web analytics

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 ”

  1. Peter 1

    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.


    • joe90 1.1

      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.


      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.


    • Anne 1.2

      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.


      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

        There have been new developments


        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

          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

    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?


    • AB 2.1

      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.

    • 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.


      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

        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

          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

        "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

          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

            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

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

          • Belladonna

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

            • Incognito

              They did vote, just not for that amendment.

            • Anker


              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.

              • 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

                  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

          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

          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

            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

        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

          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

            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


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

    • Ad 3.1

      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

        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

    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

      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

        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.

  5. joe90 5

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


    google translate

    • DB Brown 5.1

      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.

      • joe90 5.1.1

        If we don't wake TF up we'll have a severely disabled economy of our own.

  6. DB Brown 6

    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

      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

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

        • weka

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

          • DB Brown

            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

              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

          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

            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

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

            • weka

              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

                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

                  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

                  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

                  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

          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

      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

        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

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

  8. Ad 8

    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

      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

      Loss of entrenchment?

    • SPC 8.3

      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.”


      • RedLogix 8.3.1

        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

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

          • RedLogix

            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:


            and and now links to something a lot less prescriptive:


            • Incognito

              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

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

        • Tinderdry6

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

          • pat

            "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."


            I'd say Redlogix's assessment is accurate.

            • tinderdry6

              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

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

  9. adam 9

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

  10. logie97 10

    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

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

  12. ianmac 12

    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

    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

Recent Posts

  • Advancing our relationship in India
    Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta departs for India tomorrow as she continues to reconnect Aotearoa New Zealand to the world.  The visit will begin in New Delhi where the Foreign Minister will meet with the Vice President Hon Jagdeep Dhankar and her Indian Government counterparts, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Government Northland housing investment to spark transformational change
    Over $10 million infrastructure funding to unlock housing in Whangārei The purchase of a 3.279 hectare site in Kerikeri to enable 56 new homes Northland becomes eligible for $100 million scheme for affordable rentals Multiple Northland communities will benefit from multiple Government housing investments, delivering thousands of new homes for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Battle of Ohaeawai remembered
    A memorial event at a key battle site in the New Zealand land wars is an important event to mark the progress in relations between Māori and the Crown as we head towards Waitangi Day, Minister for Te Arawhiti Kelvin Davis said. The Battle of Ohaeawai in June 1845 saw ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • More Police deployed to the frontline
    More Police officers are being deployed to the frontline with the graduation of 54 new constables from the Royal New Zealand Police College today. The graduation ceremony for Recruit Wing 362 at Te Rauparaha Arena in Porirua was the first official event for Stuart Nash since his reappointment as Police ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Further support for upper North Island regions hit by significant weather
    The Government is unlocking an additional $700,000 in support for regions that have been badly hit by the recent flooding and storm damage in the upper North Island. “We’re supporting the response and recovery of Auckland, Waikato, Coromandel, Northland, and Bay of Plenty regions, through activating Enhanced Taskforce Green to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • The Princess Royal to visit New Zealand
    Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has welcomed the announcement that Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal, Princess Anne, will visit New Zealand this month. “Princess Anne is travelling to Aotearoa at the request of the NZ Army’s Royal New Zealand Corps of Signals, of which she is Colonel in Chief, to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Government and horticulture sector target $12b in exports by 2035
    A new Government and industry strategy launched today has its sights on growing the value of New Zealand’s horticultural production to $12 billion by 2035, Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor said. “Our food and fibre exports are vital to New Zealand’s economic security. We’re focussed on long-term strategies that build on ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Cost of living support extended for families and businesses
    25 cents per litre petrol excise duty cut extended to 30 June 2023 – reducing an average 60 litre tank of petrol by $17.25 Road User Charge discount will be re-introduced and continue through until 30 June Half price public transport fares extended to the end of June 2023 saving ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • More Kiwis in work as rising wages match inflation
    The strong economy has attracted more people into the workforce, with a record number of New Zealanders in paid work and wages rising to help with cost of living pressures. “The Government’s economic plan is delivering on more better-paid jobs, growing wages and creating more opportunities for more New Zealanders,” ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Government boosts fund for Auckland flooding
    The Government is providing a further $1 million to the Mayoral Relief Fund to help communities in Auckland following flooding, Minister for Emergency Management Kieran McAnulty announced today. “Cabinet today agreed that, given the severity of the event, a further $1 million contribution be made. Cabinet wishes to be proactive ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • New Cabinet focused on bread and butter issues
    The new Cabinet will be focused on core bread and butter issues like the cost of living, education, health, housing and keeping communities and businesses safe, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has announced. “We need a greater focus on what’s in front of New Zealanders right now. The new Cabinet line ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Prime Minister to meet with PM Albanese
    Prime Minister Chris Hipkins will travel to Canberra next week for an in person meeting with Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese. “The trans-Tasman relationship is New Zealand’s closest and most important, and it was crucial to me that my first overseas trip as Prime Minister was to Australia,” Chris Hipkins ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Government makes first payment to Auckland Flooding fund
    The Government is providing establishment funding of $100,000 to the Mayoral Relief Fund to help communities in Auckland following flooding, Minister for Emergency Management Kieran McAnulty announced. “We moved quickly to make available this funding to support Aucklanders while the full extent of the damage is being assessed,” Kieran McAnulty ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government steps up to assist Auckland during flooding
    As the Mayor of Auckland has announced a state of emergency, the Government, through NEMA, is able to step up support for those affected by flooding in Auckland. “I’d urge people to follow the advice of authorities and check Auckland Emergency Management for the latest information. As always, the Government ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Poroporoaki: Titewhai Te Huia Hinewhare Harawira
    Ka papā te whatitiri, Hikohiko ana te uira, wāhi rua mai ana rā runga mai o Huruiki maunga Kua hinga te māreikura o te Nota, a Titewhai Harawira Nā reira, e te kahurangi, takoto, e moe Ka mōwai koa a Whakapara, kua uhia te Tai Tokerau e te kapua pōuri ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Enhanced Task Force Green Approved following Cyclone Hale
    Carmel Sepuloni, Minister for Social Development and Employment, has activated Enhanced Taskforce Green (ETFG) in response to flooding and damaged caused by Cyclone Hale in the Tairāwhiti region. Up to $500,000 will be made available to employ job seekers to support the clean-up. We are still investigating whether other parts ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • General Election to be held on 14 October 2023
    The 2023 General Election will be held on Saturday 14 October 2023, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced today. “Announcing the election date early in the year provides New Zealanders with certainty and has become the practice of this Government and the previous one, and I believe is best practice,” Jacinda ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announces resignation
    Jacinda Ardern has announced she will step down as Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party. Her resignation will take effect on the appointment of a new Prime Minister. A caucus vote to elect a new Party Leader will occur in 3 days’ time on Sunday the 22nd of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago