Open mike 12/03/2025

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, March 12th, 2025 - 74 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 …

74 comments on “Open mike 12/03/2025 ”

  1. Tony Veitch 1
    12 March 2025 at 6:18 am

    Luxon should never be the ‘leader’ of our country!

    NZ, like the rest of the world, faces an existential climate crisis, which will demand thinking outside the box if we are to get through it! We’re going to need more government, not less!

    But time and time again, Luxon displays his total inability to break free from the narrow shackles of the Chicago School of Economics.

    Neoliberals know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing!

    His entire response to questions by Marama Davidson in the House yesterday displays his blinkered thinking – perhaps best shown by his non-response to her last question:

    Hon Marama Davidson: Will the Prime Minister increase public ownership of the basic things we all need just to live—like school lunches, healthcare, and childcare—or will he choose to sell off Aotearoa and funnel even more profits to offshore corporates instead?

    Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I have to say the Greens are totally deluded on economics. I mean, I don't know how to say it any other way, but, honestly, that is a question that just makes no sense, and I reject it.

    https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansD_20250311_20250311

    Reply
    • Tony Veitch 1.1
      12 March 2025 at 7:21 am

      that is a question that just makes no sense, and I reject it.

      It makes no sense, surely, because governments are just here to facilitate business, aren't they? They're not here to actually help people with what they need to live? /s

      Reply
      • Macro 1.1.1
        12 March 2025 at 10:01 am

        The next question to Lux should be – "Can he please explain what he thinks the economy is for anyway?"

        Reply
    • PsyclingLeft.Always 1.2
      12 March 2025 at 8:24 am

      Its why any chitchat about the so called"common ground" between Left and Right parties needs put somewhere. Far, far, away.

      Some talk about a blending of a blue and Green? Only have to look at who are so called blue-greens? Decidedly much more blue ! (lack of oxygen ?) They just dont get the raison d' etre of Green. Anyway..never happen.

      Green party are, to my mind, Principled. NAct1 ? Not ever. Labour? We are looking at you…..

      Reply
      • Incognito 1.2.1
        12 March 2025 at 9:25 am

        There’s a perception among some (many?) that Labour-lite and National-lite should just get in the tent together and we would get a stable government in which the influence of ‘fringe parties’ would be diminished. I call this perception the centrists’ wet dream.

        Of course, where there’s common ground, and there’s plenty to agree on across the political spectrum, non-partisan agreement and consensus should be the aspiration of all parties – this does happen IRL.

        Reply
        • PsyclingLeft.Always 1.2.1.1
          12 March 2025 at 9:40 am

          the influence of ‘fringe parties’ would be diminished.

          And there it is. No more pesky problematic Greenie, Maori..or even Woke types.

          They wish ! I agree a neolib/centrist wet dream…..Really a nightmare for the rest of us.

          True common ground would mean Fair , Reasoned and Reasonable, for the betterment of NZ, its Environment, Society etc…

          Reply
    • Barfly 1.3
      12 March 2025 at 2:22 pm

      Politics 101 – Don't answer the question just misdirect.

      Luxon appears to have the absolute maximum Dunning-Kreuger.

      https://www.psychologytoday.com/nz/basics/dunning-kruger-effect

      Reply
    • Tiger Mountain 1.4
      12 March 2025 at 4:07 pm

      Marama asked a clear question, not good enough for PM to “reject” it-he needs to bloody answer it.

      Reply
  2. Morrissey 2
    12 March 2025 at 6:53 am

    Most telling self-own in that vacuous and inept filibuster: "I don't know how to say it any other way."

    Reply
  3. Morrissey 3
    12 March 2025 at 7:46 am

    Poor old Senator Malhuret and the shareholders of B.A.E. Systems, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and all those other weapons manufacturers will not be happy this morning.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/544512/ukraine-agrees-to-accept-immediate-30-day-ceasefire-statement

    [two day ban. I was going to moderate you under my post, but may as well do it here.

    Stop being a fuckwit troll.

    If you want to argue something, do it straightforwardly without the sly innuendo and slurs, and make some actual political points.

    You may not take the international situation seriously, but many of us do and you’re going to find it increasingly difficult to use slurs in a time of war/fascism in the place of actual political argument.

    This hasn’t been discussed in the back end, and at some point it will be, but I already have very little tolerance for people peddling fascism denial. People are free to express a range of political opinions on the international situation, but that’s not what you’ve been doing. This isn’t your FB page, you are expected to add something to the debate. I’m not talking about your political view here (plenty of commenters can address those), I’m talking about your behaviour and attitude. That’s your warning to lift your game. – weka]

    Reply
    • weka 3.1
      12 March 2025 at 11:15 am

      mod note.

      Reply
    • SPC 3.2
      12 March 2025 at 11:27 am

      It is Russia wanting all of Ukraine, first by annexation of territory held and with no security guarantees to Ukraine (to threaten future war if appeasement is not government policy in Kiev) that motivates the EU to develop their own defence capability.

