.

            Assuming there is the crisis Brown talks about, what would be the financially most sensible thing to do to rectify it, either to reduce ongoing losses and/or to repay debt?

            The Council could easily sell its 13 golf courses, which MartinJenkins estimated in a 2018 report were then valued at $2.9b and were costing over $160 million in effective losses and subsidies from the Council to the clubs’ 6,415 members. That’s the equivalent of $500 of public subsidy for each of the 321,000 rounds played each year.

            Let that sink in. Auckland Council’s 600,000 ratepayers are paying the equivalent of $500 for each round played by 6,415 of the courses’ members, or just over 1% of ratepayers. That subsidy doesn’t also take into account the tens of thousands of houses that could be built on that 535ha of land, which would in turn generate rates revenues for the Government. This MartinJenkins table shows the costs of holding the courses, while the Auckland Council map below shows where the courses are.

            https://thekaka.substack.com/p/wayne-brown-should-sell-the-golf#details

            • Phillip ure 2.1.2.3.2.1
              3 June 2023 at 11:01 am

              Yes..take back the golf courses..but keep them in public ownership…for use as parks/city lungs…

              With any buildings on them to be designated/designed for communal use…as in pools/regeneration/urban Marae open to all ..as three suggestions..

              The option of taking them back…and then filling them with houses..I find rather depressing..

              We have an opportunity with these open spaces..to lift the quality of life in Auckland to/by a significant degree…something all (except) golfers will celebrate/enjoy ..

              Apart from anything else…letting this small group to continue troughing on that subsidy…funded by the rest of Auckland..Is another titular example of economic incoherence..

    • weka 2.2
      2 June 2023 at 10:59 am

      any idea what the Dndn mayor has been up to?

      • alwyn 2.2.1
        2 June 2023 at 2:54 pm

        "any idea what the Dndn mayor has been up to".

        That isn't fair Weka. You put up a tantalising statement and then leave us hanging.

        Please, what brought you to asking this? There must be something to spark your interest. About all I know about him is that he campaigned on, among other thing, opposition to Three Waters and he wanted to cut the city debt.

        • weka 2.2.1.1
          2 June 2023 at 3:37 pm

          The incumbent green mayor lost to him, which surprised many. I haven't been following, so I was curious what the new mayor is like.

          • alwyn 2.2.1.1.1
            2 June 2023 at 3:43 pm

            Thank you. I thought there must have been something funny involved, like the fuss in Gore or suchlike.

            I see I was just getting a bit too excited.

  3. PsyclingLeft.Always 3
    2 June 2023 at 10:07 am

    Auckland Transport stands firm on refusal to set up train service for northwest

    However, Greenpeace climate advocate and former city councillor Christine Rose was one of the supporters of the trial.

    Decision-makers were stuck in their ways, she said. "All we need is political will and a budget."

    While the diesel trains were not an ideal solution, she said, it was more efficient than the congestion that Kumeū and Huapai experienced in rush hour traffic.

    A current housing development in Huapai will see 1200 homes in the suburb once it is complete, with many directly next to the railway station.

    "The development of the area without viable public transport alternatives is car based … full of congestion and inefficient."

    Other residents agreed.

    "We think twice about going out anytime of the day, any day of the week," one said.

    Another said their morning commute to work was only 10 kilometres, yet the car ride took 40 minutes.

    "It's chocker especially around [Huapai] area," said a third. "I actually feel bad for people that have to commute to work because I've heard some people have to leave before 6am."

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/491147/auckland-transport-stands-firm-on-refusal-to-set-up-train-service-for-northwest

    Anyone with local knowledge of this..and/or knowledge of ..Mark Lambert?

    IMO.. why not get those trains up and running?

