- Date published:
6:00 am, September 25th, 2020 - 127 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 …
Does an MP need to have the permission of their party leader to do a private members bill?
What sort of private members bills would you want to have drawn for new or change of legislation?
I want to see historical sexual assault cases have their own separate legislation and the Limitations Act to have no time limit for a schedule 3 ACC claim under the 1961 Crimes Act. As well a separate entity with funding for lawyers, a one stop shop so a person does not need to deal with multiple agencies.
It takes on average 18 years for a person to disclose a sexual assault. Odd that is how long it took me.
Unfit for purpose legislation is re abusing claimants and it is up to every politician to fix this. I also feel that discrimination is occurring with an historical case compared to a case which the Limitations Act will cover.
They certainly need to consult with their caucus, or they won't get it passed.
But sexual assault legislation changes will almost certainly come out of the Commission which is going through Hearings at the moment.
No need for a private members' bill in that area.
The word private has been dropped now from a members bill.
I disagree with you on not needing a members bill. It will take 5 years to see new and fit for purpose legislation.
I was sad to hear that a man who was to appear in April at the Abuse in Care Royal Commission he died in March. Interim legislation needs to be urgently passed. I don't care which party does it, it needs to be a priority. This will send a clear message to an agency who did not take action to stop offending. The sick old legislation will no longer protect you.
Timing will just have to wait for the priority list for the new government, once the Commission is done.
It won't get done any faster as a private members bill – precisely because any attempt would get absorbed into the Government's own legislative response, as usually happens.
The Abuse of Care Royal Commission Inquiry is highlighting historical sexual, physical and psychological cases of abuse. People like me are being excluded because the crime did not occur in a care home.
As well there is some overlap with state care and non state care psychiatric admission.
Am I correct that only children who were abused (sexually, physically and psychologically) in state care can only appear at the inquiry?
I am pleased that finally the children who are now adults who were in state care have a voice.
There is no time statute of limitations on reporting sexual violence or charging someone with sexual violence offences.
Additionally, there is no time limitations on claims to ACC for historical sexual abuse.
A person, recent or historical victim, does not have to file a Complaint with Police to qualify for an ACC injury payout for sexual abuse.
There are agencies who are like a one stop shop. A victim can be supported through processes they choose. An approved provider of 'counselling' type services is needed for the process of assessment for ACC claims. Services are free for victims.
Should a victim wish to proceed with a police complaint , there is no lawyer needed to be paid for by the victim.
I knew everything you said.
There are a lot of related aspects which are relevant to PTSD which are not covered when it comes to getting cover from ACC for sexual crimes which fuel the PTSD.
In the work place you told your employer and they failed to act and due to the Limitations Act time frame running out you cannot take legal action against your employer for the cover up. The awareness today is so different to an historical case.
See the Mariya Taylor case.
Aye a family member was raped in her workplace when she was 17 by a client of her employer. The national organisation basically covered it up. This was in the 80's. Only now has she got some counselling for her ongoing PTSD. No support at all for wages and an inability to work cause she wasn't working when she finally sought help due to all the stress her and her other family members were under. By then she was simply not able to work and had been unwell for a long time.
A friend was groped repeatedly while at the photocopier by an employer who also used to run himself against her buttocks as well. She left that job and 20+ years later still shakes when anyone mentions that employer who is quite often on TV or in the press. She lost her career at a young age and has had mental health difficulties ever since.
There are many who have suffered for a long time.
Just as the generation before suffered hideously from marital rape – particularly as for many of them they had no means of support. The stories of being sent back to the new marital home by parents with the "you made your bed you sleep in it" refrain echoing in their ears was certainly true for many.
There is a strong history of damage done to women in this country through sexual assault. It would be useful to have an enquiry to understand more deeply the numbers and impacts of this while there are still those left from earlier generations.
Thank you for your comment. I put it this way, the damage that sexual assault causes the psychology has finally caught up with the incident/s. Sadly the Limitations Act has expired for far to many to make a civil claim and ACC does not compensate for not being able to sue for a mental injury.
Note: I do hope I have got my facts straight when it comes to ACC ONLY covering a schedule 3 incident under the Crimes Act 1961.
I did not make myself as clear as I needed to. It is about changing civil claims against the state or an employer for not taking action and civil litigation in the courts when the issue was sexual, physical or psychological abuse.
Some cases cannot be separated because the effects of the sexual, physical or psychological abuse are fuelled by the cover up or a civil case not going forward due to the Limitations Act time frame expiring.
'National Party leader Judith Collins is hitting back at attacks from the Left on her agriculture policy, saying the Greens are being "hysterical". '
'She is also accusing Labour leader Jacinda Ardern of "going for the jugular" by saying the National Party had changed its position on climate change. '
So….Jacinda's "going for the jugular"?
Judith, Judith, Judith. Kinda sounds like hysterical hyperbole : )
As I suggest on yesterday's Daily Review it looks to me like Judith might not be doing too well and the over-reaction and tears as you point out PLA, might hint at failure to cope as well as a hardened "tough" politician would expect. Meanwhile in spite of huge problems faced and dealt to, Jacinda carries on in confidence.
I don't like the word 'confidence' in connection with politicians. That is the approach that National uses – being confident – and it's 90% likely that everything they say confidently will be a load of s..t. A con man or woman is a term short for confidence trickster.
Perhaps we could say that Jacinda is staunch – for good policies that work and for improving and encouraging treatment of the low-income, and micro businesses.
1. very loyal and committed in attitude.
Similar:stalwart loyal faithful
2. (of a wall) of strong or firm construction.
“these staunch walls could withstand attack by cannon”
And she also has Proven Credibility : )
Collins et al – Proven Incredibility!
lol….they really are floundering. I'd feel sorry …No, not at all : ) I just hope Jacinda is gonna get a bit of rest and chill time. She sure EARNED it !
Perhaps we can use the word confident despite your reservations.
I wouldn't attempt to argue about that Gabby.
Would that be why judith timed her meet and greet in Punakaiki to finish around 15mins before Jacinda arrived in Punakaiki?
I find the timing of judith's visit there today strange. It's a really small location and there was no special occasion happening.
just three days ago, herald headline was "collins call jacinda, poor wee thing" now its"jacinda going for the jugular". the really interesting point, is that collins is talking about jacinda, not other way round. when your narrative is all about your opponent, even you know youve lost.
Although if you can't even work out what that narrative is, there's a decent possibility that you haven't noticed.
This morning I woke up at 6.15am with it being nice and light outside. It was glorious.
Then sadness kicked in when I realised the artifical construct that is Daylight Saving, invented by the Germans, starts on Sunday leading NZ back into the dark ages. No more sunrise until an hour later. Fatigue and a sense of tiredness kicking in for a good two weeks as everyones circadian rhythms get knocked out of whack.
Daylight saving should be scrapped. Permanently. NZ doesn't need it as without it, sunset still wouldn't be until anywhere between 8pm – 9pm, thus rendering the age old argument "but we need more light after work" completely moot.
Of course, NZers love status quo, so I would 100% support a one year moratorium on daylight saving so that NZers could actually experience a proper summer without artifical time shifts. It hasn't done so since 1927. Once that moratorium is over people will then have an informed decision as to whether DS should stay, or be scrapped, or shortened to start somewhere from Labour Weekend. At the moment, it starts way too early. Farmers loathe it.
I for one avail myself of the flexible working hour provisions to shift my start and end times at work to an hour later so I don't bother changing my clocks. I find I'm far less affected than everyone else at work because I stick to normal time and I feel much better for it.
Daylight saving is popular, but has no purpose.
Daylight saving (time) has its pluses (hence popular) and minuses (the extra light causes my curtains to fade!) I found it beneficial on occasion while employed, but really wouldn't miss it now I've retired.
https://www.govt.nz/browse/recreation-and-the-environment/daylight-saving/public-attitudes-to-daylight-saving/ [link to 2008 survey]
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/116204765/little-political-appetite-for-abolishing-daylight-savings [Oct. 2019 article]
There's actually no extra light. The amount of sunshine hours remains the same so the curtain principle is a misnomer.
The only thing that changes is the false equivalence that there is "more" daylight at the end of the working day thanks to the completely artificial and unnecessary time shift.
Thanks James – I found 'daylight saving' useful/helpful/beneficial on occasion. Wouldn't miss it now, although that's just a personal (minority) view.
If you pull your curtains across at a set time, say 7 pm, then with daylight saving they get an hours extra daylight on them. It would be balanced by getting an hours less in the morning but that only works if the sun light strikes them in the morning as well as the evening i.e. they face the right way for that to happen.
Of course, the person could delay pulling their curtains across but maybe they need the room dark to watch Shortland Street.
'The Germans' (well, the federal government of Germany), of course, favour a permanent switch to daylight saving, not the abolition of it.
“Daylight saving should be scrapped”
I'm retired, so it makes little difference to me now, but my sadness used to be at the end of summer when we lost the daylight hours at the end of the day. My way of 'destressing' if I'd had issues during the day at work was to come home and work in the garden – pulling up weeds was especially satisfying! It was very sad when I would lose that every year
Sorry James but I love daylight saving….those long warm summer evenings.
We have had a permanent 30 minute daylight saving in NZ since the 1940s. Midday is 12:30pm.
Yeah … but wasn't it Sandy Edmonds herself who informed us way back in 1967:
"Oh, Daylight Saving Time, you're going to give me more time to find love with my Bay-bee" ?
Wise words indeed.
I'm with you James. I would far rather have the hour of daylight during the day and not late in the evening. I spend the summer throwing imaginary poisoned darts at an imagined effigy of Peter Dunne who was responsible for extending D.S by two weeks at both ends. He did so without consulting the public first – the bastard. 👿
Id vote for the party who has a policy whereby, you can save up all of your unwanted saved daylight and sell it to some nightshift workers.
Of course, that may be someone's attempt to claim fame and put a minor town on the map so to speak.
really needs to be the other way around:
To conserve energy by making better use of daylight.
Then there's the question of if it actually works:
The fact that it was discontinued 1946 and then re-introduced in 75 may indicate that it does work for saving electricity in NZ.
Or, it could just be that people liked it.
It's a frigging horrible idea, and it was typical of fright wig bowtie boy Dunne to make a bad idea worse.
"Paul Goldsmith is floundering", Labour's Grant Robertson says.
Goldsmith says he doesn't "accept that at all".
Welll…denial aint a river in Egypt : )
Pauley's a willing servant who knows he's in way over his head with no signs of surfacing.
He represents their lack of depth once you look beyond the bluster front of JC/GB as another career trougher who's coat tailed the likes of Banksy.
However, this theme has little to do with with the budget and a lot to do with projecting a lack of credibility on Goldsmith. The budget is still a forecast so its too early to claim whos figures are right and whos are mistaken (probably both will be way off).
Its quite funny to see the claim by Robertson that there are serious consequences for such mistakes in the budget while in office. This is because the 'mistake' occurred by using figures from a previous budget so exactly the same magnitude of mistake was made by Robertsons govt in office during that previous budget. Will there be consequences? No, will there be further revisions, yes every 6 months.
And how is his Credibility looking? You know ….as a Potential NZ Finance Minister an all : )
Credibility is not that important to me (and no I am in no danger of voting for National). I am just suggesting your being sucked into a partizan narrative which don't rest on anything concrete.
"Credibility is not that important to me" ? Surely you jest : ) As Credibility…
"Credibility has two key components: trustworthiness and expertise, which both have objective and subjective components."
Not at all. Russell Norman lost his credibility when he highlighted that the RBNZ could implement QE to assist the country. It clearly now could and has.
Actually, I think that there is evidence of where National's policies have been bad for the economy but that this ain't that evidence.
What Robertson should be doing is pointing to National's similar policies from before and show the deleterious effect that they had rather than this see, he got the numbers wrong approach which, as you say, isn't really proving anything except that Robertson's a dick.
"proving anything except that Robertson's a dick" Well…maybe to you and Nic the Not national voter..
Robertson ,and I'm pretty sure the Labour Govt (and Voters) are quite within their rights to ponder on a Potential Finance Ministers competence.
Robertson's using belittling tactics which is a dick move especially when it really is a fact that the numbers really are inconsequential.
And I'm on record as saying his competence is in question because it would only have taken the use of a simple search/replace function in a spreadsheet to get the numbers right.
It is a dick move, yes, but it's also rubbing National's collective face in the excrement of its own narrative that it is better at managing the economy, because it can do difficult things like accountancy and reading spreadsheets and stuff. It would be unfair for Labour to claim that it is better because it can do those things mroe competently, but it is entirely fair for it to hold National to that standard (even if it's still a dick move).
Nic has a valid point however , competent or not both are trying to sell a message based on wishful thinking by crystal ball gazers at Treasury….garbage in garbage out.
Stuffing up the numbers on that scale seems concrete enough.
The numbers are less then half a percent of the budget, less than a rounding error.
If only they were just rounding errors. It also depends on how/where you round, e.g. to the nearest billion.
Look, at the end of the day, pretty ok is ok enough for National just as pretty legal was ok. And if National’s economic
shamblesplan is genuinely reflecting what Paora believes then that’s ok with Judith. Apparently. And if it’s ok with Judith then the great unwashed the plebswe must be ok with it too because National MPs are our natural leaders. Plus they have a rich imaginationtradition in creating holes out of nothing.
That, Incognito is priceless. Lol
The differences are largely due to updates between the budget and the pre election budget update, so the scale of his differences is the same as the scale of the treasury revisions.
Its also clear this scale of error is completely inconsequential compared to how far the countries budget shifted due to the GFC and Covid lockdowns. If your not able to see those kinds of budget shifts there is hardely any point being concerned about 4 billion one way or the other in 14 years time.
We could consider
Bill English put no money into the NZSF, if he had the government would be about $10B better off than it is now (you know $10B more in the fund than the inputs).
Goldsmith thinks by doing the same he will have our debt lower than Labour by 2035, so how clever is he and National.
Having debt **** dollars lower when that **** would multiply in the NZSF (and you know debt is real cheap at the moment and that means rising asset values) is not the smart play.
Put it this way – property investors can pay down debt while mortgage costs are cheap, or they can borrow more and buy another property. Which one delivers the better return? Anyone trying to buy a first home over the past 5 years knows the answer.
Or another way does Goldsmith have a rental while with a mortgage on his home?
It’s pretty obvious National prefers to pay down debt and then siphon out money for tax cuts – so they can buy another investment property. They think like looters.
"Paul Goldsmith is floundering"
If only Paul would go floundering. Something that requires actual physical and mental skill (dare I say talent). And if done sustainably within bag limits, achieves good things – feeding whanau and lots of delicate, buttery tastiness with chips and/or salad.
Sadly Paul is not that useful. Resembling a 1990's Alfa Romeo from the height of the Rogernomics era – superficially attractive, but shoddily-built, grotesquely unreliable and deadly if anything goes wrong.
denial isnt a river in egypt, but dont think there is anywhere to flounder in epsom. flounce, yes, founder probably.
Re latest outbreak of Covid from person who travelled in from India and has now possibly infected people from many parts of NZ
“Bloomfield said he did not think fear of Aucklanders was justified”
Fear of Aucklanders who travelled away from Auckland while in Level 3 and 2.5 and who have recently arrived in this country is justified.
It is justified until people arriving from countries in the grip of the Covid Pandemic are
1/ testing negative before leaving that country although I know it doesn,t mean they are 100% clear but it is a good start.
2/ do not rush off travelling around NZ catching up with families and friends as soon as they come out of quarantine because 14 days is only a probable indication that someone is not infected.
3/ and best would be not to allow anyone in from countries experiencing current high levels of Covid infection to begin with.
Once out of 14 day isolation a stay at home for a week (all members in the house to stay home for a week, everyone to get tested on day 6) and no travel out of the region for 2 weeks once the 1 week at home is completed.
If I heard correctly during the debate the other night Jacinda said that the number of returnees are slowing and that is what would give space for the 1000 essential workers a month. But if demand is slowing why not just reduce the number coming through and forget about the essential workers – that alone would help reduce risk.
Plus it's really starting to take off again overseas with the northern winter so yes lengthier quarantines and possible border closure plus strict auditing of the practices of all the airlines flying here – the news reports are unclear but one referred to a charter flight – plus maybe more pre quarantine before leaving to try to reduce the number of infections that actually get on the plane.
I for one have stopped trying to plan anything away from home.
Already happening in the transit hubs..i.e Dubai and HongKong….you cant board without a negative test result if transiting through these hubs
No. It means nothing. Just sounds good when people say it, hence Nats doing so.
Running a pre leaving quarantine in an airport hotel for a few days pre departure whilst not being perfect might help though. Plus testing of course. Airlines to include this with the fares package from high risk departure points.
A few days, also nothing.
How do you know the room has been cleaned properly, very little of the world is anywhere near as thorough as NZ, that's why its fun to travel and see what you can catch.
That's true about foreign diseases, I bought back bilharzia (parasitic flatworm in the bladder) from Malawi many moons ago and dengue fever came back with me from Cambodia a few years back.
And we could train ourselves some of these dogs to use as well. Maybe fly them offshore to sniff out the boarding passengers.
I thought animals could catch it. We wouldn't want to encourage the nasty to jump the species barrier. So no sniffers I think. But good try.
This is a job for the Hero Rats.
Yes, animals can get infected with Covid-19.
Apparently not through sweat samples.
explain this to me. Because lessening the number of people with covid getting on a plane seems like a no brainer. There are significant fairness and logistics issues that might make that not viable, but that's a different issue.
This conversation already happened a few weeks ago. A negative test means nothing of any value. Everyone needs to be handled as if they are infectious anyway.
that's not an explanation, it's an assertion (which is what I've seen a lot of).
Is there any chance of someone on a plane being infected by someone else on a plane with covid even where everyone is handled as if they are infectious?
This has already been explained here.
not that I've seen, at least not adequately.
I'm pretty sure it has been discussed before, when some politician or media opinionator blithely demanded everyone be tested before they come, so therefore there would be no need for quarantine (something like that).
Firstly, we have no control over the labs, or even whether the "test results" a passenger provides are genuine. Even an "accredited provider" could have an employee on the take.
Secondly, the gap between testing and travel can be an incubation period, or an opportunity to catch the disease.
Thirdly, they could catch it actively in transit. Especially as aircraft air conditioning is notoriously bad quality (to save fuel they suck in the minimum amount of fresh air).
Fourth, and most importantly, it doesn't really change anything, other than costing money to administer and monitor. We'd still need to quarantine everyone who arrives. It might not even lower the number of infected people coming in, depending on track and trace efforts in origin countries.
If it gets to the stage of "spit in a cup, two seconds later you get 99.99% (insane) accurate red light or green light at the boarding gate even if you just got exposed in the taxi to the airport", maybe it might be a better pandemic purchase than a million new masks. But then we'd be doing it for community surveillance first.
thanks McFlock. Much of that fits into the logistics make it not viable at this stage category, rather than it being a bad idea per se. If we put aside National's policy (which wasn't well thought out), and just look at if testing before getting on a plane could useful or not, I've yet to see the rationale for why not.
If the goal is to reduce transmission on the plane, then pre-travel testing may be useful once the tech, logistics and economics work.
McFlock very concisely explained the rationale – nothing to do with logistics:
the point of testing before travel isn't to pick up all cases of covid, it's to lessen the risk of transmission from low symptom/pre symptomatic people (or people hiding/minimising symptoms). The point isn't to say negative tests = covid free or establish the plane as covid free (that's not possible), but to catch the positive tests and not let them on the plane.
So the first two points in your quote are irrelevant to what I am saying. The last point doesn't make sense, because anyone not let on the plane is one less person needing Q at this end.
I can't be bothered arguing about this when it has been discussed before. Enjoy your day.
Sure, but the case still hasn't been made against what I said. McFlock or someone else might pick it up, but it's going to keep coming up and I think telling people who are suggesting it that it's not useful doesn't work without a clear explanation. National's policy was easy to pick apart when it came out, but the general idea isn't going away.
If the tests are quick enough, airports are a logical place to run them.
Asian airports began running thermal cameras (to find passengers running fevers) way back in the swine flu days. It's a cheap unintrusive measure, and if it stops even a handful of further infections, it's worthwhile.
Serology tests make sense also
On the basis of our knowledge and understanding of viral infectivity and host response, we urge countries without the capacity to do molecular testing at scale to research the use of serology tests to triage symptomatic patients in community settings, to test contacts of confirmed cases, and in situational analysis and surveillance.
Though, as McFlock notes, we still need to maintain our isolation protocols.
It depends where you come from, which airline you travel with, and where you catch your connecting flight. For example:
These requirements change all the time!
But it doesn't actually change the situation at the NZ end. Flights will still be bringing in infected people. Everyone still needs to be quarantined.
Different actors have different priorities. Airlines need to minimise covid disruption to their workforce, so slow down the amount of time before the pursar gets infected. Testing might marginally help them do that.
NZ govt priority is to make sure that people getting off the plane don't release it into the community. So regardless of the preflight test result, everybody goes into isolation. It's even possible that mandatory preflight testing might not even effect NZ numbers at all, given the people who provide a negative 3 day test and positive towards the end of their isolation.
"But it doesn't actually change the situation at the NZ end"
Can you please explain how preventing someone from getting covid doesn't affect the NZ end? There's the person who doesn't have the illness and potentially end up disabled (or dead). And there's potentially one less person's need for ICU etc.
I understand the public health management perspective, but I don't understand the argument that the pragmatics of that mean there is no benefit at all. If someone gets on the plane with covid and infects another person on the plane, and that could have been prevented, is this not a good thing irrespective of how the prevention of spread is handled at the NZ end?
"NZ govt priority is to make sure that people getting off the plane don't release it into the community. So regardless of the preflight test result, everybody goes into isolation."
You do understand that this is completely irrelevant to what I am saying right? It's a given that everyone goes into isolation at the NZ end.
Incognitio, is that change because of better knowledge of how covid works? Or changes in govt covid response?
I don’t know but I assume that it is a combination of changing knowledge & information, PR & politics, and economic/profit motives. I believe airlines and airports can set their own rules as they see fit. I’ve read that some (?) countries require a negative test result less than 96 hours old upon boarding and some upon arrival, which can make a big difference on long-haul flights. Of course, it changes all the time …
Stuart, that's from July, would be interesting to see what the position is now.
Yes anyone going through a number of hubs (Dubai and Hong Kong plus possibly others im unaware of) are required to show a negative test before boarding their flight at departure point….however that test is up to 4 days old, and as has been pointed out by others there is the possibility of poor testing practice and false negatives (low viral load etc)….the regime however already exists and may add a marginal improvement in the numbers arriving in NZ without infection and all the implications of such.
NZ demanding a negative test before departure in addition to these hubs however presents problems for travellers (these are largely NZ nationals remember) in areas without easy access to testing for that marginal benefit.
It seems to me that the process as it currently operates is operating at both a practical and safe level …no process is going to be 100%.
The call strikes me as a beat up largely for political purpose.
