Angela Merkel has come out and said she was prevented from from having a dialogue with the Russian President , before leaving the post of German Chancellor.
In an interview with Der Spiegel, she said that the start of the special operation was not unexpected, because the Minsk agreements were destroyed.
Russia's strategy now seems to be to hold the territory they've gained and force the Ukranians to the negotiating table. To this end they are trying to make the rest of the country unlivable in. Given that Ukranian aggression sees no signs of abating, it would seem to be the Russian's only sensible strategy. Tough on Ukranian civilians, of course, but latter seem to be showing no signs of wanting a ceasefire and negotiations, any more than the military.
Describing Ukraine's defence of ITS own country and attempts to regain ITS territory as "aggression" is quite clearly victim blaming, whether you realise it or not.
At present Luhansk, Donetsk, Mariupol etc. belong to Russia, and I don't think Ukraine will be getting them back, so they had best come to terms with Russia before the latter does even more damage to the rest of their country. As I say the ball is now in the Ukranian court. Time, I think, to start negotiations, rather than continue with their aggrefssion.
Well, yes. But you didn't think that Ukraine would gain any territory back following the Russian invasion. So your prediction that Russia will retain those territories is somewhat .. suspect.
Given that Russia attacked a sovereign nation – and is continuing to deliberately bomb civilian infrastructure (and, is apparently unworried by the collateral loss of lives) – I know who I would characterise as the "aggressor"
If you've been fooled once about a maternity hospital, what's to say you've been fooled again? Have a read, keep an open mind.
"A key witness to the widely publicized incident at the Mariupol maternity hospital has punctured the official narrative of a Russian airstrike on the facility, and raised serious questions about Western media ethics. Meanwhile, news of a massacre in the city of Bucha contains suspicious elements."
I've been watching since the Vietnam War and what I've found out is that the media lines we are feed are mostly a constant inversion of the truth, anyone who took any notice of the middle east wars in the last 20yrs will know that. The question I have to ask is why would they suddenly be telling the truth after 70yrs of lying.
The entire civilized world is behind the Ukraine. The fact you seem to want to make common cause with the theocratic monsters of Teheran, the butchers in Beijing, the tinpot despots in Russia, the punctilliously murderous regime in North Korea and the BJP chancers in India is, I guess, a matter for you and your conscience.
The Ukranians are not going to stop their aggression..
Russian mobiks offered up in full-frontal assaults by brutal, corrupt commanders continue dying. Hypothermic Russian mobiks at the tail end of a corrupt logistics chain, denied adequate winter attire, kit, shelter and food continue dying.
There are dozens of videos on telegram channels showing mobs of freezing and apathetic Russian mobiks being killed by AFU drone attacks and artillery strikes. They are untrained, poorly equipped with no warm clothing in sub-zero temperatures and have been basically abandoned by their officers.
The Russian 155th Naval Brigade apparently lost 450-500 men KIA and about the same woulded in just two days frontally assaulting the town of Pavlivka (Donetsk Oblast) – almost all it's infantry, and all it's tanks and AFVs – for zero gain.
This is what happens when a regime run by criminal desperadoes who have no regard for human life fight a war.
Everyone suffers, but at least the AFU sooldiers are dying for the noblest of causes – to defend their homeland from an invader.
Snow on the ground and some of the poor buggers appear to have no gloves. Another fortnight and night temperatures will be below -10°C and not rise until late February, the ground will be frozen solid so they won't be able to dig in, artillery will be more effective, Kälteidiotie, cold idiocy, will set in and a night out in the open will be unsurvivable.
And Poots knows it, hence the must negotiate talking point pushed by hishasbarists.
TBH it seems clear the Russian high command is simply sacrificing some of the first wave of mobiks as speed bumps while other units get better training and equipment. A criminal waste of life, but who would notice another crime from Putins gangster state?
Yup, one rifle, two men. There's a short video of a Chehcen, apparently identified by the red trainers they wear, NVKD like barrier troop blocking a Russian serviceman on a rural road and beating him around the head as he was sending him back to wherever he'd come from.
Well, no. Russia's sensible strategy would be to withdraw behind the previous frontier – and declare a cease-fire & request negotiations. Of course, Putin shows no signs of 'sensible' in any of his communications.
I fail to see how conducting some kind of scorched earth policy – self-proclaimedly against civilian targets – is in any way admirable.
This type of 'attack the civilians' policy would be condemned – and very rightly so – by the left across the world – if just about any other country were conducting it.
Why on earth would you support it as in any way admirable?
Well, no. Russia's sensible strategy would be to withdraw behind the previous frontier – and declare a cease-fire & request negotiations. Of course, Putin shows no signs of 'sensible' in any of his communications.
That would not be sensible. The ball is in the Ukranians’ court: they need to negotiate.
A brutal and genocidal Fascist enemy from a despotic country run like a giant criminal enterprise launch an unprovoked invasion of New Zealand. Only after a most desperate and valiant defense they are repelled from seizing Auckland and Wellington in coup-de-main.
After heavy fighting, they retreat to Northland, Taranaki and the King Country after looting anything of vlaue and destroying everything they can't steal – leaving behind tales of torture, rape and mass graves of anyone who dared to say they were a proud New Zealander.
After months more of fighting, they are driven out of Northland in a brilliant counter attack and forced to retreat from the King Country. The enemy is on the backfoot, our Allies have supplied us with heaps of weapons. Just Taranaki and bits of Whanganui remain held by the invaders. The invaders respond by annexing all of the territory they’ve occupied and constantly repeating maximalist war aims that include the complete destruction of the New Zealand stae and it’s absorption into their country.
Thousands and thousands on New Zealand soldiers have died to liberate their country. We are united in our determination to drive out the invader. The enemy responds to defeat by mercilessly bombing our hydropower stations, and blowing up the Cook strait cable. They begin attacking our cities indiscrimantely with hundreds and hundreds of cruise missiles in a deliberate attempt to terrorize us into submission, weapons against which we have little initial defense and whose bombardment our citizens must endure.
mikesh says we should negotiate, because to continue to defeat the invader to liberate all our land and free our people would be unnecessarily aggressive.
You seem to me to be the sort of Quisling who would welcome your new overlords and take every opportunity to inform on the resistance because you want to be on what you assume to the winning side, and you didn't like the government anyway.
A brutal and genocidal Fascist enemy from a despotic country run like a giant criminal enterprise launch an unprovoked invasion of New Zealand. Only after a most desperate and valiant defense they are repelled from seizing Auckland and Wellington in coup-de-main.
How awful. When did that happen? Are any of our cities still standing. I would hope that we did not mount a defense on the basis that Uncle Sam would assist us, and then found that he let us down, being only interested in supplying weapons.
You missed out the rather important part of the story where New Zealand was shelling enemy territory for 8 years prior, and not allowing some of the enemy territories any independence. Just the main precursor for the war… don't worry though it sort of ruins a good piece of fiction.
You missed out the rather important part of the story where New Zealand was shelling enemy territory for 8 years prior,
That is a selective simplification of a much more complex matter. And rather leaves out the small matter of Russia invading and annexing Crimea at the same time. Hardly a gesture that was going to assure the Ukrainians of Putin's fine brotherly intentions.
Hmm, that's a written history of a war that relies heavily on references from the BBC and a Ukrainian newspaper. Would I be right to question that history?
The other point I would make is that it makes no mention of the ongoing shelling in the Donbass, that has been reported by countless independent media, and seems to have a lot to do with why Russia got involved.
I appreciate there a lot of reasons not to unthinkingly trust any media source these days maui. I think most of us struggle with making sense of the world one way or another. I don't expect perfection from anyone, but I do try to understand what direction they are heading in – up or down?
Setting aside the politics, perhaps one good measure of this is the resolve and morale of the Ukrainian people themselves. Their courage and sacrifice has meant their military has completely outperformed all pre-war expectations – and on that undeniable basis I give them them my support.
Oh, so Russia doesn't need to negotiate…. because they hope that they can sufficiently destroy civilian life in Ukraine, so that Ukraine will offer an unconditional surrender.
And, you, apparently, feel this is a worthy strategy. My contempt is deep.
Luckily, your opinion doesn't seem to be widely shared on the left – judging from the spectacular lack of support on TS – (or in the centre, or, to be fair, by much of the right).
This style of jackbooted militarism seems to be out of favour with most civilized countries.
Tell me, if this was the US – launching an attack on Mexico – and raining down missiles on the civilian infrastructure to force a surrender – would you still be so supportive of the military strategy? I somehow, think not.
So the situation is hopeless. Neither side wishes to negotiate. So the mayhem continues. Do you think that is a good thing?
It is not Russia's cities being bombed, so the ball is in Ukraine's court.
It is not that I approve of any of of this. I’ve simply resigned myself to the fact that Russia will not relinquish her gains willingly. It’s just not going to happen.
It's Russia doing the bombing. The ball is in Russia's court. They can stop any time they please.
You haven't answered my question BTW.
"Tell me, if this was the US – launching an attack on Mexico – and raining down missiles on the civilian infrastructure to force a surrender – would you still be so supportive of the military strategy? I somehow, think not."
Exactly. If Russia removed all of it's troops back to the widely recognised 2014 borders and stopped bombing Ukraine – the war would be over tomorrow. (The converse – Ukraine invading and bombing Russia being exceedingly unlikely in the current circumstances.)
Unfortunately because nothing the Russians sign up to can be relied upon – Ukraine would also have to become a full member of NATO. As have Sweden and Finland.
just because youre a quitter, dont expect the ukrainians to do the same. and if you any sort of student of history, you will know that once invited, the russians stay and expand.
Tell me, if this was the US – launching an attack on Mexico – and raining down missiles on the civilian infrastructure to force a surrender – would you still be so supportive of the military strategy? I somehow, think not.
I don't know. I could only answer such a question if it happened, and I was able to look at the surrounding circumstances. Unlike you I first of all apply the the "little grey cells" (to plagiarize Agatha Christie).
"The ball is in the Ukranians’ court: they need to negotiate."
They are negotiating – on the battlefield, which is the only negotiation that will work. Russia has proven entirely unreliable in all agreements previously. Not to mention being murderous, looting, raping war criminals.
Every democratic country should assist Ukraine with their "negotiations" to the maximum extent possible.
“Every democratic country should assist Ukraine with their "negotiations" to the maximum extent possible.”
Every democratic country should have made clear right from the start – even before the invasion started – that Ukraine would not be accepted as a member of NATO, and they should not have pledged support for Ukraine against Russia. As Kissinger pointed out at a recent conference countries in the area, such as Ukraine and Finland, should follow a policy of strict neutrality.
As for “sovereign rights”, rights come with obligations.
Ukraine gets to decide who they want to play with on the international stage. Russia doesn't get a veto – just because they *used* to be the imperial power.
The parallels with Czechoslovakia and Nazi Germany are too stark for anyone with even a modicum of historical knowledge. Which is why Europe pledged support against Russia.
Ukraine gets to decide who they want to play with on the international stage. Russia doesn't get a veto – just because they *used* to be the imperial power.
Fine. So they accept the consequences. Russia's alarm at their joining N'ATO is understandable.
If the consequences of exercising your sovereignty is your neighbour declaring war on you (because we all know that's what it is despite Putin's fig-leaf of a "special military operation") – then one can see why Ukraine would seek support from other countries.
Your metaphorical rabbit hole is getting very dark.
"Might makes right" is a philosophy – but not one I'd expect to see espoused on TS.
Sovereignty does not give them the right to threaten a neighbouring country. Clearly, their joining NATO is a threat to Russia, as also is their stated intention to obtain ownership of Crimea, presumably by invasion as Russia is not going to give it up.
Russia also has a fear of fascists, which is understandable given their experience of WWII.
You mean the Crimea – which was outright stolen from Ukraine in 2014 – in a military annexation!
Ukrainian fascists are Ukraine’s problem. Not Russia’s. That’s what sovereignty means.
Eastern Europe also has a fear of Russians, which is understandable, given their experiences in the latter half of the 20th century – considerably more recently than WWII.
“You mean the Crimea – which was outright stolen from Ukraine in 2014 – in a military annexation!”
Both Crimea (and Ukraine were part of Russia prior to the early nineties, when Ukraine gained independence. This had been the case since Tsarist times. When Ukraine became independent the Crimean population, who were mostly Russian anyway, made it clear that they did not wan to be part of Ukraine, preferring to be either completely independent or part of Russia. So Ukraine effectively 'stole' Crimea at that time.
"When Ukraine became independent the Crimean population, who were mostly Russian anyway, made it clear that they did not wan to be part of Ukraine, preferring to be either completely independent or part of Russia. So Ukraine effectively 'stole' Crimea at that time."
Do you have any evidence that the overwhelming majority of the population in Crimea A) didn't want to be part of Ukraine in 1991 (at the time of independence); and/or B) still didn't want to be part of Ukraine in 2014 (when Russia invaded)?
Evidence, that is, other than Russian propaganda.
In any case, military annexation was a violation of Russian agreements to safeguard the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
"Do you have any evidence that the overwhelming majority of the population in Crimea A) didn't want to be part of Ukraine in 1991 (at the time of independence); and/or B) still didn't want to be part of Ukraine in 2014 (when Russia invaded)?"
Referenda were held on both occasions. And both indicated that the majority did not want to be part of Ukraine.
That video ("MAIMED In A PLAYGROUND") provides zero evidence of who deployed the mine in question. Curiously, it is the Russians who have been documented hitting playgrounds etc with missiles.
Here is an article that discusses the presence of PFM ("petal") mines in Ukraine:
Human Rights Watch notes that Ukraine signed up to the Ottawa ban on anti-personnel mines, while Russia did not. The loudest accusations of Ukraine using PFM mines come from Russian government sources ('accuse the other side of that which you are guilty').
Russian forces have used at least seven types of antipersonnel mines in at least four regions of Ukraine: Donetsk, Kharkiv, Kyiv, and Sumy. This marks an unusual situation in which a country that is not party to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty uses the weapon on the territory of a party to the treaty
There is no credible information that Ukrainian government forces have used antipersonnel mines in violation of the Mine Ban Treaty since 2014 and into 2022.
Well maybe Human Rights Watch reckons "no credible info " that Ukraine has used petal mines etc but ive seen lots of video showing widespread dissemination of 'petal 'mines in Donetsk .Tanks in one example running up and down city streets trying to explode as many as possible .Mines scattered accross rooftops ,verges ,streets ,parks etc even video of neighborhood kids deliberately detonating them with air rifles !!
Some months ago since their initial use but i'll endeavour to track some down by the way yr first link does'nt work just comes up 'Forbidden' !
That is another video reporting the presence of PFM mines in Donetsk (which is not disputed)….but the question is – who put them there?? Several times the video says "Ukrainians" but provides no actual evidence that it was Ukraine at all.
Russia was notorious for widespread use of PFM mines in Afghanistan and have refused to sign treaties banning them. Ukraine on the other hand signed the treaty in 1997 and have been destroying their old stocks of them.
Other banned anti-personnel mines have been scattered in Ukraine (POM-2, POM-3), and these are mines that Ukraine has never possessed but which Russia has plenty of.
What possible reason would Russia have to deliberately over time pollute the cities of its allies and countrymen with antipersonnel mines ???
Seems to me that the idea of Russia shelling its own infrastructure or that it controls is inherently flawed although that is exactly what we are ever increasedly expected to believe !!