      That the Americans want to require more defence spending by NATO (Trump hawking US weapons) is also what it is.

      None of this is negated by a cease-fire.

      Reply
      • gsays 3.2.1
        12 March 2025 at 12:32 pm

        Even more dead soldiers is negated by a cease fire.

        Baby steps. No one would have predicted this 6 months ago.

        Reply
        • SPC 3.2.1.1
          12 March 2025 at 12:37 pm

          The cease-fire should be 12 months at a time, with each party being able to extend it. That reduces pressure to agree to the others terms.

          Reply
        • joe90 3.2.1.2
          12 March 2025 at 1:30 pm

          Even more dead soldiers is negated by a cease fire.

          And Russia can be trusted to abide by any ceasefire agreed to, right?

          Ceasefire violations rose in eastern Ukraine as Russia unilaterally massed troops along its border with Ukraine and in Crimea. Between July and November of 2020, the Special Monitoring Mission reported approximately 600 ceasefire violations per month. That number increased to around 2,800 monthly violations between December and January 2021. And, now, in the first 25 days of April, the SMM reported more than 6,600 total ceasefire violations.

          https://osce.usmission.gov/on-russias-ongoing-aggression-against-ukraine-and-illegal-occupation-of-crimea-22/

          Reply
      • Paul Govan 3.2.2
        12 March 2025 at 5:42 pm

        Russia had unsurprisingly shown no interest in defending itself against anything except US-NATO expansion beyond its red-line into Ukraine and Georgia until the 100% anti-democratic US-assisted 2014 coup that removed the very democratically elected president Viktor Yanukovych. And you of course forget to mention that the March-April 2022 peace-deal in Turkey was signed by all peace-negotiators on both sides including the rarely mentioned top Ukrainian peace-participant Alexander CHALY. That deal was of course tragically and fatefully blocked by US-NATO's perpetually warmongering 'China's next' expansionists who sent lapdog Boris Bojo Johnson to Ukraine to tell Zelensky to ditch the peace-deal and continue the bloodbath – their proxy war – for however long it might take to achieve their ulimate post-WWII wet-dream objective of crushing and destroying Russia.

        (Paul G)

        Reply
        • SPC 3.2.2.1
          12 March 2025 at 11:30 pm

          Another one from that narrative silo.

          Russia only has done what it has done …

          Past

          The claims about Johnson blocking a deal are covered here.

          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/12/zelenskyy-rejects-claim-boris-johnson-talked-him-out-of-2022-peace-deal

          The negotiations in Turkey produced the Istanbul Communiqué. It proposed that Ukraine end its plans to eventually join NATO, have limits placed on its military, and would have obliged Western countries to help Ukraine in case of aggression against it. The talks almost reached agreement, with both sides considering "far-reaching concessions", but stopped in May 2022

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

          In fact right now, Russia is claiming that NATO itself is a threat to Russia.

          During U.S.-Russia talks in Saudi Arabia, Moscow allegedly demanded that the U.S. withdraw NATO forces from eastern Europe as a condition for "normalizing relations," the Financial Times (FT) reported on Feb. 20, citing two officials in the region.

          Cristian Diaconescu, the Romanian president's chief of staff, warned that the U.S.-Russia dialogue risks a "new Yalta," referring to the 1945 conference where the Allies divided post-war Europe into spheres of influence.

          https://kyivindependent.com/moscow-demands-nato-withdrawal-from-eastern-europe-in-us-russia-talks-ft-reports/

          This is the claim it made in Dec 2021 before seeking regime change in Ukraine (initial special operation in the north with a focus on Kiev) and then the annexation of the Nova Russia area instead.

          MOSCOW, Dec 17 (Reuters) – Russia said on Friday it wanted a legally binding guarantee that NATO would give up any military activity in Eastern Europe and Ukraine, part of a wish list of security guarantees it wants to negotiate with the West.

          Moscow for the first time laid out in detail demands that it says are essential for lowering tensions in Europe and defusing a crisis over Ukraine, which Western countries have accused Russia of sizing up for a potential invasion after building up troops near the border. Russia has denied planning an invasion.

          Others would imply the removal of U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe and the withdrawal of multinational NATO battalions from Poland and from the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania that were once in the Soviet Union.

          https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-unveils-security-guarantees-says-western-response-not-encouraging-2021-12-17/

          Just Ukraine and Georgia, who do you think you are kidding?

          Reply
    • Ad 3.3
      12 March 2025 at 12:43 pm

      Ukraine is running out of options fast for manpower, and no amount or quality of weapons from anyone has stopped Russia.

      Ukraine is just running out faster than Russia. That's the immovable battlefield logic.

      So hardly a surprise that Ukraine is the first to agree to a ceasefire.

      Reply
      • Barfly 3.3.1
        12 March 2025 at 3:13 pm

        It wasn't long ago I think that Zelensky said i think "we have the men to form 10 new brigades but we only have the equipment for 2 and a half…."

        Reply
    • Macro 3.4
      12 March 2025 at 1:01 pm

      Meanwhile..

      55m ago19.05 EDT

      Russia launches air attack on Ukraine capital Kyiv

      Russia launched an overnight air attack on Kyiv, with air defence forces engaged in repelling the strikes, Vitali Klitschko, mayor of the Ukrainian capital said.

      Reply
    • Res Publica 3.5
      12 March 2025 at 3:30 pm

      Ye gods, are you a troll, or just that painfully stupid?

      Even if this so-called ceasefire is real (and I doubt Russia will honor it for more than 25 seconds), Europe isn’t about to stop rearming. We all know Russia will be back for another bite.

      So maybe cut the smug, self-congratulatory back-patting for your no-doubt heroic keyboard warrior antics and engage the minuscule part of your brain not clogged with Kremlin propaganda. A watchful, armed peace is just as profitable as war—probably even better.

      The only thing sloppier than Putin’s ‘diplomacy’ is your pathetic attempt to paint the West as the villain while cheering on literal imperialism, fascism, and the destruction of a democratic state.

      But hey, as long as it’s your favorite strongman doing the killing—and it’s happening far from your tender sensibilities—who cares, right?

      Reply
      • weka 3.5.1
        12 March 2025 at 3:55 pm

        maybe it's a complacency about being on the other side of the world. Russia won't invade New Zealand, right? Or is it desire to have Russia take over? Really hard to make sense of it.

        Reply
    • weston 3.6
      12 March 2025 at 7:22 pm

      Wanna share what you know about "fascism denial " Weka ? cant say ive heard of this condition before …who mostly practices " fascism denial " the left ? the right ? just asking

      Reply
  4. Drowsy M. Kram 4
    12 March 2025 at 10:01 am

    PM joins NZ First’s war on woke [12 March 2025]
    “I’d just say, when we took the keys to the place, it was pretty woke…

    Hard to know which CoC 'leader' clutched at the 'woke straw' first, what with Seymour's 'concerns' about children of Kiwi bottom feeders getting a ‘woke’ "gourmet taxpayer funded meal" – such lunches are not for the likes of them!

    All our CoC leaders may be singing from the same (anti-)woke hymn book, but their harmonies sound "pretty lame-o" to me – nonsensical even wink

    'Nonsense': Hipkins and Peters clash over 'wokeness' in public sector
    [12 March 2025]
    Hipkins said Peters, David Seymour and Luxon were trying to "desperately mimic Donald Trump in the hope that this is going to turn around the fortunes of their flailing government".

    There's also a war on 'woke banking' in New Zealand. "Woke banking" – amazing.

    Reply
    • Res Publica 4.1
      12 March 2025 at 3:19 pm

      NZ First wants to strip government oversight from mining and resource exploitation: because businesses should be free to make their own decisions.

      But when banks choose not to lend to risky customers? Suddenly, free enterprise is a problem.

      Seems like 'hands-off government' only applies when it benefits their mates, and we suddenly need to try pass stupid, badly written laws to control who a business can and can't serve.

      Reply
    • Incognito 4.2
      12 March 2025 at 6:12 pm

      Unfortunately, the w-word has been hijacked and weaponised to land a killer-blow on one’s opponent or a TKO. In and by itself, it does not provide an argument or counter-argument for or against anything in particular – it’s akin accusing one’s opponent of typos, poor grammar & syntax and thereby neutralising anything they’ve said or will say, which amounts to success & triumph.

      https://theacademyadvocate.com/16436/opinion/whats-up-with-woke/

      I think it should be banned from genuine constructive debate between mature adults who act in good faith.

      Reply
      • Obtrectator 4.2.1
        12 March 2025 at 10:00 pm

        No need for a ban. Mature adults who act in good faith wouldn't resort to hurling That Word around in the first place.

        Reply
        • Incognito 4.2.1.1
          13 March 2025 at 9:17 am

          That Word and other lazy labels and misleading memes – when used in the appropriate context in debate, they’re meaningful and useful, but when used as weapons of choice or dog-whistles they’re counter-productive. Still, it/they can be a good way to sort the wheat from the chaff.

          Reply
        • Incognito 4.2.1.2
          13 March 2025 at 4:57 pm

          That Word and other lazy labels and misleading memes – when used in the appropriate context in debate, they’re meaningful and useful, but when used as weapons of choice or dog-whistles they’re counter-productive. Still, it/they can be a good way to sort the wheat from the chaff.

          Reply
  5. Macro 5
    12 March 2025 at 10:11 am

    So CL says DS is "working extremely hard" to sort out the school lunch debacle.

    If that is the case, then DS's first intrusion into Public Service Governance shows that he is completely incompetent, and couldn't even run a piss up in a brewery. He should never be given any further public governance responsibility again!

    Reply
    • Incognito 5.1
      12 March 2025 at 11:12 am

      Neither CL nor DS has any ambition at being competent at Public Service Governance. Anyone who believes that should be woken up immediately and rudely.

      Reply
      • Macro 5.1.1
        12 March 2025 at 12:32 pm

        QFT

        Neither CL nor DS has any ambition at being competent at Public Service Governance.

        Reply
        • Barfly 5.1.1.1
          12 March 2025 at 4:08 pm

          IMO They disagree with the very idea of Public Service

          Reply
          • Macro 5.1.1.1.1
            12 March 2025 at 4:21 pm

            Yep. Like Trump they are there – not to Govern – but to trash Government. For example Trump wants to trash Education in the US. So far only managing to fire half of the US Education Dept. 🙄

            Education secretary Linda McMahon describes layoffs as ‘significant step towards restoring greatness’

            I'll bet Seyless is green pink with envy.

            Reply
            • joe90 5.1.1.1.1.1
              12 March 2025 at 6:47 pm

              History rhymes, again.

              Henry Winter Davis, an active Know-Nothing, was elected on the American Party ticket to Congress from Maryland. He told Congress that "un-American" Irish Catholic immigrants were to blame for the recent election of Democrat James Buchanan as president, stating:[8]

              The recent election has developed in an aggravated form every evil against which the American party protested. Foreign allies have decided the government of the country – men naturalized in thousands on the eve of the election. Again in the fierce struggle for supremacy, men have forgotten the ban which the Republic puts on the intrusion of religious influence on the political arena. These influences have brought vast multitudes of foreign-born citizens to the polls, ignorant of American interests, without American feelings, influenced by foreign sympathies, to vote on American affairs; and those votes have, in point of fact, accomplished the present result.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing

              Reply
  6. Drowsy M. Kram 6
    12 March 2025 at 10:25 am

    Let's get 'our' country back on track? https://www.national.org.nz/policy-2023

    Nicky No Boats gets my goat. https://www.national.org.nz/

    The government’s targets in charts: More than half still behind track
    [12 March 2025]

    Some things, howevr, are on track.

    Big news for landlords!
    Starting from April 1, 2024, landlords will be able to deduct 80% of their interest expenses. And by April 1, 2025, when you can claim the full 100%.

    Reply
  7. Drowsy M. Kram 7
    12 March 2025 at 10:46 am

    Not enough surgeons for Brown's private health plan – union
    [11 March 2025]
    Private Surgical Hospitals Association president Blair Roxborough said the private system had the capacity to expand and take on most of the country's elective surgery…

    Expand the private health industry – sounds like the privatisation of NZ's public health services to me. Simeon, say it isn't so.

    Private Financial Actors and Financialisation in Global Health [Jan 2025]
    The era of the Sustainable Development Goals has become the era of private finance. Decades-long political, economic and social trends have seen rapid growth in the size and scale of private finance relative to public finance, and the increasing political power of private financial actors. In global development, this has taken form in narratives and actions that establish and quantify investment gaps, call for greater and greater levels of private finance to fill these gaps, and create new financial instruments with which to realise the expansion of private financial capital. These changes are sometimes referred to as ‘financialisation’.

    The 'Silent Violence' of Corporate Greed and Power [8 Dec 2024]
    But corporate culture, marinated to the core with endless cravings for ever-growing easy profits, is very hard to change – especially when it is so easy to extract more and more premium dollars from powerless consumers who lack adequate regulatory protections.

    I used to do health insurance company PR. Here’s what I think the backlash is missing [11 Dec 2024]
    Every year, my colleagues and I across the [healthcare and insurance] industry devoted massive amounts of the money — money our customers paid us to cover their medical care — on lobbying, campaign contributions, deceptive PR campaigns, and even charitable donations to buy goodwill. All of that was spent for the sole purpose of maximizing shareholder return.

    Reply
  8. gsays 8
    12 March 2025 at 10:48 am

    Hands up if you thought Trumps bluster concerning Greenland was just one, out of the blue, brain farts he is known for?

    I am in that group.

    As recently as President Truman the USA has been trying to 'acquire' Greenland.

    This is an interesting history of Greenland, the various peoples that have populated it, it's strategic value and reasoning behind the latest interest.

    One hour twelve minutes.

    https://halfarsedhistory.net/2025/02/02/episode-345-the-history-of-greenland/

    Reply
  9. tWig 9
    12 March 2025 at 11:06 am

    Big Hairy News cover the Public Service reforms to remove ethnic diversity as one factor to consider in the choice of candidates for a job.

    Chewie: 'Why do mediocre white males end up in positions (Luxon, Simeon Brown, etc) they have neither the talent nor the experience for their positions?'

    And why is a 30-something bank teller running the Health portfolio?

