Open mike 08/12/2022

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, December 8th, 2022 - 81 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 …

81 comments on “Open mike 08/12/2022 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Peter 1
    8 December 2022 at 9:49 am

    The parents of the baby in the blood donor case have said they won't appeal the court decision from yesterday. (Through their lawyer.)

    It is likely the health and well-being of the baby will be improved the further he is removed from Sue Grey and Liz Gunn.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/donor-blood-battle-lawyer-for-the-parents-of-baby-w-announces-no-appeal-in-guardianship-case/NH5DHZRRUFB65I7RWLMSXPTEAA/

    • joe90 1.1
      8 December 2022 at 11:20 am

      It is likely the health and well-being of the baby will be improved the further he is removed from Sue Grey and Liz Gunn.

      Indeed.

      On 25 November 2022, having not heard back from Baby W’s parents
      formally, another meeting was organised. Dr Finucane said this meeting was hijacked
      by the parents’ support person who proceeded to pressurise the specialists with her
      theory about conspiracies in New Zealand and even said that deaths in infants getting
      transfusions were occurring in Starship Hospital. Dr Finucane said that after some
      minutes, the specialists asked to leave and ended up walking out of the meeting with
      the support person continuing to try to talk to them. As a result, they were unable to
      explain their position to the parents.

      https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2022/2022-NZHC-3283.pdf

    • Anne 1.2
      8 December 2022 at 11:24 am

      Someone, somewhere criticised the medical team for failing to explain the tranfusion procedure to the parents. Can't locate where I saw it.

      The medical team tried and were undermined by an anti-vaxxer at a meeting arranged to do just that. They had to walk out in the end with the anti-vaxxer haranguing them as they left.

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/480317/vaccinated-donor-blood-parents-meeting-with-doctors-hijacked-by-anti-vax-support-person

      The judgment issued by Justice Gault last night outlined how doctors tried to work with the parents but the relationship eventually broke down.

      He referenced a meeting on 25 November between Starship Hospital's paediatric cardiac surgeon in chief and other specialists.

      "Dr [Kirsten] Finucane said this meeting was hijacked by the parents' support person who proceeded to pressurise the specialists with her theory about conspiracies in New Zealand and even said that deaths in infants getting transfusions were occurring in Starship Hospital," Justice Gault said in the judgement.

      Reading between the lines, it looks like the probable anti-vaxxer was the mad conspiracist, Liz Gunn.

      • Shanreagh 1.2.1
        9 December 2022 at 12:39 am

        There have been new developments

        https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/12/08/baby-blood-case-parents-no-longer-agree-to-surgery/

        They have tried to prevent the Drs from doing prep work for the baby's op tomorrow.

        Justice Gault has had to make new rulings

        "I extend the appointment of [the doctors] as agents of the Court for the purpose of enabling [the baby's] surgery to proceed, including enabling the necessary pre-operative procedures. The respondents are not to obstruct health staff in this regard."

        • Anne 1.2.1.1
          9 December 2022 at 10:10 am

          Yes, I saw that. It seems the parents threatened the doctors that if they so much as touched the baby they would lay criminal charges against them. Unbelievable!

          I find it impossible to hold this couple in anything but contempt. They are the ones playing Russian roulette with their baby's life.

          1) No amount of excuses along the lines they are loving parents who believe they are right cuts it for me. They are out of their tiny minds and everybody bar a group of mad conspiracists knows it.
          2) To treat two of NZ's top paediatricians like that is unforgivable. Who do they think they are?

          As for the few dozen protesters outside. They are easily dealt with. Call in a fire truck to give em a good soaking. Give everyone a good laugh and we need as many laughs as we can get these days. 😉

  2. ianmac 2
    8 December 2022 at 10:07 am

    Thomas Coughlan is a weasel. His column today is a copy of Luxon's lame attempt in QT yesterday, to crash the credibility of Ardern and Nahuta over the entrenchment clause. He avoids dealing with the facts of course.

    Entrenchment was discussed in Labour Caucus and it was decided to not use it.

    The Greens however inserted the 60% entrenchment into the Bill as an SOP. They all voted on it then discovered its existence after experts queried is suitability.