As I said, It's even possible that mandatory preflight testing might not even effect NZ numbers at all, given the people who provide a negative 3 day test and positive towards the end of their isolation.
If someone is severely ill, they're not travelling anyway.
If someone is a close contact, chances are that they've been identified and tested by the country of origin's public health service, anyway.
That leaves a narrow window of people who have it, are not yet symptomatic, have not been identified as a close contact, have not tripped any airline criteria or criteria in the country of origin, but would trip a further preflight test. It does nothing to identify the people who catch it on the ride to the airport. The likelihood is that testing with even a few hours turnaround would detect bugger all otherwise-undetected-until-in-NZ cases
An all it takes is thousands of staff hours to administer when they could be doing other stuff like contact tracing or procuring equipment for those ICU beds.
It sounds great. But it has no known benefit (how many cases it would actually prevent in the real world) and potentially astronomical costs (how to administer a system that is not easily compromised) and could well require some complex international cooperation (NZ oversight of labs? Do we test the people and ship the samples back here doubletime for testing – how to avoid customs delays? Or do we hope a certified form is as good as doing the job ourselves?).
Interesting observation since the debate. Quite voluntarily, people since then that I have come across have expressed their intense dislike for Judith Collins and the way she behaved. Hopefully that reaction is widespread.
Both Ardern and Collins were just being themselves, so that reaction is natural – what we (NZers) see is what we (will/would) get.
After an MMP election, the politicians dick around working out who they are going to partner up with – it can take two or three weeks. Usually, the country carries on and, as my father say, it just shows how little we need politicians. But this time getting the politicians back to working again ASAP and making decisions about covid-19 is going to be vitally important – what happens if we have an outbreak while the politicians are negotiating about who is going to be in power? Who is going to be making decisions about going to level 2, 3 or 4?
In this time and place, we really need a definitive result before the end of election night.
It is a bit alarming – but I imagine one of the senior health officials has the powers to act without government instruction in what would be an emergency. If not, some combination of MoH and the military isolation staff should get a containment brief until the silly season is over.
Actually we spend 2 weeks waiting for the result (even longer this time). No government can be formed before then. But usually under MMP we have known who would lead the government already on election night (99, 02, 08, 11, 14).
2017 was the first time since 2005 that we had to wait for negotiations, and even then we knew Clark would be PM, but not who with.
But it won't be as bad (or as good?) as Belgium, which went almost 600 days without a government in 2010-11 and another year without one in 2018-19.
Whatever happens Ardern remains caretaker PM until she or someone else is sworn in by the Governor-General.
Decisions about alert level changes during that period would presumably require consultation with the leaders of the parties in the (new?) parliament. But if the election result is conclusive other parties couldn’t push their views too strongly.
That's right – Ardern is caretaker PM, and the caretaker convention applies, as always.
This is the case even if Labour get 99% of the vote on election night. There is no result. There never is on election night.
I think Auckland people should have to stay in place not travel around. There are enough of them to make their own economy. The rest of NZ can visit them. I notice that Aucklanders have got the money to go visiting, and the sheer numbers of them and the propensity of that area to carry Covid 19 increases the likelihood of the disease being spread.
Keep them home, let them enjoy the wonderful, world class Auckland amenities on their doorstep. They can host whoever from the rest of the country and get business, and we'll take our chances on Covid-19 if we go there.
Also let's have a direction from MoH to keep wearing face masks. I notice little hand washing, mask wearing. We are getting casual about individual responsibility.
At least keep them out of Te Wai Pounamu,. How long is it now that we have not had a community case ..120+days ?.
Diana tried to find a way to use her position and fame to act for better ways and helping humanity. Now Prince Harry and Meghan are getting the ire of the upper class twits in the UK and USA. It's not easy being green etc.
It’s hard to see any way back into the Royal family for Harry and Meghan after risky decision to appear in US voting video
It’s one thing for Meghan to nail her political colours to the mast – but quite another for Prince Harry to do the same…
About: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have caused plenty of controversy recently, but now the couple have drawn the ire of President Donald Trump by appearing together in a US voter registration drive video. Camilla Tominey explains why the move could prove a point of no return for the Duke.