    Reply
    • gsays 9.1
      12 March 2025 at 11:17 am

      I heard Ingrid Hipkiss woefully inadequately try and wrestle Peters on this subject this morning on RNZ.

      The obvious proposition was that there is merit in offering a diverse perspective in delivering public services.

      Reply
    • Ad 9.2
      12 March 2025 at 12:17 pm

      Hipkins did a good job on RNZ this morning at 7.10am.

      Simple and clear:

      It's in the legislation that Peters voted for that the public service should reflect New Zealand.

      Which is so obvious it's staggering.

      Reply
      • aj 9.2.1
        12 March 2025 at 12:24 pm

        Peter's needs to find an example where DEI considerations have been taken into account over the merit over another job applicant. If he can't then he's just spouting hot air.

        Reply
        • Incognito 9.2.1.1
          12 March 2025 at 12:58 pm

          No, one or even a couple of examples are not sufficient justification for Peters’ political stunt. Peters must demonstrate that it is problematically anti-merit per se and widespread, for starters. He’s simply blustering and wasting our precious time with silly bumper-sticker slogans such as “woke left-wing social engineering”. Peters and Seymour are apt at hogging the limelight and using their leverage for exercises in futility thereby wasting precious time and money.

          Reply
          • AB 9.2.1.1.1
            12 March 2025 at 1:49 pm

            Peters must demonstrate that it is problematically anti-merit per se…

            Which he can't do because 'merit' can never be determined with any real precision anyway. Other than at a fairly gross level of triage and shortlisting, 'merit' is a myth. And 'merit' consists of qualities that cannot be empirically determined such as 'attitude' and 'cultural fit' – and this is unavoidable however much HR people try all manner of dopey personality tests to disguise the fact.

            If you've ever hired people you know that final selection can be very difficult and is non-objectivally based in inchoate 'vibes' that themselves originate from the non-objective welter of your own experience.

            This whole ruckus from Peters is totally daft and a dog-whistle to the crypto-racists he hoovered up at the last election in order to make 5%. The cantankerous old coot needs to be booted out of parliament in 2026.

            Reply
            • Incognito 9.2.1.1.1.1
              12 March 2025 at 6:45 pm

              Yes, fair points about the subjectivity of HR hiring (and firing) processes – humans judging/mis-judging other humans. However, some criteria to determine ‘fitness’ for a position can be more objective than others. Being a woman (whatever that means) and being paid equally as men in the same position, for example, can be fairly easily established one would think.

              Reply
          • Psycho Milt 9.2.1.1.2
            12 March 2025 at 3:03 pm

            It's inherently anti-merit, so the question is more whether or not we have evidence that diversity and inclusion programmes do not harm merit-based selection.

            The "inherently anti-merit" part is simple enough. Suppose senior management sets a target of working towards X% of senior staff being left-handed. Middle managers now have a problem: left-handers are a minority to start with and for some reason few of them are interested in this line of work, so few of the applicants for senior positions are left-handers. That gives any left-hander applying for a senior position an immediate advantage over right-handed applicants: if the middle manager selects the left-hander, they're progressing towards meeting an important KPI. If they select a right-hander, they're dragging their feet on fulfilling an important departmental policy.

            Worse, it encourages shoulder-tapping: if a middle manager encounters someone left-handed who seems pretty competent, there's a temptation to say "Have you considered applying for this senior vacancy? I think you'd have a pretty good chance of getting it."

            Is there any reason to have confidence this isn't happening?

            Reply
            • alwyn 9.2.1.1.2.1
              12 March 2025 at 6:32 pm

              "That gives any left-hander applying for a senior position an immediate advantage over right-handed applicants"

              As a left-hander myself I must say that we already have an advantage over right-handed people. In my experience left-handed people are more competent at any task then those common-as-muck right-handers.

              We are also more intelligent, greater athletes, much wittier and better looking.

              We are also much more modest than you right-handed gits.

              Reply
              • Psycho Milt …
                12 March 2025 at 7:02 pm

                That pretty much has been my experience of public-sector diversity and inclusion 'training,' yes.

                Reply
            • Incognito 9.2.1.1.2.2
              12 March 2025 at 7:00 pm

              Suppose that left-handed people used to be discriminated against because they smudged their handwriting. Suppose that this is no longer a factor. Suppose that there are right-handed people who were forced to suppress their left-handedness at school and continued with this suppression when entering the workforce. Suppose that left-handedness has been linked to brain asymmetry and may provide functional and or cognitive advantages. Suppose that left-handed people respond well to other left-handed people.

              Merit is not the opposite of diversity. Diversity is one factor that may contribute to someone’s merit in the eyes of an employer.

              https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360608533/jehan-casinader-problem-winstons-war-woke

              Is there any reason to have confidence this isn’t happening?

              I’m confident that bias is happening anytime and anywhere, which is why a DEI policy can be useful.