So following Ukraine's warped logic Russia shells its own pow facility ,was plotting to blow the dam across the Dnipro river in order to drown its own soldiers and wash away the pontoon bridges that were the only supporting structures of a precariously held bridgehead !!??Likewise we're expected to believe they'd shell a nuclear power station that they are guarding ?!!Do you not get the impression that we are getting bullshitted to by Ukraines ott propaganda dept ?
Perhaps Ukraine's signature on the landmine agreement signifies good intent but its by no means clear how much ordinance it has left undestroyed and the fact that it has been shelling civilians in Donetsk for a very long time would tend to support the contention that it was Ukraine that spread the petal mines imo.
For the most part Merkel seems to have been guilty of believing that trade alone could be a path toward unity and peace. Sadly for her that was never a sufficient condition. In my view until both the Kremlin and the CCP fully repudiate their marxist heritage – neither can be trusted.
With the RBNZ manufacturing a recession to reduce consumer spending those who rent are going to find that difficult as landlords pursue increased passive income:
Trade Me property data shows rental prices have returned to a record high.
The national median weekly rent was $580 last month, matching the record prices recorded in April.
It was an increase of $20 per week, or 4 percent compared with October last year.
That was despite the oversupply of rental properties on the market.
…
He said in particular the official cash rate hike was likely to flow on to rental prices.
“It’s a cost for a landlord out there, and unfortunately in some cases what we do see is that cost does come across to rents.”
…
Lloyd said the trend of high rental prices was expected to continue over the next year.
Rent is an unavoidable cost that is seemingly completely disconnected from traditional supply/demand price fluctuation. The Government must reinstate the Rent Freeze.
It's difficult to accuse landlords of pursuing passive income – when their costs (rates, mortgage, insurance, maintenance, improvements (healthy homes stds), etc.) are also increasing.
Passing these costs on, in the form of rent increases is the way the market operates.
Unless you want the Government to nationalize all rental housing (in which case, bye-bye to any chance of a left government in 2023) – there is little the government can actually do about this.
Perhaps you can point to a successful long-term rent freeze – which has not resulted in 'unintended outcomes'.
What this graph appears to actually show is that inflation is out-stripping wages. Which is not news.
Passive income is any that is generated by capital rather than labour. This is definitionally what property income is. Landlords ‘earn’ profit above and beyond the costs you mention merely by ownership.
The graph is demonstrating that fixed costs for over a million NZers are diverging further and further from affordability. In a functioning market an oversupply of rental properties would result in lower cost rentals, but this is not the case as people have to live somewhere. Landlords are able to make increasing profits from this need for housing, a human right.
Rent controls exist all over the place, can you point to our housing and rental market and say its working for anyone other than Aussie banks and those already owning multiple properties?
In that case, all investments – even your $100 in the bank for a rainy day – is passive income.
Well, yes. Landlords are *running a business* – if they don't make a profit (either in income stream or capital value) – then they exit the market.
If the Government wants to have an 'oversupply of rental properties' – then they need to adjust the costs of construction and supply – as well as making owning rental property an attractive proposition.
I hope this isn't news, but *no one* apart from the government (or those supplying to the government) is building for the lower end of the rental market – because there is literally no money in it. All of the development going on (and most of that is coming to a halt) is at the mid- and upper- end.
If rent controls exist all over the place, perhaps you can point to one working successfully, in a market similar to NZ (i.e. with the majority of the rental stock privately owned).
Yes, all investments are passive income. Most forms of investment aren’t just about rent-seeking though. For the majority of people their only significant source of income is earned income, that which they acquired from their labour.
It’s got nothing to do with what the government wants, there is currently an oversupply of rentals but rental prices have reached record highs despite this. This is isn’t a functioning market.
Until relatively recently both local and central government built and rented low cost housing in significant numbers. Those assets were sold. It was a decision that a less-regulated market would provide what is needed but as you state there is no incentive for businesses to provide for those in need; there’s literally no money in it. One of the major problems of applying ‘market-solutions’ to providing for people.
If we believe that housing is a human right then the government must substantially alter the balance of the current market so that it can perform it’s basic function of housing everyone. As NZ previously demonstrated, and weka’s link explains, social housing is necessary for a more equitable and healthy housing market for everyone. Leaving it to capitalism has demonstrably failed.
It’s got nothing to do with what the government wants, there is currently an oversupply of rentals but rental prices have reached record highs despite this. This is isn’t a functioning market.
Too many have borrowed heavily to get into the market. Now that interest rates have risen their investments have turned bad. To recover they are, by passing on their mortgage costs as part of the rent, trying to make the tenant pay for their "mistakes".
The increase in mortgage costs doesn't mean their investments have turned bad – it means that the cost of operating their 'business' has increased – and they need to increase income (in this case, rent) Just as if you're running a delivery business – the increase in petrol/diesel costs means you have to increase delivery fees; or if you're running a restaurant – the increase in staff costs means you have to increase prices.
The higher LVR means that they have quite a cushion in terms of property price before they'd be in negative equity territory. Remember that a 20% drop (which is what the RB is signalling) just puts prices back where they were in early 2020.
it means that the cost of operating their 'business' has increased – and they need to increase income (in this case, rent)
It is only the interest component of the mortgage that has recently become non deductible. The principal was never deductible. However the mortgage, both principal and interest, represents the cost of the house to the landlord, and has nothing to do with the tenant. The tenant should not have to pay for the landlord's property, so the mortgage should not be a determinant of how much rent he pays. If the cost to the landlord of operating his business has increased and that increase is due to an increase in mortgage costs, then so be it: he has simply made a bad business decision and he is being "punished" by the market. That's what capitalism is all about.
AFAIK – there isn't a political party in NZ which has this rather radical policy – to prevent landlords from recouping interest costs or even capital repayments from rental income.
And, no. No business owner makes the decision to just give up because costs have increased. They first look to see if they can increase their income.
Do you also propose that trucking firms should somehow absorb petrol/diesel price rises? And that restaurants should somehow absorb the increased cost of staffing? Should they, too, be "punished by the market" for making bad business decisions?
Of course, if it is not possible to increase income to offset increased costs, then the landlord goes out of business – and sells up – potentially at a loss; just as the trucking firm and restaurant also go broke.
Your argument seems to be that, like Weka, you regard rental housing as a public good – and that, therefore it should not be commercialized (i.e. it should all be government owned, or owned by non-profit entities; and rents should be controlled by the ability to pay.)
Well and good – but not practical in NZ. Unless you have a realistic pathway to get there from here.
“Do you also propose that trucking firms should somehow absorb petrol/diesel price rises? And that restaurants should somehow absorb the increased cost of staffing? Should they, too, be "punished by the market" for making bad business decisions?”
No, I do not. I instance interest because, unlike diesel, etc, it is not a true 'business cost'. since businesses don't borrow. Proprietors borrow and the cost of their borrowing, ie interest, is a personal expense. It makes no difference to a business whether or not interest is paid on the capital invested in it.
Some have argued that it was unfair of Grant Robertson to single out landlords for this treatment and I would agree. Non deductibility of interest should apply across the board; but I guess that's another story
AFAIK – there isn't a political party in NZ which has this rather radical policy – to prevent landlords from recouping interest costs or even capital repayments from rental income.
Raf Manji, leader of the Opportunities Party has mentioned the possibility of preventing banks from lending for the purpose of financing residential rental investments. I don't know whether this was just an off the cuff remark or whether it is TOP policy. If it isn't then I think it should be.
The additive "(sic)" seems entirely appropriate. The author of the link, presumably the RBNZ, seems to have been a little loose in their description of what actually happens. A business is not a person so it cannot walk into a bank and ask for a loan. Only a person, usually the proprietor, can do that.
Accountants have a convention they call the "entity convention". This asserts that the proprietor and his business are separate entities for business and accounting purposes. Interest is an expense incurred for by the proprietor for the purpose of raising capital. It is of no concern to the business.
The Income Tax Act says that an expense is deductible if it is incurred for the purpose of gaining "taxable income". Capital, as any accountant will tell you, is not income, taxable of otherwise, so expenses relating to the raising of capital should not be deductible.
As usual, you concoct your own narrative twisting ordinary language into sophistry and techo-gibberish that only you seem to believe in. Sadly, it doesn’t stop there and you seem to have your own ‘unique’ view of reality that, unfortunately, sucks up a lot of oxygen here.
I would have more respect for your comments if you explained them. For instance, why do you call my comments "sophistries and techno-gibberish"? Do you have an argument to support that claim? If not, then you may as well stop your blathering.
As a matter of interest I took a look at TOP's housing policy as per their website, these are the relevant parts:
introduce a land value tax of 0.75% – a small annual tax paid on the value of urban residential land.*
Remove the current Bright Line Test and allow tax deductibility of interest for landlords, which is replaced by the land value tax.
Require a deposit of 100% of the value of an existing home when purchased for investment purposes.
The third item would seem to prevent borrowing for private rental purposes, so the question of tax deductibility mentioned in the second item would not arise, except for current rentals. The only reason for borrowing would then be to carry out renovations after purchasing, but this would be covered by the new builds provisions presumably. Or for normal business expenses such as rates, insurance, repairs, etc, for cash flow purposes.
This, the third item aside, would bring the business more into line with normal businesses. I still think that all interest should be non deductible, but that, as I said somewhere else in the comments to this blog, is another story.
Same issue with this outrageous 'manufactured recession'. If the market working as it should, screws us over to protect others' "wealth", then it's not fit for purpose as a governing philosophy.
The manufactured recession is a consequence of having to constrain inflation due to lowered interest rates,increased money supply,and keynsian fiscal stimulus that create asset bubbles,that implode leaving both debt,unemployed politicians,and distressed consumers with buyers remorse.
It is an expectation of MPS tightening,why it surprised politicians,shows ignorance rather then discovery,the inability to be able to suggest policy that removes cost,show an inability to govern.
Not all of the inflation is caused by stimulus, some comes from supply chain (foreign and domestic) disruption, including to international logistics (containers etc).
And reducing demand by higher interest rates is not the best way to encourage investment in labour replacement (crop harvesting machines, machine milking and the like). Some of price escalation is caused by monopoly (gib board) practice.
Actions such as lower petrol taxation and a rent freeze also lower inflation.