Take a break from angry stress – let Jonathan Pie do it for you. This one from 2017 about the curbing of free speech by the people who believe in always being 'naice' and well-behaved – sort of like The Charge of the Light Brigade in the face of overwhelming fire.
That's the spirit – no, no, wrong – don't show spirit, just grit teeth and carry on with the right behaviour like gutless little wimps. So Jonathan Pie gets exercised and shows how to be dynamically charged.
I think balance is what is needed, trying to decide where excess should be curbed but recognising that life is dynamic – we can't cope if we are milksops.
National has thrown caution to the wind in a last ditch attempt to increase their vote share at election time….suspect ACT is gaining too much of their support for comfort.
Reduced brightline test period
Repealing much of Climate Act
Repealing much of water strategy
cancelling minimum wage increase
If ever anyone needed confirmation that a continuation of the failed migration/housing low wage imported growth model is all they have to offer then it has just been given.
National…governing for the top quintile since forever
We knew they would.
but hoped they wouldnt
With the school holidays upon us, to all the parents, grandparents, caregivers etc out there…. may the force be with you for the next two weeks
Go it with some bright blues and pazazz just like the Blues Brothers being good.
Have a Happy Day with choir of children and then nuns and Whoopi Goldberg:
At the very limits of our atmosphere, where life meets void, two vultures hang, fell-wings spread in a questioning-arc, poised, poisonous; the Eyebrows of Judith;
"National leader Judith Collins refused to criticise two of her MPs for circulating a fake quote from Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on Friday.
Collins said she didn’t think the MPs should take down their posts as they were “genuinely reflecting what they believe.”"
Like Trump before her, Collins is not shy about warning people about what they would get if elected.
Of course it may be that Collins knows that she could not control her caucus especially since she leads by awful example.
I genuinely believe that Matt King and Harete Hipango are things of the past.
Matt King is for the future, at least the coming election. He shows the real calibre of their mob. A smartarse who will gather the votes of similar Northland boofheads.
Fish flapping forlornly on the dry sands of history.
This is extraordinary
The only political party in NZ that has actually mentioned Julian Assange's name
I thought Social Credit expired back in the 80's.
As a teenager ,I remember the unusual looking Vernon Cracknell as the party leader in the 60's and thought he must be a crackpot with fuddy duddy ideas , sort of a crimplene suited joke
It's all about monetary reform and using the Reserve Bank to issue money to fund our Covid recovery .And clearly the policies don't stop there.
Modern monetary theory does seem to have become more topical
What an extraordinary plethora of small parties have been thrown up by Covid
I've never seen so many billboards in the paddocks surrounding our small rural town
My first vote was for them back in 1978, FPP in most electorates meant nothing in those elections – and they were the ones speaking truth about global debt capitalism at the time. Democratic empowerment of the people, then and now was constrained by the expection that government was dependent on tax revenue or affordable levels of debt finance.
Look what the world has come to since then post GFC and the pandemic – it was always possible but only applied to save private sector capitalism and even now dismissed as a way to improve the well being of the people.
It does seem to me that now is the time for a totally different approach to what money is about
After all it's a human construct, not a physical law
Matt Robson, big ups for his support for Assange as well. A man of principle.
Winston Peters is one Maori who doesn't support the others trying to build a cohesive future for all Maori. He is corrupted by what he has achieved for himself.
He isn't funny or satirical like the black man playing out racist expectations in Blazing Saddles. He manages to show black and white attitudes in the one performance, when as the black Sheriff he is threatened by the stock black criminal.
He's Establishment. He'll tolerate no threats to his comfy perch.
Establishment – a useful word that we haven't used much.
Sir David Attenborough…94 years old! What a Man. Worthy of that descriptor. A lifetimes Wealth of Wisdom. .
We ignore at our peril…