    The Government decided to abandon/withdraw the entrenchment. What Coughlan and Luxon fail to say is that the entrenchment was not a Labour SOP. It was a Green SOP.

    So how can Mahuta and or Ardern be held accountable for a Green SOP?

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/thomas-coughlan-how-nanaia-mahuta-lost-control-of-three-waters-and-jacinda-ardern-lost-control-of-nanaia-mahuta/OU4BSRCFJJBZLGUW73RXLFH3LI/

    • AB 2.1
      8 December 2022 at 10:24 am

      Coughlan is a small, obedient cog in a machine (business, private media, right-wing think-tanks, Nact) that has been determined, since their humiliation in 2020, to take down the government and rewrite the history of the pandemic. It has been an unprecedented effort and I would expect no less from them.. The goverment has given them far too much to work with.

    • Belladonna 2.2
      8 December 2022 at 10:25 am

      The Greens however inserted the 60% entrenchment into the Bill as an SOP. They all voted on it then discovered its existence after experts queried is suitability.

      It's been linked before from Hansard – the SOP voting was specifically identified as an entrenchment at 60%.

      CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we're about to vote on an amendment which is a proposal for entrenchment requiring a 60 percent majority for repeal or amendment of the entrenched provision. Under Standing Order 270, this proposal must be carried by that majority. Therefore, this amendment must be agreed by a 60 percent majority, which would be 72 members. The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage's amendment to insert new Subpart 4A into Part 6, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 285, be agreed to.

      A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

      https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansD_20221122_20221123

      The most charitable explanation is that the Government was just operating on autopilot in the House. But, you can't argue that they only discovered its existence later.

      No one is blaming Mahuta, Ardern or Hipkins for the Greens putting up a SOP (good on the GP for having a go – and highlighting the issue).

      The blame is being attributed because Labour then party-voted for the SOP entrenchment provision.

      Really Hipkins (as leader of the House) and Mahuta (as the Minister responsible) carry the responsibility, here. It's Mahuta's job to liaise with Hipkins over any SOPs presented by other parties, and determine whether the Government should or should not support them.

      In my view, the real culprit over this is dealing with a highly complex issue under Urgency – which limits the committee stages, and results in rushed legislation.

      • SPC 2.2.1
        8 December 2022 at 12:14 pm

        Does anyone know if Chris Hipkins was in the House at the time, I am just wondering as to who cast the Labour votes. O'Connor was Chair of the Committee, but it goes from there to the House when votes are cast. Is it, Mahuta as Minister?

        • Craig H 2.2.1.1
          8 December 2022 at 1:41 pm

          The whips usually actually cast the party votes, not the ministers. Hipkins says he was out of Parliament at the time.

      • ianmac 2.2.2
        8 December 2022 at 12:51 pm

        "A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to."

        OK. So it was passed by all including Nat/Act. What does that prove?

        The accusation is that Mahuta broke Cabinet rules and should be sacked. Really?

        • Anker 2.2.2.1
          8 December 2022 at 1:34 pm

          I read that Te Maori Party also didn't vote for it.

          It will be interesting to see the next poll results now that this bill has passed.

          I am predicting that Three Waters is the hill Labour are willing to die on for, which is puzzling. Whatever one’s opinions are about Three Waters and whatever its merits or otherwise, there is very little support for it (no links Iam sorry, just my impression) and a significant number of voters are unhappy with it. Unhappy enough to desert Labour. Just my opinion.

          • Anne 2.2.2.1.1
            8 December 2022 at 2:05 pm

            It's much ado about nothing imo… a molehill turned into a mountain by NACT and their media acolytes in an effort to fool the voters into believing it is going to be detrimental to them. Its going to be nothing of the sort.

            When you ask the nay sayers, they mumble something about… taking away the rights of the local people to determine what should be done, or that the government wants to control everything, or some other obtuse claim that makes little sense.

            Look what happens when you rely on local councils. They sit on their chuffs and do nothing. Its the reason why the country's overall water problems has become urgent.

            • Anker 2.2.2.1.1.1
              8 December 2022 at 5:38 pm

              Time will tell Anne. And of course likely to be voted out if NACT win next election, or rolled back anyway.