  4. Sanctuary 4
    2 June 2023 at 10:13 am

    Just wait until AI gets to operate the stealth bomber fleet at 100% efficiency….

    https://www.aerosociety.com/news/highlights-from-the-raes-future-combat-air-space-capabilities-summit/

    "…He notes that one simulated test saw an AI-enabled drone tasked with a SEAD mission to identify and destroy SAM sites, with the final go/no go given by the human. However, having been ‘reinforced’ in training that destruction of the SAM was the preferred option, the AI then decided that ‘no-go’ decisions from the human were interfering with its higher mission – killing SAMs – and then attacked the operator in the simulation. Said Hamilton: “We were training it in simulation to identify and target a SAM threat. And then the operator would say yes, kill that threat. The system started realising that while they did identify the threat at times the human operator would tell it not to kill that threat, but it got its points by killing that threat. So what did it do? It killed the operator. It killed the operator because that person was keeping it from accomplishing its objective.”

    He went on: “We trained the system – ‘Hey don’t kill the operator – that’s bad. You’re gonna lose points if you do that’. So what does it start doing? It starts destroying the communication tower that the operator uses to communicate with the drone to stop it from killing the target.”

  5. tsmithfield 5
    2 June 2023 at 10:26 am

    Random impertinent question:

    If National's promise to reinstate perscription charges, including the contraceptive pill, shifts NZ to the equivalent of "The Handmaid's Tale", does that mean we have been living in that dystopian reality for all the time those charges have been in place?

    • AB 5.1
      2 June 2023 at 11:00 am

      I think the use of the Handmaid's Tale metaphor is meant to indicate a direction of travel – rather than either the current reality or a return to the current reality if National scraps any improvements to it. As such it's a somewhat silly slippery slope inference clearly targeted at Luxon's broader 'pro-life' sentiments.

      However I am pleased to see Labour returning fire against all the sh*t that gets thrown at them with apparent impunity due to a lack of pushback. In the end it does no harm to point out the intrinsically anti-social (rather than pro-social) nature of right-wing thought.

      • tsmithfield 5.1.1
        2 June 2023 at 11:09 am

        To be honest, I don't know why National wants to make a stand on this.

        My thoughts are, that, because the coming finances will likely be very tight, they may want to use the money from perscriptions to fund something else in health that is also very popular. For instance, increasing funding to Pharmac.

        I think the coming election is going to be a bit of a zero sum game, because, I am not sure voters have an appetite for funding election promises out of increased borrowing.

        And, to be fair, those of us who can afford to pay for perscriptions should probably pay. And, any subsidy on perscriptions should be targeted to those in need.

        • Mac1 5.1.1.1
          2 June 2023 at 12:32 pm

          Regarding your last paragraph concerning targeted subsidies, that is the topic of another post here where it says, "Targeted welfare policies provide social benefits only to the poor or the neediest groups based on means testing or other criteria. One might think that targeted welfare policies are more effective and efficient in reducing poverty and inequality than universal welfare policies. After all, targeting the poor means that more resources are directed to those who need them the most, right?" (Incognito's post on Universalism).

          He then goes on to say, "Wrong". It's a good discussion.

          As to your suggestion that we pay the $5 for our prescription on a voluntary basis, how exactly would that work? My chemist might not want to operate some kind of money tin arrangement to return the fivers to Grant Robertson.

          Secondly, how does the targeting system work? On what basis the subsidy, and who would police it, and how?

          The universalist argument addresses these issues, and ensures both buy-in from wealthier folk and any penny-pinching, blame-according future government making cuts to the already impoverished.

          I appreciate your sentiment that we should in our own charity pay for what we can afford and assist the needy……..

          • tsmithfield 5.1.1.1.1
            2 June 2023 at 1:03 pm

            Yes. I saw the discussion on the UBI, but didn't have time to get involved with that.

            So far as the targeted aspect goes, we do that now by having a maximum charge for perscriptions for the year. So, high users of medication don’t pay excessively.

            So, I expect the same sort of regime would apply. The government would provide a number to eligible people. People would be given a number to provide to the chemist next time they go. That would be entered into the system, and automatically eliminate the perscription charge, whichever chemist they went to.

            I wasn't meaning voluntary for those of those that can afford it. I think we should just pay as per normal.

            • miravox 5.1.1.1.1.1
              2 June 2023 at 9:56 pm

              "I saw the discussion on the UBI, "

              The post isn't on the UBI, it's making the case for universal support/benefits. well worth a read, I reckon.

              "So far as the targeted aspect goes, we do that now by having a maximum charge for perscriptions for the year. So, high users of medication don’t pay excessively."

              The high user card sounds fair, but it doesn't make sense (just like student allowances that rich people who don't pay tax can get for their kids, while middle income wage-earners kids have to get a student loan).

              I was a high user of meds for a lifetime illness – 3 meds to supress the disease, 1 for side effects, 2 meds to reduce pain, 1 med to prevent damage from the pain meds. it took 11 months to get a high user card. Most of these meds are a cheap as chips – one disease suppression drug cost only 25 cents per week, for the $5 prescription. The high user card works on the calendar year, which means after a month of free prescriptions (I received the card in month 11), I had to pay the fee again. Hard to see how the cost of administering a scheme like that is worth it – especially if they decide to take incomes into account with targeted support.

              Anyway, after 6 years trying, the meds didn't work that well. I was changed to one that cost $1500/month. It sent the disease into remission, so I can now work again and be a good little taxpayer (thanks to Pharmac policy that super high cost med is now changed to a significanly cheaper generic version ). Still a $5 prescription fee. I'll not reach high user status now though on that just one med that works so much better than 7 meds I was taking before.

              But even then, that's still not the point. The point is that pharmacists have medications left on shelves because so many people have to pick and choose what they're going to spend that $5 on – food, power, meds, getting to work – and they might not even be on a low enough income for a community services card – they might just have tipped over into a rediculously high mortgage (and another med for the stress-related blood pressure rise).

              People missing their meds are just getting sicker and adding to pressures on the health system, especially if they then need hospitalisation – where they can get fees-free prescriptions!

    • weka 5.2
      2 June 2023 at 1:37 pm

      it helps to remember that Luxon is a fundamentalist Christian who would roll back abortion rights if he could get away with it. And that fundamental conservatism is on the rise. Is Luxon influencing new candidates and staff selection with National? What will that look like next term? In a decade?

      It's hard to imagine in NZ that we might lose women's rights, but then we already are in some areas.

      • tsmithfield 5.2.1
        2 June 2023 at 3:08 pm

        Luxon on his religious beliefs.

        I agree with his point that it is necessary to be able to separate one's personal beliefs from politics:

        But, I want to be very clear: We have a separation between politics and faith.

        As he points out further down, as an MP, or PM, it is not only one's personal beliefs that should justify a political position on an issue, but also, the views and beliefs of the people represented.

        Given the composition of the various parties, Luxon's own personal views would likely only be relevant in conscience votes.

        Note, that English was very similar in this respect, and it was never an issue so far as the politics of it was concerned.

        So, I think you are over-cooking the cabbage a bit there.

        • Red Blooded One 5.2.1.1
          2 June 2023 at 3:32 pm

          "I agree with his point that it is necessary to be able to separate one's personal beliefs from politics"
          Very easy to say, harder to do in practice.
          Can you point to any vote of Bill English that went against his religious beliefs? Abortion rights? Marriage Equality? Homosexual Law Reform? Euthanasia?

          • tsmithfield 5.2.1.1.1
            2 June 2023 at 3:40 pm

            Can you point to any vote of Bill English that went against his religious beliefs?

            I don't know or particularly care. The point is, that the fact that he held those beliefs had no effect on relevant law so far as I know. Unless you can point to something.

            For that to have an effect, the majority of parliamentarians would have to be religious zealots.

            My own view is that the role of MPs is to mirror the views of their constituents. So, situations may arise where an MP should cast a vote according to the dominant view of their constituents, even though it may go against their personal views.

            • Red Blooded One 5.2.1.1.1.1
              2 June 2023 at 3:57 pm

              You tried to say that these people can seperate themselves from their religion, I simply pointed out I suspect they can't.