PS Orr held interest rates down too long, he also allowed investors off the deposit ratio to buy property with cheap money (rather than directing them to new investment to reduce price pressures caused by rental shortage) to increase our collective debt.
Freight rates have been decreasing since March,they are now down to pre covid levels.A substantive portion of the imported inflation is from the depreciation of the NZ dollar,due to capital flight and the appreciation of the US$ as a safe haven,with higher debt liquidity,without the forex hedge costs.
There is no shortage of rental properties,there is a shortage of suitable tenants due to policy changes,and the difficulty in removing poor performing tenants,
"two-thirds of Viennese citizens live in municipal or publicly subsidised housing. "
Which certainly doesn't apply in NZ – and can't, in the near – or even mid- term, without massive Government acquisition of rental property either by paying market price or compulsorily (cf above comment on one quick way to ensure there is no left government in 2023)
"Where rent controls do work, many Viennese agree, is in tandem with Vienna’s vast offering of unghettoised, social housing and an aggressive policy to add more of these homes."
The market doesn't care whether you approve or not. If there is a shortage of housing – and/or increasing provision costs – the price will go up. Whether that's 'officially' or the plethora of ways that a landlord can move out tenants (renovations to meet standards is a current favourite), and re-let at a higher price.
If you want to have massive amounts of government subsidised housing in NZ – then you have to find an effective pathway (i.e. one which can gain electoral support) to get there from here. I've yet to see one which is even vaguely achievable.
The (phased) end of mortgage interest deductability will, with a higher OCR, lead to more sales by landlords (and at lower values than now) to first home buyers.
A rent freeze and the option of 5 year loans (lower than the floating rate of the next year or two) to these first buyers would help. An alternative is for government to buy off landlords and on-sell to first home buyers later when the mortgage rates fall back.
Where do you think the money for the Government to buy from existing landlords is going to come from?
Kainga Ora are well over their current budget for builds both underway and in the planning phase. And, are well behind their targets for getting their current rental stock to meet healthy homes standards.
With the Government being told by the RB to restrain their spending – I doubt a big new property acquisition income stream is going to magically appear.
It's not spending if it is buying and on-selling. It's just a transaction. And Orr is not boss of government, and governments can borrow on the bond market anytime they want.
It most certainly is spending. If you (the government) purchase something, then you need to have the income stream to do so (it has to be in the budget somewhere).
You (the government) may later sell off part of your assets – and that then becomes positive cash balance in a later budget cycle.
I really don't think that the government want Orr to be telling the country that increased spending in their 2023 budget will increase inflation even further – so, they will be listening very closely to what he has to say.
Kainga Ora is already using bonds – and, as you can see, it's reported as a liability against the government accounts
One has an income stream from rent to pay the cost of the debt and then the money from selling the property (to those who would buy once the OCR comes back down) to pay the debt back.
Whether the government, or first home buyers borrowing from banks with 5 year loans, buy up property makes no difference to aggregate spending in the economy.
Different budget cycles. Unless you are postulating that prices would crash significantly within a year.
It also postulates a capital loss on every sale (government selling for significantly less than they bought the property) – so you would never recover even the base price from sales – let alone the borrowing costs.
Rental income might cover the borrowing costs (maybe…) – but wouldn't do a thing to cover the capital cost.
Orr is commenting on the *government* needing to restrain spending. And, is also predicting a fall in house prices of around 20% (don't rejoice too soon, that would get us back to about 2020 price levels – hardly sustainable)
A rent freeze would assist house price fall. The government would determine the timing of its buy in.
Rental income might cover the borrowing costs (maybe…) – but wouldn't do a thing to cover the capital cost.
Re-sale would, and there will be more businesses looking at buying into this market with the end of interest deductablility for investors speculating for untaxed CG using borrowed money.
Housing corp has both a budget deficit ( 344 m at 1 july) an increased debt 9.8b 1 July,increasing again ( by 2.3 b in nov) as it now needs to borrow on the government account due to the lack of interest in the secondary bond market.
It now has no ability to repay debt,due to now borrowing for operations and maintenance.A revaluation downwards of 10% in its asset valuations,how does it provide a sustainable income?
"Re-sale would, and there will be more businesses looking at buying into this market with the end of interest deductablility for investors speculating for untaxed CG using borrowed money."
There is no possible way this can be true. If the government buys and then waits for the market to fall before re-selling – as you postulate – there is no possible way that they can recoup even the capital cost – let alone the cost of borrowing.
If the government buys at 1 million – and sells, 3 years later at 750K – they've made an absolute lost of 250K + whatever the borrowing costs might be.
If the government buys and then waits for the market to fall before re-selling – as you postulate
I said
A rent freeze would assist house price fall. The government would determine the timing of its buy in.
Government policy leads to a price fall and then the government buys in and then on sells to first home buyers (they would be still be waiting for mortgage cost to fall).
A devaluation in Housing Corp assets (with a downward correction in the market value) has no impact on its operational finances (just more difficulty borrowing against its assets – which is sorted out via new government input as is the case at present).
The period of greater cost – increasing property to the required standard is a one time thing. And inevitably required government input. Another impost will be sufficiency of disability housing with aging tenants.