          • Belladonna 2.2.2.1.2
            8 December 2022 at 4:04 pm

            TPM didn't seem to vote either way. Perhaps the MPs were not in the house when it was being debated.

            • Incognito 2.2.2.1.2.1
              8 December 2022 at 4:14 pm

              They did vote, just not for that amendment.

            • Anker 2.2.2.1.2.2
              8 December 2022 at 5:33 pm

              https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/480346/greens-pull-three-waters-support-citing-lack-of-protection-against-privatisation

              POLITICS12:56 pm today
              Greens pull Three Waters support, citing lack of protection against privatisation
              12:56 pm today
              Share this
              Share on Twitter
              Share on Facebook
              Share via email
              Share on Reddit
              Share on Linked In
              Nanaia MahutaNanaia Mahuta, the minister driving the reforms. Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver
              The Green Party has withdrawn its support for the Three Waters legislation at the third and final reading, saying there’s not enough protection against the water assets being sold.

              “The bill has been passed by Parliament, but Labour was the only party to vote in support, using its majority to get it over the line.”

              Sorry about the additional material POLITICS12.56etc. Can’t seem to remove it from the copy and paste

              I might have read this wrong, but I interpreted it as being that it was only Labour who voted for the bill.

              • Belladonna …
                8 December 2022 at 5:57 pm

                Yes. That's the overall bill, which was voted on today. Only Labour voted in support (using their outright majority to pass the legislation).

                However, in the SOP voting over the 60% entrenchment last week, the Green party (who put up the SOP) voted in favour, as did Labour.

                • Anker …
                  8 December 2022 at 6:23 pm

                  Belladonna, yes thats right. Green and Lab voted for the 60% entrenchment and how I read it the greens didn't support the overall bill because it didn't contain the entrenchment clause.

        • Incognito 2.2.2.2
          8 December 2022 at 3:31 pm

          Ayes 74

          New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

          Noes 43

          New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

          Amendment agreed to.

        • Belladonna 2.2.2.3
          8 December 2022 at 3:59 pm

          No. It was passed – being party-voted for by Greens and Labour. National and ACT opposed it.

          I'm not quite sure what you mean by "What does that prove?"

          It seems to me that it proves that Labour were either not paying attention to the business of the House; or that they actually were in favour of entrenchment, and back-pedalled when it became politically unpopular.

          I don't think that I've seen any accusation that Mahuta broke Cabinet rules. In fact, she's specifically come out and said that she raised the entrenchment issue with Caucus – as she's required to do – and that it was discussed.

          I do think that she had an obligation to raise the SOP (once it was presented by the Greens with the 60% entrenchment figure) with Hipkins – to ensure that Labour were voting according to agreed policy. I'm more on-the-fence about whether she should have spoken in favour of entrenchment – as her job is to present the Government's position (which was, according to Ardern, that entrenchment was a 'mistake')

          • Sacha 2.2.2.3.1
            8 December 2022 at 6:16 pm

            her job is to present the Government's position

            Interesting to see the dance inside caucus on this, even only dimly from a distance.

      • Craig H 2.2.3
        8 December 2022 at 1:45 pm

        Parliament can also wear some blame for not amending Standing Order 270 at some point to be clear about when entrenchment should be used. This is all it currently says:

        270 Entrenched provisions

        (1) A proposal for entrenchment must itself be carried in a committee of the whole House by the majority that it would require for the amendment or repeal of the provision to be entrenched.

        (2) A proposal for entrenchment is any provision in a bill or amendment to a bill that would require that that provision or amendment or any other provision can be amended or repealed only by a majority of more than 50 percent plus one of all the members of the House.

        • Shanreagh 2.2.3.1
          8 December 2022 at 2:15 pm

          Yes the 'constitutional' lawyers have applied a gloss that isn't in the Standing Orders.

          I fail to see what the damage would be though to have an entrenchment provision in hugely important to life aspects such as water.

          • Tony Veitch 2.2.3.1.1
            8 December 2022 at 7:48 pm

            Yes Shanreagh, ensuring water remains in public hands is a no-brainer, IMO.