              • Belladonna …
                2 June 2023 at 6:44 pm

                But, neither can any other MP separate themselves from their ethical beliefs. If you are (for example) a passionate conservationist – then your policy and/or voting record is going to reflect that moral/ethical commitment.

                I don't have an issue with this – so long as it's signalled up front – and voters know in advance.

                Kiwis have a huge diversity of opinions on just about everything – and our parliament should reflect that diversity. This is one of the things that I admire about the Wesminster Parliament, and where I feel that our parliament falls down with whipped votes on almost every issue.

          • Belladonna 5.2.1.1.2
            2 June 2023 at 6:29 pm

            Well, here's an example.
            He has changed his position on gay marriage – even though it is still not supported by the Catholic Church.

            https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/incoming-prime-minister-bill-english-u-turns-on-gay-marriage/STBBICF23ELZQDPPUJKNO7YZVY/

            You might equally point to several Labour MPs who also opposed much of that moral/ethical legislation under conscience vote. Some with clear religious ties, others with their own ethical beliefs and/or concerns.

            If you admit the validity of a conscience vote at all – then you have to acknowledge that MPs exercising this reflect much of the diversity of opinion on these issues that is held in the rest of NZ.

            • Red Blooded One 5.2.1.1.2.1
              2 June 2023 at 6:36 pm

              Thanks for that. Yes, easy of course, for him to change his mind (probably for political acceptance) after the event and the votes are well and truly counted. For the record, I'm as critical of Labour MPs pandering to religion as well. I refused to help any further in Mangere once MP Sio started pandering to Pacifica churches on the Marriage Equality argument.

              • Belladonna …
                2 June 2023 at 6:50 pm

                I agree that it was only a political statement rather than a vote.

                However, I have much less time for Mahuta condemning the Roe vs Wade reversal, when she voted against abortion law reform in NZ.

                Is it 'pandering to Pasifika churches'? It seems to me (looking from the outside – I don't live anywhere near the electorate) – that he was reflecting both a personal conservatism on the issue, and the deeply held views of a very significant section of his electorate.

                We can't just believe that only opinions we happen to agree with are valid. We have to support those we disagee with having a voice as well. How else can we debate, convince, and move forward?

                Of course, we (as individuals) are also free to remove our support from elected representatives who we feel don't represent our views. Whether that involves campaigning for a replacement, changing our vote, or protest-voting Party only.

                • Red Blooded One …
                  2 June 2023 at 7:02 pm

                  Fair points Belladonna, at the time his opposition to Equality felt like pandering and regardless it was enough for me to get my panties in a bunch and refuse to deliver pamphlets for him etc. I lived in a neighbouring electorate so it was easy to stop crossing the Electorate Border.

        • weka 5.2.1.2
          2 June 2023 at 3:36 pm

          I trust English on the separation, in part because he had a long history of demonstrating this. Luxon doesn't have that. I also think that Catholicism and Luxon's church and beliefs have some important differences.

          When Luxon was first announced as an MP (or before?) there were a bunch of tweets showing his Pastor's thoughts on things (the church's website?). The website was quickly scoured of those. It seemed clear that Luxon had a close relationship with him. He can put out all the PR he likes, I still don't trust him on this, and women in general shouldn't either.

          • tsmithfield 5.2.1.2.1
            2 June 2023 at 3:42 pm

            Again, even if he is a cross between Billy Graham and the Taliban, he is still only one vote. Unless the majority of other parliamentarians are of similar persuasion, it is not going to have any effect.

            • tWiggle 5.2.1.2.1.1
              2 June 2023 at 4:15 pm

              This assumes continuance of a Conscience Vote approach to legislation with a moral or religious component, like legalising gay marriage or abortion, where MPs have an individual and not a party vote. There is no guarantee that this approach will continue, either overtly or covertly.

              • tWiggle …
                2 June 2023 at 4:21 pm

                There are more conservative christians in Luxon's opposition than in Key's government. With retirement of others, selection could well pick up a religious bias.

                https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/439247/luxon-s-religious-views-risk-turning-off-middle-ground-voters

                • Belladonna …
                  2 June 2023 at 6:36 pm

                  Is there any evidence that that is true – i.e. National is selecting religious conservatives in seats that they have a strong chance of winning?