              Reply
              • Psycho Milt …
                12 March 2025 at 7:11 pm

                Indeed, suppose all of those were true. How is it relevant? If you set a KPI target for an inherent characteristic that few job applicants will possess, it's a given that the hiring managers will then favour those few candidates over possibly better-qualified ones that lack the inherent characteristic. That's an inevitable consequence of setting the targets. It may be that there's a compelling morality-based argument for favouring candidates with that characteristic, but there's absolutely no merit-based one.

                Reply
                • Drowsy M. Kram …
                  12 March 2025 at 8:31 pm

                  … it's a given that the hiring managers will then favour those few candidates over possibly better-qualified ones that lack the inherent characteristic.

                  If there is evidence that inherent(?) characteristics are frequently dictating selection outcomes, then you would have a point – "possibly." Maybe we can leave it to our deputy PM, Winston Peters, to provide this evidence.

                  https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-12-03-2025/#comment-2028402

                  Otoh, some argue that the selection premium given to aggression should be reduced – “possibly” even in the land of the Good Keen Man smiley

                  Men, Women, and Ghosts in Science [17 Jan 2006]
                  I have argued that reducing the premium we give to aggression would, in several different ways, lead to more women in science and also to better science. Even so, in this Utopia, I think that far less than 50% of top physicists would be women (and far less than 50% of top professors of literature would be men). But I don't think that would matter—we would be making better use of the diverse qualities of people.

                  Affirmative action everywhere has had its detractors, even before it was introduced, but I don't have a problem with membership of a disadvantaged group being a tie-breaker, if that’s actually happening.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#New_Zealand

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#Responses

                  Reply
                • Incognito …
                  12 March 2025 at 9:13 pm

                  Indeed, suppose all of those were true. How is it relevant?

                  Odd question, given that you introduced this example and do not deny any of the suppositions!?

                  It’s doubly odd, because I transcended it into a metaphor for diversity, which I thought you’d understand.

                  It’s a given that managers are more likely to hire someone who’s more like them and who has more things in common with them. Unless active steps are taken this systemic bias will not correct itself by itself.

                  It may be that there’s a compelling morality-based argument for favouring candidates with that characteristic, but there’s absolutely no merit-based one.

                  Very odd assertion, given the quote I provided which you appear to deny absolutely and categorically as if it has no merit beyond some virtue signalling!?

                  Do you reject diversity, do you reject that it causes issues for equity, and do you reject that it should be included in The Public Service Act 2020?

                  Reply
                  • Descendant Of Smith …
                    12 March 2025 at 9:51 pm

                    I would argue that the pace of change is so fast now that having a diverse workforce from different backgrounds is fundamental to responding to change in an effective and timely manner.

                    Different world views and experience will help find solutions. We saw this during COVID where some of the most effective organisational skills and solutions came from Maori eg there was one health region that had far superior elderly vaccination rates as they ignored rigid government rules and encouraged the children to bring in their parents and grandparents and did the whole family at once.

                    Merit was a thing in bureaucracies across the world where you sat and passed competency tests. Originally came out of China I believe.

                    With the rise of managerialism competency has long gone out the window. Ineffective nongs just bounce from one managers job to another leaving the actual workers to clean up their messes afterwards. Each wants to "change something" regardless of whether things are working or not. Few seem to even understand the basics of management theory to the point I wonder how some of them got their quals. (I know at least one who has had several high paying management jobs whose wife wrote his assignments).

                    Even AI agrees with me.

                    "Diverse teams are better equipped to respond effectively to change because they bring a broader range of perspectives, skills, and experiences, making them more flexible and adaptable.

                    Here's a more detailed breakdown:

                    Benefits of Diversity in Responding to Change:

                    • Enhanced problem-solving:

                      Diverse perspectives lead to more creative and comprehensive solutions to complex challenges.

                    • Improved adaptability:

                      Organizations with diverse teams are better equipped to anticipate and respond to market shifts, technological advancements, and other disruptive forces.

                    • Innovation:

                      Different backgrounds and experiences spark new ideas and approaches, driving innovation and growth.

                    • Resilience:

                      When faced with change, diverse teams are more resilient as they can draw upon a broader network of support and resources.

                    • Reduced risk of groupthink:

                      Diverse teams are less prone to falling into groupthink because members are encouraged to challenge assumptions and perspectives. "

                    Reply
                    • Incognito …
                      13 March 2025 at 4:58 pm

                      I agree that all those are valid points in favour of inclusion of DEI considerations.

                      On a higher level, the simplistic and narrow-minded focus on merit is connected to the atomised neoliberal view of the individual in society the economy. This view ignores or minimises the important role of group dynamics, group connection, and social and cultural relationships and networks. People who strongly defend meritocracy at the expense of DEI are indoctrinated neoliberals at heart – the view is outdated and no longer fit for purpose, if it ever was, and must be replaced with a contemporary approach.

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    13 March 2025 at 5:43 am

                    Odd question, given that you introduced this example and do not deny any of the suppositions!?