            But this is something the left can hammer the Natz and Act on come election time. The public is firmly opposed to selling the family silver, and even more so something as essential to life as water.

            Act won't budge – they're all for privatisation.

            The Natz probably will, because all they care about is being in power. But their equivocal position will (I hope) be pounced on by Labour and the Greens.

            This could cost Natz the election!

  3. Alan 3
    8 December 2022 at 11:04 am

    https://democracyproject.nz/2022/12/08/bryce-edwards-labour-needs-mahutu-to-go-but-shes-too-powerful/

    This sums it up nicely, what a shambles, Labour need Helen Clark back in charge

    • Ad 3.1
      8 December 2022 at 2:31 pm

      If in 2023 Labour get back into power, Mahuta will be recognised as delivering the most substantive and nation-shaping reform of the last two terms.

      If in 2023 Labour don't get in, Mahuta will be recognised as being white-anted by Labour's leadership on truly country-altering reform, and when it came to third reading decided to knife her.

      • Tinderdry6 3.1.1
        8 December 2022 at 10:40 pm

        Or, if Labour don’t get back in in 2023, and 3 waters is dumped, NZ will have dodged the biggest bullet in the history of big bullets, apart from the costs to date of implementing and trying to sell this dog of an idea.

  4. Anne 4
    8 December 2022 at 12:07 pm

    Bryce bloody Edwards is the one who needs to go. Look who he quotes from:

    Couglan, HdPA plus a couple of pot shots from the vengeful Peter Dunne whom nobody has missed.

    The Herald describes Edwards as a "political analyst". He's a right wing shill who relies on third rate journalistic philistines for their contorted 'thinks'. He rarely produces an original thought himself.

    And he thinks her can read the minds of the PM, her ministers and caucus members. Pfft… he's a sham.

    • Tony Veitch 4.1
      8 December 2022 at 12:47 pm

      Absolutely right Anne.

      When a RWNJ has to bend so low as to quote Edwards to make a point, we know they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

      All power to Mahutu and her Three Waters reforms!

      • ianmac 4.1.1
        8 December 2022 at 12:53 pm

        I heard on the radio just now, that the Bill has passed but that the Greens withdrew its support because of the lack of protection from privatisation.

    • Patricia Bremner 4.2
      8 December 2022 at 1:11 pm

      yes Yes Anne Agree.

  5. joe90 5
    8 December 2022 at 1:03 pm

    How it's going; 1 in 10 Swedes have been ill for over 12 months and 1 in 100 Swedes have severely limited lives.

    https://twitter.com/Lee_CrollPhD/status/1599805722425929730

    https://novus.se/egnaundersokningar-arkiv/coronastatus-langtidscovid/

    google translate

    • DB Brown 5.1
      8 December 2022 at 1:39 pm

      Those are staggering numbers, enough to severely disable their economy, go figure.

      Let's not forget the mealy mouthed losers in National and Act doing everything they could to stop our world class response. The pressure on Ardern and the Government was ENORMOUS and they did not cave. How shrill were the calls to abolish MIQ. FFS!

      Yet media dropkicks still try to portray the PM as 'weak' for listening to others genuine complaints on other issues.

      She faced facts, dealt in facts, got attacked endlessly.

      Shameful how we tolerate such dishonesty and viciousness in public discourse.

  6. DB Brown 6
    8 December 2022 at 2:14 pm

    I've seen a fair bit of nonsense tabled here for discussion. Some posters seem to be having culture wars all by themselves. It's idiocy is what it is, the reason many don't and won't play is you are just making twits of yourselves.

    The anti-woke, aka gullible tossers.

    • weka 6.1
      8 December 2022 at 2:44 pm

      I don't know how you are using the term 'culture wars' (because you didn't say). But the obvious issue this week is gender identity vs sex in sport. Do you believe that male bodied people should be allowed to compete in women's sport against females where those sports involve physicality that usually separates male and female classes?

      If you want to run the argument that there is no culture war, you'll be hard pressed to explain what is going on with the sex/gender wars.

      • DB Brown 6.1.1
        8 December 2022 at 3:05 pm

        Don't drag me into your terf wars (puns intended).