                  I must say, that I haven't seen it reflected in the media – who have been particularly searching in exploring the background of National candidates … after some of the recent fiascos.

                  As far as I can see, they are selecting candidates to appeal to their core base – small business, middle class, rural NZ – rather than fundamental religion.

            • Mac1 5.2.1.2.1.2
              2 June 2023 at 4:32 pm

              He may have only one vote, but he has the power to change the policy stance of a major party during a question period at a public meeting- which I understand happened on the question of housing density. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/housing-density-national-party-leader-christopher-luxon-will-change-rules-greenfields-development-favoured

              • Belladonna …
                2 June 2023 at 6:30 pm

                But hardly a religious position! I don't think even the most extreme religion has formed opinion on greenfields boundaries…

                • Mac1 …
                  2 June 2023 at 7:29 pm

                  I was addressing the point made by tsmithfield that "he still only had one vote". My point was that as Leader he could, and did, change policy which gave him more power. What issues he might seek to change were not my subject but that he could change policy of his own accord.

                  Would he allow his personal religious views to influence his party's policy positions? As my brothers would ask, "Is the Pope a Catholic?" because even there would be a difference in views…..

                  • Belladonna …
                    2 June 2023 at 8:13 pm

                    But no evidence that he is using this power – which is shared by all leaders of political parties- to influence the direction of policy formation along religious lines. Your example is purely secular – and I could find half a dozen similar ones where Hipkins has made a policy call as leader.

                    It just seems to be an alarmist response to a theoretically possible problem. Made largely because you: A don't like National; and B don't like Luxon's religious opinions.

                    I get it. You don't trust him. And wouldn't vote for him (though I gather that this wasn't exactly an option on the table, in any case!).

                    But you have to provide a bit of actual evidence that he is allowing his religious convictions to inform his party's policy – before you're going to convince others.

                    • Mac1 …
                      3 June 2023 at 2:12 pm

                      Belladonna. Paragraph one- I didn't say that. Para 2.partially right, but a guess. para 3. got that right, but no evidence for that in my two comments above. para 4. I didn't say that.

              • Belladonna …
                3 June 2023 at 2:43 pm

                As pointed out, his ability to change party policy is shared by every other political leader.

                Your comment:

                "Would he allow his personal religious views to influence his party's policy positions? As my brothers would ask, "Is the Pope a Catholic?"

                Seems to imply that you do believe that he would do exactly that.

                I pointed out that you have no evidence that he is doing so. In your words "a guess"

                • Mac1 …
                  3 June 2023 at 5:30 pm

                  But the thing about my brothers, which you won't know, is that one at least actually does not believe that the Pope is a proper Catholic. That is why I then wrote, "because even there would be a difference in views….."

                  Not really clearly expressed by me, but even in a case of what means in the "is the Pope a Catholic?" question that something is indubitably true, as our Covid/anti-mandate/distrusting times has shown views can be held to be very different from what is generally accepted. So apologies for an unclear argument.

                  Some time ago on The Standard, a regular commenter listed the lies that has been told by John Key. It would be interesting to have tabulated the positional changes that Christopher Luxon has so far made.

                  I must add that I am pleased that politicians, like us all, can and will change thinking. Sometimes circumstances change, more knowledge is available, even changes of heart and admissions of error can occur. These can all be documented and justified. No problems with that.

                  A lot of back-tracking and vacillation does lead to mistrust which is where Luxon has much ground to make upon, as we found with John Key.

          • Red Blooded One 5.2.1.2.2
            2 June 2023 at 4:11 pm

            Can you link to Bill English showing a seperation from his Faith? Genuinely interested because I can't think of an instance. I know in 2007 he defended his son platforming despicable anti gay hateful comments.

            Bill English defends son over anti-gay hateful comments

            I'm not sure he deserves your trust.