                    I introduced the example to illustrate how favouring an inherent characteristic when hiring is inherently and inevitably 'anti-merit.' That's a given and Peters doesn't have to prove it.

                    The question of whether favouring an inherent characteristic has benefits that outweigh that negative effect is a separate one.

                    Very odd assertion, given the quote I provided which you appear to deny absolutely and categorically as if it has no merit beyond some virtue signalling!?

                    I work in the public sector and see plenty of evidence to support accusations of "woke, left-wing social engineering," but both Peters and his opponents are ignoring counter-arguments. In Peters' case, the fact that diversity and inclusion inevitably has consequences for merit-based hiring and encourages annoying virtue-signalling doesn't necessarily outweigh the positives of diversity and inclusion. Among Peters' opponents, pretending there can be no downsides to diversity and inclusion, only positives, is simply untrue and therefore unpersuasive.

                    Do you reject diversity, do you reject that it causes issues for equity, and do you reject that it should be included in The Public Service Act 2020?

                    Diversity itself is a good thing. Whether the Public Service Act 2020 is the best way to achieve it is open to argument, and is being argued.

                    Reply
                    • Incognito …
                      13 March 2025 at 6:34 pm

                      I introduced the example to illustrate how favouring an inherent characteristic when hiring is inherently and inevitably 'anti-merit.' That's a given and Peters doesn't have to prove it.

                      So, now you reject all the suppositions related to your own example to suit your narrative, how disingenuous. You still haven’t provided any reasoning to support your conclusion and unsurprisingly, you claim that Peters also doesn’t have to prove it – you and Peters want to off-load the burden of proof without having to do any intellectual work.

                      The question of whether favouring an inherent characteristic has benefits that outweigh that negative effect is a separate one.

                      You shifted from a specific example to a meaningless generalisation, which is a classic escape and avoidance tactic.

                      I work in the public sector and see plenty of evidence to support accusations of "woke, left-wing social engineering," but both Peters and his opponents are ignoring counter-arguments.

                      Yes, Peters also stated he’s received many complaints, but that doesn’t constitute an argument per se. Anyway, arguing for DEI doesn’t equal "woke, left-wing social engineering”, which is a clear example of a cultural signifier and that’s not a reasoned argument upon which to base a conclusion. You come across as a self-identified and self-aggrieved victim of DEI policy in your institution, which, if correct, still doesn’t justify Peters’ stunt, but might explain your attitude and reluctance to debate the issue in all honesty.

                      Among Peters' opponents, pretending there can be no downsides to diversity and inclusion, only positives, is simply untrue and therefore unpersuasive.

                      That’s a straw man and certainly not something that I have or would argue.

                      Diversity itself is a good thing. Whether the Public Service Act 2020 is the best way to achieve it is open to argument, and is being argued.

                      Well, it is in the Act and Peters voted in favour of it previously. If not in the Act, then where? Why does it need to be removed from the Act?

                      What make diversity a “good thing” but without merit or even ‘anti-merit’? This makes no sense unless you restrict it to a purely moral domain, which makes no sense either!?

                      You nicely avoid taking a clear position and keep beating around the bush – this makes it a non-debate with you and a waste of time.

          • alwyn 9.2.1.1.3
            12 March 2025 at 3:14 pm

            "Peters must demonstrate that it is problematically anti-merit per …"

            Peters doesn't have to do any such thing. Indeed, he would probably say that he has no interest in convincing you of the truth or otherwise of his opinions because you are never likely to vote for his party.

            The only thing he is interested in doing is persuading some voters that he is on their side and that they should vote for him. Actual evidence of the things he is talking about is not required and the idea that people can demand that he must do something is simply nonsensical, as far as he in concerned.

            Reply
            • Barfly 9.2.1.1.3.1
              12 March 2025 at 4:12 pm

              "The only thing he is interested in doing is persuading some voters that he is on their side and that they should vote for him.Actual evidence of the things he is talking about is not required….."

              Very rare for me to agree with you Alwyn but you have nailed this

              Reply
              • Anne …
                12 March 2025 at 9:05 pm

                About to respond in kind. Agree with alwyn.

                The fact is (an introduction Peters uses often) he doesn't have to produce evidence. He's talking to the gullible voters who want to hear what he is saying – the ones who have kept him in parliament for most of his adult life.

                Reply
            • Incognito 9.2.1.1.3.2
              12 March 2025 at 6:39 pm

              No, unless NZF pays for the wasted time & money, Peters must justify his actions. He must be held accountable for wasting our precious time and taxpayers’ money on his futile exercises. Parliament, voters, and taxpayers in NZ, and this includes people who vote for him or his party, must hold him accountable unless we live in a Banana Republic ruled by a Parsnip. So, Peters most definitely must demonstrate that his action is just and fair.