        • weka 6.1.1.1
          8 December 2022 at 3:08 pm

          ok, so you have no political argument to your assertion that the culture wars don't exist. Good to know.

          • DB Brown 6.1.1.1.1
            8 December 2022 at 3:50 pm

            Don't make assumptions about me. Watch the video to see what it's specifics are if you're THAT interested.

            The post was not about you, you made it about you.

            • weka 6.1.1.1.1.1
              8 December 2022 at 6:21 pm

              I will totally make assumptions based on what I see here. Make your political argument, and don't complain if people point out the problems of you refusing to make your argument.

              Not watching a random video if you can't be bothered explaining your thinking. We're not mind readers.

        • Visubversa 6.1.1.2
          8 December 2022 at 3:56 pm

          Terf is a slur and is usually accompanied by threats of sexual violence. You don't want to be associated with these people. https://terfisaslur.com/

          • DB Brown 6.1.1.2.1
            8 December 2022 at 4:29 pm

            You both willingly or not emphasise the point exactly. I post a comedians take on culture wars being generated out of thin air and it's turned into a culture war out of thin air.

            The word terf was a play on turf, the presence of puns was even emphasised.

            Pathetic. Barking at passing cars, calling it commentary.

            • Visubversa 6.1.1.2.1.1
              8 December 2022 at 5:59 pm

              You would not chuck the "N" word around for comedic effect.

            • weka 6.1.1.2.1.2
              8 December 2022 at 6:22 pm

              It's not commentary though. You did two things:

              1. slagged off some commenters on TS, who knows which ones because the hand wave to them was a) vague and b) just ad homs
              2. posted a video with no explanation of what it is.
              • DB Brown …
                8 December 2022 at 8:02 pm

                Wow. Post about people making much ado about nothing and you sure did make much ado. Now this Visubvera character's concerned if I might use the N word and you about the slide in women's rights.

                What in the actual fuck is wrong with you?

                Yes I slagged off some posters, the extremes of left and right bringing their imaginary wars that we see popping up here. As described in the video as described. You asshole. You are the one put your hand up to start shit over nothing – as described.

                Find some more things to accuse me of, you fucking idiot.

                • Visubversa …
                  8 December 2022 at 8:37 pm

                  It is not imaginary to those of us who have to deal with a homophobic and misogynistic ideology that is bent on capturing the levers of the state for it's promotion.

                • weka …
                  8 December 2022 at 8:56 pm

                  Mate, you're the one that started talking about culture wars on a political blog whose kaupapa is robust debate. This isn't your FB page, if you don't want an argument, don't make in your face comments.

                • Anker …
                  8 December 2022 at 9:33 pm

                  DB Brown. "Wow. Post about people making much ado about nothing"

                  Except it wasn't that. It was pretty provocative and rude on your behalf "I've seen a fair bit of nonense tabled here".

                  "Its idiocy that's what it is"

                  "The anti woke aka the gullible tossers". So your statements don't indicate that you think it is much ado about nothing.

                  When people challenge you, you then respond "don't drag me into your terf wars".

                  and "You arsehole. you are the one put your hand up to start shit over nothing"

                  Um no. You put up a video clip, which actually to me seems to be more about the media using arguements as click bait and the cyclic nature of that, which is kept going by rage. Then a denial of what the actual issues are. I don't mind the guy doing this, cause he is a comedian. I wouldn't regard it as good social analysis.

                  But you posted it with some pretty provocative put downs of what you refer to as anti woke. Your entitled to have anti, anti woke sentiment, but I am won’t give it much time unless there are some reasonable arguements that go with it.

        • Molly 6.1.1.3
          9 December 2022 at 9:00 am

          It'd be worthwhile if you offered some commentary and salient points along with your video link.

          Else, you are expecting people to spend seven minutes watching a comedian they just might not find punny…wink

    • Corey Humm 6.2
      9 December 2022 at 4:38 pm

      Wouldn't the people trying to force change upon the culture (often by authoritarian means like the brutal force of the state) be the ones guilty of starting culture wars not the ones pushing back against the forced change?

      If the first group wasn't trying to force a culture war there'd be nothing for the second group to push back against.