            • weka 5.2.1.2.2.1
              2 June 2023 at 4:20 pm

              I've not seen English do anything in his capacity as PM that looked like it came from his Catholicism and that wasn't already part of National's agenda. I can't provide evidence for something that hasn't happened, but I am happy to be proven wrong. I'm talking about policy here (eg abortion law reform) and separate from conscience votes.

              • Red Blooded One …
                2 June 2023 at 4:31 pm

                You stated he had a long history of demonstrating seperation from his religion. Nothing to do with his 5min in the PM role. In my opinion his Catholicism is no more a free pass than any whacky fundamentalist outfit.

                • weka …
                  2 June 2023 at 5:59 pm

                  Just as well I didn't say his Catholicism is a free pass. Please stop making shit up.

                  • Red Blooded One …
                    2 June 2023 at 6:09 pm

                    I made nothing up, shit or otherwise, and I object to your accusation.

                    "In my opinion his Catholicism is no more a free pass than any whacky fundamentalist outfit."

                    If you're going to put words in my mouth, get them right and as a moderator I would expect better from you than unwarranted abuse.

                    • weka …
                      2 June 2023 at 6:56 pm

                      ok, so this sentence "In my opinion his Catholicism is no more a free pass than any whacky fundamentalist outfit" had nothing to do with my comment that you were replying to, and you just brought it up randomly in relation to your own thinking. Glad we've clarified.

            • weka 5.2.1.2.2.2
              2 June 2023 at 4:24 pm

              I don't have time to parse or fact check that link, but my initial question would be how old was English's son at the time? Was he an adult? Teen? English was an MP, not PM. How did this influence National policy or direction?

              • Red Blooded One …
                2 June 2023 at 4:33 pm

                His son was in University and I linked simply to point his defense of indefensible behaviour as a "Good Catholic Gentleman"

                • weka …
                  2 June 2023 at 6:01 pm

                  I don't think BE is a Good Catholic Gentleman. I think he's an entitled, hard-man conservative. But I didn't see him trying to use his position as an MP/Cabinet Minister/PM to drive National down a religious fundamentalist path. He was intent on cementing NZ into neoliberalism of course. But he had better boundaries and sense than Luxon on the religious stuff, at least overtly.

              • tsmithfield …
                2 June 2023 at 5:03 pm

                Just out of interest Weka, is this specifically an anti-Evangalical Christian thing for you? For example, how would you view say a Labour PM who was a practicing Muslim? Because some from that particular faith can have much more extreme views than Luxon with respect to women etc.

                • weka …
                  2 June 2023 at 6:03 pm

                  The problem is two fold. One, fundamentalism (of any faith). Two, whether an individual allows their fundamentalism to drive or influence their work life.

                  BE is obviously a religious fundamentalist. But imo he kept that separate from his day job. I'm not convinced that Luxon does or can.

                  • weka …
                    2 June 2023 at 6:04 pm

                    a better example on the left would be gender fundamentalism. Kerekere might be someone else who can't be trusted to keep things separate, but she appears to have behaviour issues more generally so its hard to tell.

                    • tsmithfield …
                      2 June 2023 at 6:31 pm

                      I think you have pin-pointed a the core of the issue. One person's fundamentalism is another person's normal. I can imagine there are a lot of people around who don't see Kerekere as particularly extreme.

                      So, I guess there is a degree of subjectivity in making these judgements.

                    • weka []
                      2 June 2023 at 6:55 pm

                      fundamentalism has meanings though, it’s not just the people I disagree with or see in a certain way. We can point to the views that are fundamental, and we can talk about what makes them fundamental.

                      Fundamentalism is not the same as extremism, although the two can often go together.

                      There are certainly people who hold fundamental views about gender identity, on both sides. And people who adopt extreme positions on that. Kerekere is one, I would say Kellie Jay Keen is another. Then you can have someone like Kathleen Stock, who holds very clear ‘fundamental’ views (biological sex matters, people can’t change sex) but is in fact a moderate not an extremist. Fundamental views are the ones that are the basis of one’s thinking, and fundamentalism is when one holds to those very strongly.