People don't spend money, they spend incomes. A money tree does exist: it's called the "velocity of money". As money moves through the economy it creates income, and the faster it moves the more income it creates. If we wish to avoid demand inflation we need to ensure that the flow of goods and services matches that increase in income.
Which certainly doesn't apply in NZ – and can't, in the near – or even mid- term, without massive Government acquisition of rental property either by paying market price or compulsorily (cf above comment on one quick way to ensure there is no left government in 2023)
You didn't ask for an example that could be used by NZ without NZ having to change much. You asked for an example that,
Perhaps you can point to a successful long-term rent freeze – which has not resulted in 'unintended outcomes'.
Which is the standard line from people who believe in TINA. But TINA is something that neoliberals made up. We have choices and TINA basically says fuck off poors, we don't really care about you.
The market doesn't care whether you approve or not. If there is a shortage of housing – and/or increasing provision costs – the price will go up. Whether that's 'officially' or the plethora of ways that a landlord can move out tenants (renovations to meet standards is a current favourite), and re-let at a higher price.
The market is a system that humans created. It doesn't have opinions of feelings. Humans can change that system.
Your example of how the market works fails in two fundamental ways.
we intervene in markets all the time, there is no such thing as free market. The argument is about how we intervene.
Landlords can only move tenants out because the state is intervening in some ways and not others. That's a choice.
Humans rights matter more that the ability of some people to make passive income. What would help change things if is we were honest about the fact that adhering to TINA = relinquishing the right to a healthy and meaningful life.
Apologies for not specifically stating that I was looking for an example of a rent freeze in a country which was comparable to NZ.
Because, right now, all the examples I can see – which are trying to resolve rocketing rents – rather than being long-term 'the way we do business' – have very significant unintended consequences.
If you want to argue for massive state intervention in the market – switching NZ to majority state ownership of rentals – go to.
I'd like to see your thinking on how to get there from here – other than handwavium. Because the budgetary implications are staggering.
However, I don't think a rent freeze is going to win an election for the left in 2023.
Humans matter in lots of ways. Our government doesn't support or fund lots of areas effectively (livable income for sickness beneficiaries, dental treatment, timely hospital care, routine medical treatment, etc.). Housing is just one instance.
If the answer is simple and obvious, then no doubt we'll see it as a central platform of the Left in 2023.
Housing isn't just one of many instances though. It's fundamental to everything. Because we all need a home, and because the cost of housing is now the main driver of poverty here. Anything else the government and NGOs do to alleviate poverty is undermined by the cost of housing. Even raising benefits will partially fail because landlords will raise rents in response.
If the answer is simple and obvious, then no doubt we'll see it as a central platform of the Left in 2023.
Snort, we don't have a left to adopt such a platform. And it's not simple or obvious, it's really fucking complex. TINA arguments make it that much worse.
There are no single, silver bullet solutions. A rent cap would need to be strategic and part of a broader overall plan. Which means not just housing but everything eg we cannot solve the housing crisis without looking at Accommodation Supplement and we can't look at that without looking at benefits and welfare.
Have a look at the GP policy to see where we might go on this.
Well if you are going to abandon market mechanisms altogether – or in your own words:
I don't give a flying fuck about how some people think the market should work. Human rights take precedence.
the alternative you seem to be espousing is that the govt provides housing as 'a human right'. This is your core jsutification.
Now given that human rights are universal, it is fair to ask why the govt would only provide some people with housing and not others. And why it might charge some people more than others. Or why it might provide some people with houses in more desirable places than others. Or newer ones for some people, but not others.
I have lived in such a housing system for a while – a standard Soviet apartment building – but I am not sure this is what you have in mind. Nor what I suspect most New Zealanders would choose either. So if we are to get past the handwavium – how about giving us some hard details as to how you think this human rights based universal state housing system would work please?
As for the Green Party policy – again long on handwavium with multiple contradictions around keeping rents and mortgages less than 30% or 25% – but then nothing on keeping costs down. Quite the opposite a long whole wish list that demand more capital and costs. Even if you want to reject markets altogether I am not sure how anyone can square that circle.
Fuck off Red. I've told you so many times that you are making shit up about what I believe, there's no point in engaging with you seriously. Basically you just take what I say, shift it out of context and/or misrepresent it, and then use that to push your own barrow.
For the benefit of others reading,
I didn't advocate abandoning market mechanisms altogether (and I don't believe in such)
I don't believe that the state should be the sole provider of housing.
I don't give a flying fuck about how some people think the market should work.
That statement is a repudiation of market mechanisms if I ever read one.
If you are going to base your argument that on the idea that housing is a human right – again your words precisely – then they have to be universal. Or do you think some people get different rights to housing depending on intersectionality or something?
yes you quoted my words and completely misunderstood what I meant. This is what I have been saying for ages, you actually don't understand my arguments, politics or position. And you almost never ask for clarification.
And here you are doing it again, thinking you know what I meant when I’ve already told you you don’t and you still don’t ask for clarification.
Combine your statement that emphatically appears to repudiate markets, with your reference to Green Party policy that seems to demand both rental reductions and cost increases at the same time – then you maybe could offer us ignorant ones some clarification about how you think markets should work.