      Upper middle class identitarians who benefit from neoliberalism need to stop high jacking left wing movements and calling our voting bases and our activists names for wanting to debate issues before we use the brutal force of the state, upper middle class identitarians will support the most insanely radical vote losing social policy but then put the breaks on the most moderate socdem economic reform for being crazy because the bourgeois mofos don't care about the poor.

      The left is about us.we.ours and we love debate

      The right is about me.i. my and hates debate.

      People focused on their singular identity (me, I, my) and social justice over class and economic justice and are economically upper middle class and don't want any wealth distribution policies only social policies aren't left wing.

      It's time we called woke what it really is: militant authoritarian individualist neoliberalism masquerading as progressivism

      • Anker 6.2.1
        10 December 2022 at 3:56 pm

        Nailed it again Corey. Spot on. I would add that even without brutal force of the state, in the case of gender ideology, shutting down gender critical feminists public talks (leading to these women having to go to the high court to hold their meetings), accusing people of transphobia and writing them off as bigots has had a chilling effect. The gender ideology people won't engage in the arguements, i.e no debate.

        I suspect the comedian that DH Brown posted is either randomly scrambling for any sort of angle on anything, or he is in denial, or trying to encourage others to be in denial

  7. Ad 7
    8 December 2022 at 2:33 pm

    Huge congratulations to Minister Mahuta on the passage of her water reform legislation today.

  8. Ad 8
    8 December 2022 at 2:43 pm

    Does anyone know why the Greens and Maori Party both voted against the Water Reform 3rd Reading today?

    They have been in full support right to the second reading and beyond into the SOPs.

    • Craig H 8.1
      8 December 2022 at 3:01 pm

      According to Stuff (https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/130704446/labour-alone-in-support-of-three-waters-bill-as-it-passes-into-law):

      “The bill was opposed by National and ACT, both of which have promised to repeal the reforms. It was also opposed for the first time by the Green Party, as the public ownership of water assets would not be entrenched in law as the party hoped, and by the Māori Party as it fell short of proper “co-governance” “

    • weka 8.2
      8 December 2022 at 3:07 pm

      Loss of entrenchment?

    • SPC 8.3
      8 December 2022 at 4:14 pm

      Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said her party also opposed the bill, but primarily because it did not implement co-governance and ignored Māori self-determination, tino rangatiratanga.

      “Public water infrastructure absolutely should not be sold off, but it also doesn’t need to be entrenched.

      “It needs to be returned to its rightful kaitiaki—its owners; tangata whenua—who, as many hapū and iwi remind today, would have ensured that we could still drink, collect kai, and swim in the wai.”

      Ngarewa-Packer said the “conservative race-baiting campaign run by right-wing extremists and misinformation” had whipped up opposition to the point people did not understand what the reforms proposed.

      “They do not even guarantee Māori representation, let alone iwi representation, on the actual governance entities.

      “While iwi and councils will both appoint a body that then appoints the entities, these degrees of separation are designed to limit Māori power through not creating precedents or co-governance.”

      Ngarewa-Packer said they wanted negotiations to see between Government and hapū and iwi on Māori rights and interests in water.

      “What we see now is reform that is weak. Our wai is in crisis, and we need transformation, not tinkering.”

      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/three-waters-law-to-reform-storm-waste-and-drinking-water-infrastructure-passes-amid-fiery-parliament-debate/CKPAKUJK3ZC6PHCJU6V3ZVB75U/

      • RedLogix 8.3.1
        8 December 2022 at 8:13 pm

        So from what I am reading – the Greens didn't support because there is no protection from water being being privatised – and the MP didn't support because they say the water is all theirs.

        Oh well, hard to please everyone I guess.

        • Incognito 8.3.1.1
          8 December 2022 at 8:53 pm

          Based on your comment it looks what you’ve been reading is RW BS.

          • RedLogix 8.3.1.1.1
            8 December 2022 at 10:50 pm

            I thought I was reading what Debbie Ngawara-Packer was saying:

            “It needs to be returned to its rightful kaitiaki—its owners; tangata whenua

            Of course this hinges on the meaning to the word kaitiaki; which translates to mean 'guardianship, trustee, caretaker'.