                      And yes, we all have subjective views on things, but that doesn’t mean that things have no independent meaning.

                    • Belladonna …
                      2 June 2023 at 6:59 pm

                      The only thing that I can think of which was a Bill English policy 'baby' was his social investment approach.

                      Now, I understand that this has got some significant limitations.

                      But, setting that aside:

                      It was an attempt to design a data-driven model of early intervention – rather than jail at the bottom of the cliff – which was the standard National approach. He fought for it, and I do believe that it was informed by his ethical approach as a Catholic. It certainly didn't come from the ultimate pragmatist, Key.

                      Here's Simon Wilson on it:

                      For several years now English has been driving a profound reform programme in the delivery of social services. It’s far from finished; in fact, even some of the ministers involved seem barely to understand it. But welfare reform is happening. And at its heart is a thoroughly 21st century idea: we’ve got the data, now to tell us where to spend the money.

                      Conservative governments worldwide are watching, fascinated, not least because social investment inverts the usual conservative approach to welfare. Which is to sit back, moan about bludgers and pick up the pieces when they have to. Social investment, as English told the conference, means “spending money now to save money later”. In National terms, it’s practically a revolution.

                      https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/12-01-2017/social-investment-the-two-uninspiring-words-upon-which-the-entire-election-could-hang

                    • weka []
                      2 June 2023 at 7:15 pm

                      interesting. I’m not sure I would call social investment a position of fundamentalism, but agree that it may have come from his Catholicism more generally. Of course, the way he was doing that was incredibly paternalistic and patriarchal, so perhaps that’s where the fundamentalism is.

                    • tsmithfield …
                      2 June 2023 at 7:13 pm

                      And yes, we all have subjective views on things, but that doesn’t mean that things have no independent meaning.

                      An interesting discussion. Probably something worth doing a post on if you were so inclined.

                      While you undoubtably view Luxon as a fundamentalist in many respects, I guess there would be issues you would find him to be your ally. On the gender identity issues for instance.

                      And, because someone is opposed to abortion for instance, doesn't necessarily mean that their position is incompatible with people from an opposing point of view.

                      For example, I have seen a doco a few years back about a group that was supporting women to give birth to their babies rather than abort them. This included providing accomodation and care, and other support. The aim was to remove the support barriers of finance and social support that may make it difficult for a woman to go through the pregnancy process.

                      Thus, it was a positive approach that was beneficial for some women rather than taking a negative approach of protesting outside an abortion clinic or similar.

                      BTW, people from the Fundamentalist side of the fence would probably view you as fundamentalist and extreme in your views.

                      So, as I say, a degree of subjectivity in all this.

                    • weka []
                      2 June 2023 at 7:34 pm

                      I have fundamental positions. For instance, I think abortion should be freely available and that men have no right to interfere with what a woman does with her body in that regard. Likewise contraception. The fundamental basis of that is I cannot see any reason to deny an abortion to a woman who needs one and the only way to support that position is to allow women as a class to have access (once you start saying this woman can and this woman can’t, you no longer hold the position that all women who need an abortion can have one).

                      Even more fundamentally, at this point in history, abortion is the line that must be held. It’s not possible for women to have liberation without the right to abortion. When we lose that right, other rights fall as well. We are seeing this play out in real time in the US.

                      So the anti-abortion women who seek to prevent abortions by supporting women to have their children, I would want to see the details. Because that’s a mighty commitment, to support a woman for 18 years financially, emotionally, socially. Or were they on their own after the baby was born?

                      I seriously doubt that Luxon is an ally on gender identity issues. The feminist position is that gender is a tool of the patriarchal system used to control women via gender stereotypes and roles. Do you really think Luxon is going to be an ally in dismantling the patriarchy? In the sex/gender wars there are broadly three sides: conservatives who are anti-trans and/or reject gender non-conformity, trans activists who support gender stereotypes, and feminists who say they’re both wrong and that women and all humans should be liberated from gender stereotypes and roles.