              Reply
        • Psycho Milt 9.2.1.2
          12 March 2025 at 2:51 pm

          He wouldn't be able to publish an example involving a specific applicant. However, he has published examples from public service documents:

          https://x.com/winstonpeters/status/1899549167292391538

          Reply
        • Ad 9.2.1.3
          12 March 2025 at 5:33 pm

          Maori seats are his obvious target.

          Reply
      • Ad 9.2.2
        12 March 2025 at 4:32 pm

        Also great to see Police arrest 4 Destiny Church members for assault after storming the Te Atatu library.

        Peters needs the law read to him.

        Reply
  10. Vivie 10
    12 March 2025 at 1:18 pm

    The Government's irrational intention to reverse speeds limits, supposedly widely supported by many people, is receiving considerable opposition.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/corrections/544372/advocacy-group-takes-government-to-court-over-speed-limit-increases Samantha Gee 10.03.25

    …"Transport Minister Chris Bishop last month announced plans to reverse the former Labour government's speed limit reductions.

    The government's plan would see sections of 38 state highways, which had their speed limits dropped under the previous government for safety, automatically returned from 1 July to their previous higher limits.

    Transport planner Bevan Woodward, of the trust Movement, an alliance of national organisations that support safe and accessible active transport, said it was seeking an injunction to stop that from happening before a judicial review of the rules was considered.

    The group lodged an application for a judicial review in mid-January, claiming the decision to reverse speed limits was inconsistent with the minister's objectives under the Land Transport Act…

    One of the grounds for the review was that it was "unreasonable and perverse" for the former Transport Minister to require the reversal of any speed limit reduction put in place because of the presence of a school".

    Simeon Brown, David Seymour and other Government MPs have falsely claimed that the Labour Government implemented blanket speed reductions. However, as Woodward and other roading/transport professionals and experts have noted:

    "There were no blanket speed limit reductions, each one was carefully prepared and there were safety assessments carried out, public consultations and so forth," Woodward said.

    "It was the local councils and NZTA, they were the ones that determined what the safer speed limits should be using professional advice.

    "That's why there has been such a backlash around all over the country.

    Research from the last four years showed lives had been saved on roads where speed limits were reduced, he said.

    A section of State Highway 6 between Nelson and Blenheim was one of those areas. "Every year we were getting two to three deaths on that road, since the safer speed limits were implemented in the last four years there has been one death… It doesn't count all of the serious injuries or the delays we get whenever there is a serious crash and the highway is closed," Woodward said. "This is what's at stake and this is why we are taking this legal action."…

    The Coalition clearly has no regard for the safety concerns of residents, school staff, children, business owners and workers, in areas exposed to traffic travelling at high speeds through their areas.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/544502/anger-at-speed-limit-changes-it-affects-so-many-people-on-the-road Peter de Graaf 12.03.25

    A decades-long campaign by residents of Taumatamākuku, a settlement on State Highway 1 between Kawakawa and Moerewa, paid off in August 2020 when NZTA dropped the speed limit past their homes from 100km/h to 80km/h.

    Residents said they wanted lower speeds because they were tired of "running the gauntlet" every time they drove to the shops, and of tending to the injured every time there was a serious crash outside their homes.

    However, the highway through Taumatamākuku is one of ten around Northland where recent speed limit reductions could be reversed by 1 July, under new, retrospective rules for setting speed limits.

    Roddy Hapati Pihema, who heads the Taumatamākuku Community Residents Representative Committee, said having to fight for a reduced speed limit all over again was "absolutely frustrating"…

    "We managed to get the speed limit reduced to 80km/h because we have no safety margins and no street lighting. So to have central government come in and stipulate that they want to do a reversal, it doesn't just affect our community, it affects so many people on the roads. Our community is definitely angry and frustrated about this situation."

    Hapati Pihema believed the views of people who did not live in the area had been given precedence over local needs.

    He had been encouraging locals to make their voices heard, with hundreds already putting their names to submissions calling for the 80km/h limit to be retained…

    "It's taken three to four decades to get this far, now it could be undone just because people want to speed up and save a few minutes," he said….

    Reversing Labour's policies on principle, and hoping to be perceived as decisive and reformative, in fact reveals the juvenile, stubborn, illogical attitudes of the Coalition MPs.

    Reply
    • AB 10.1
      12 March 2025 at 2:04 pm

      But but – what about all the lost productivity if the rugged individualist wealth creators cannot charge though that short stretch from Taumatamākuku to the metropolis of Moerewa 20km/h faster in their Nietzchean Übermensch dismissal of the culture of 'no'?

      Good to see the resistance – I hope they win.
      And as an aside – has anybody else noticed that in years when the Left is going to lose an election and National is about to win, driving behaviour deteriorates a few weeks out from the election? As though people can’t wait to be released from the burden of behaving properly.

      Reply
    • Ad 10.2
      12 March 2025 at 4:41 pm

      Majority of Mayors just botched and moaned when Labour proposed them.

      No sympathy here.

      Reply

Leave a Comment