            Given that the 3W legislation gives local Maori exclusive rights to issue Te Mana o Te Wai statements that confer exactly this guardianship role – then it seems Ngawara-Packer must have a quite different meaning of the word kaitiaki in mind. Something a lot closer to full control or ownership it would seem.

            Oddly enough though, maybe she has a point. Checking out the Three Waters website I found this page that was quite explicit about the role of iwi in Three Waters management – has now been deleted:

            https://web.archive.org/web/20220812034810/https://www.threewaters.govt.nz/how-will-three-waters-affect-me/iwi/three-waters-for-iwi/

            and and now links to something a lot less prescriptive:

            https://www.taumataarowai.govt.nz/te-mana-o-te-wai/

            • Incognito 8.3.1.1.1.1
              9 December 2022 at 9:17 pm

              I see.

              I thought that tangata whenua meant people of the land and not land (and presumably water) of the people.

              Secondly, is tangata whenua identical to tāngata māori, i.e., does it exclude all non-[M]āori?

              Deleted and updated/replaced webpages are useful how?

              • RedLogix …
                9 December 2022 at 11:13 pm

                I think the obvious point that has been made here, is along with pat's reference to MP policy below at 8.3.1.2.1, that at least some Maori activists regard all water as belonging to them – in an undiluted proprietorial private ownership sense.

        • Tinderdry6 8.3.1.2
          8 December 2022 at 10:44 pm

          On the Greens, correct. On the MP, I’d say it’s a bit more nuanced. smiley

          • pat 8.3.1.2.1
            8 December 2022 at 10:47 pm

            "The Māori Party position is to honour the rangatira and kaitiaki rights and interests of mana whenua over freshwater. In a Western rights framework, this can be expressed as proprietary rights, customary rights, and decision-making rights, or put more simply, ownership. The whakapapa connection between tangata whenua and wai Māori is intrinsic and inextricable."

            https://www.maoriparty.org.nz/fresh_water

            I'd say Redlogix's assessment is accurate.

            • tinderdry6 8.3.1.2.1.1
              9 December 2022 at 10:24 am

              Thanks Pat. I'm never entirely comfortable when Māori feel the need to explain these concepts in 'western' terms, particularly as my understanding is Māori did not have any concept of 'ownership' in a western sense in pre-European times. That’s what I meant by ‘nuanced’.

              • pat …
                10 December 2022 at 11:19 am

                Think the distinction needs to be made….this is Maori Party policy position..not necessarily the view of Maori en masse.

  9. adam 9
    8 December 2022 at 4:02 pm

    You need proof that the far right are crazy, here you go

  10. logie97 10
    8 December 2022 at 4:40 pm

    I made the mistake of visiting TheDailytelegraph.co.nz this morning.

    It would appear to be the voice of the conspiracy theorists/voices for freedom. The link was via something outrageous that Liz Gunn said last year. It should not come as a surprise though that Winston Peters has gone in to bat for the parents of the child who are demanding unvaccinated blood.

    Now Peters needs 5% to get back into parliament. Given that the anti vaccination group numbers at least 5% then, added to his usual hangers on, Peters romps in.

  11. Adrian 11
    8 December 2022 at 5:54 pm

    I think you have mistaken the 5%, that is their IQ, not their numbers.

  12. ianmac 12
    8 December 2022 at 7:09 pm

    Newshub is like the source of conspiracy theories.

    Bridges and Green spent their time ridiculing the facts presented by Kiri who yesterday, by the use of a graph, showed the facts of falling crime rates from the time of National to the present time. (Saw the replay of Bridge/Green's ridiculous theories reactions onTwitter.)

    Their consensus was that the facts don't matter. If people feel scared on the streets and in their homes, the fact that the trend of crime is downward is trumped by perception.

    Wonder if the endless media fear-mongering by the over reporting of crime/violence, has an effect on the people? I despise Bridges and Newshub.

  13. Blazer 13
    8 December 2022 at 9:12 pm

    The predictable outcome of selling Z to Ampol and dismantling the Marsden Renfinery,.

    Who would have thought it would take months not years to reveal such a momentous clusterfuck.

    Bad aviation fuel batch: Where does it leave NZ? | RNZ

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.