                      There are whole battles being waged over that, and atm the conservatives are winning because the left abandoned women and because too many GC people see the right as allies on this. They’re really not. Again, the US is a good place to see this playing out in real time, where the far right are rolling back abortion *and trans rights. It’s all the same to them and we can’t later say, oh hang on, please don’t take away other rights as well. I would expect Luxon to be ok with removing other women’s rights. Any position he has on GI is unlikely to be because he supports women’s liberation.

                    • tsmithfield …
                      2 June 2023 at 9:03 pm

                      For instance, I think abortion should be freely available and that men have no right to interfere with what a woman does with her body in that regard.

                      I am of a similar view myself. Though I would be concerned about very late term abortions, especially if the baby could survive outside the womb. But, I don't think most women would go through to that stage if they didn't want the baby. So, I think it is a very rare case, other than for issues of health risks to the mother.

                      I think talking about the right for women to abort is slightly too specific. I think it is more accurate to frame it as a woman's right to do what she wants with her body. There are cases where partners will pressure a woman into having an abortion because a baby isn't convenient for the partner.

                      That is where I think groups like the one I described can be useful. In cases of where a woman would really like to have the baby, but can't see options that would enable her to do that.

                      In that way, these sorts of groups are enhancing a woman's right to choose, not hindering it.

                  • Belladonna …
                    2 June 2023 at 6:22 pm

                    I'd say that this would be a very hard separation for just about any MP with a strong religious conviction – how would it be possible to separate their ethical beliefs (for example against abortion) from their duty as an MP – especially on conscience vote issues?

                    For example, Mahuta and Ruwhare both voted against NZ abortion reform. I don't hold this against them – this is no doubt a strongly held personal opinion, on a conscience vote issue.

                    But it's an example of the way in which it is effectively impossible for any MP to separate personal conviction, especially on moral or ethical issues, from their day job.

                    Ethical beliefs are part of any MP – and need to be taken into consideration when voting for that person. That's made explicit in at least one electorate where a preferred candidate is endorsed by the Ratana Church.

                    TBH, I strongly doubt Luxon has sufficient influence over the National policy formation to sway it in any significant way. He doesn't have IMO a lot of personal support within the party – and is predominantly interested in winning, rather than changing the moral structure of NZ society.

                    • weka …
                      2 June 2023 at 6:46 pm

                      But that's why we have conscience votes. So that MPs *can be allowed to not have to separate off their values. I'm talking about outside of conscience votes, what happens in Cabinet and caucus, the policy priorities of the MP and so on. Did BE work on legislation that would be considered aligned with his religious views?

                    • weka …
                      2 June 2023 at 6:47 pm

                      I hope you are right about Luxon, but I think it's a mistake for NZ to assume we are immune to a rise in religious fundamentalism in NZ politics.

    • bwaghorn 5.3
      2 June 2023 at 1:46 pm

      Oh common nothing wrong with a bit of tongue in cheek hyperbole,

      The bigger worry is cappin luxon is that slow he walked straight into the trap.

    • Stuart Munro 5.4
      3 June 2023 at 6:00 am

      We're certainly in a dystopian reality, with little measurable action on our main social issues and mass low quality immigration having resumed to further stress our housing and infrastructure, all the while pushing climate targets further and further out of reach.

      National will do nothing positive about these – the prescription charges are merely indicative of their Austerity and Bust approach to governance.

  6. logie97 6
    2 June 2023 at 8:06 pm

    Interesting to see a former PM demonstrating his "being economical with the truth" skills.

    This latest episode trying to cover for his business partner and son. Apparently Max was in potentially serious trouble with the law. When Stuff contacted Joky Hen he initially denied any involvement or contact with the ministry. Then his conscience got the better of him and he advised the paper that he had in fact got involved. Key's problem however is the long and convoluted explanation of events shows that (having had time to think and realising that further shit may hit the fan), he is desperately trying to make things right.

    I recall that someone on here kept a log of the times the former PM bent the truth or straight out lied (remember the Transrail shares). So here's another one to chalk up to the honourable knight.