And if you are going to base your argument squarely on the claim that housing is a human right – then you also need to clarify how you think that will work. Because as I explained – there are some fairly obvious practical problems with this approach.
The property market in New Zealand was already overvalued because investment is directed into land ownership as there is no CGT.
And allowing people to speculate by borrowing money cheaply to own property made things worse.
Fortunately there is a plan – end deductability of interest to encourage sale to first home buyers or business ownership (subject to company tax on CG and can claim interest as a cost).
A way to improve on this plan would be a rent freeze and better regulation of property being up to standard. Thus increase the pressure to sell and thus take down property values – fix Orr's mess.
Nah – you resort to the 'you are just making shit up about my views' persecution ploy whenever I offer even the simplest and most obvious challenges.
If you do believe in markets – as you now claim – then how do you markets manage to decrease rental prices while increasing supplier costs at the same time?
And if housing is a universal human right – then how do you allocate it if – as you now claim – you do not think the state should be the universal provider?
These are really obvious questions that did not require me to make up anything.
Current prices are reducing because interest rates have increased.
But unless you happen to have the purchase price sitting around in cash, most people are going to need to borrow – and increasing interest rates will pretty much cancel out any gain from decreasing prices.
And in a falling market, banks quite reasonably tend to demand higher deposit equity – which does not help affordability either.
Worse still if the market falls far enough, as you seem to wish, a large fraction of existing homeowners will go underwater with their mortgage – ie the value of the property becomes less than the mortgage. Which means either they will not sell unless forced to, reducing supply on the market. Or if they do have to sell and wind up with no equity, they finish up back renting again and increasing demand in that sector.
And in Aus and NZ you cannot walk away from a mortgage if you have made a loss on it – the residual debt remains.
Lots of interacting factors your simplistic demand to collapse the property market does not really take into account.
First of all you say you don't give a flying fuck about how other people think markets should work, then you say you don't believe in abandoning market mechanisms altogether, and now you say you 'don't believe in markets'. No wonder no-one knows what you mean, because it seems to shift about from comment to comment.
And when asked how you think the housing market should work when you both reduce rental prices and increase rental costs at the same time – crickets.
Over the years I have contributed both at length and in detail on this topic – in essence arguing that if you are going to try and fix something as complex and important as housing in this country – it would be a good idea to demonstrate that you have a solid, well thought out idea of how it worked. Because in my experience, taking a simplistic blunt hammer to a complex mechanism rarely has the claimed result.
And again if you are going to base your argument on housing being a human right, then it has to be a universal human right. One that only the state can deliver on – universally. That you have not thought this through does not change the fact of it.
First of all you say you don’t give a flying fuck about how other people think markets should work, then you say you don’t believe in abandoning market mechanisms altogether, and now you say you ‘don’t believe in markets’. No wonder no-one knows what you mean, because it seems to shift about from comment to comment.
And again. The reason you don’t know what I think is because you spend all this time, every time, asserting what I think instead of asking. In this case, you are just plain wrong. As I said, I’m not going to talk politics with someone who does this so consistently. What would be the point.
You can also keep asserting your ideas about human rights, but without out referencing the work people have done on the rights to housing and what that means in a HR frame, all that’s happening is you are sitting in a room arguing with a bunch of straw men.
But unless you happen to have the purchase price sitting around in cash, most people are going to need to borrow – and increasing interest rates will pretty much cancel out any gain from decreasing prices.
Everybody has a right to a home, but no-one has an automatic right to own rental properties, Purchasing rental properties increases demand and presumably pushes up prices. Bank lending for that purpose is therefor counterproductive. To become a landlord it should be necessary to either have a spare freehold property that you can rent out, or sufficient dosh to be able, without borrowing, to purchase one. .
The leader of TOP has suggested that banks be prevented from lending for that purpose. I don't know whether this is TOP policy, but I think it probably should be. It would also probably lead to a lowering of rentals since landlords would then have no need to illicitly pass on mortgage costs to tenants.
Everybody? All New Zealanders or everyone on the planet? And do they get a choice of which home, or do you imagine some govt entity would allocate them on what basis?
Perhaps even if they had no income or savings and if this is going to be a proper meaningful right, then it would have to be a free home. But why then would some people get free houses and others have to pay? Maybe they should all be free?
This is the problem with making housing a right. Rights are an abstract universal and apply equally to all humans. Housing is not; they are in different locations, different sizes, styles and quality. Not to mention all differing ages. There is nothing abstract or universal about housing. Jamming the two concepts on top of each other results in an absurd mess the moment you look past the superficial slogan.
In any real world case whether you are borrowing from a bank directly, or indirectly via a landlord (who is effectively providing the equity and creditworthiness you do not have) – there is no such thing as free houses.
The problem extreme left wingers have is they are generally too poor to even qualify for the capital to own a home outright; and deeply resent the fact they have to ask others – either a landlord or a bank – to provide it for them. Hence the blind desire to smash capitalism – rather than make it work intelligently for everyone.
You can also keep asserting your ideas about human rights, but without out referencing the work people have done on the rights to housing and what that means in a HR frame,
Well about three comments ago would have been a good moment to provide a reference. Like how you insist other do all the time.
Everybody? All New Zealanders or everyone on the planet? And do they get a choice of which home, or do you imagine some govt entity would allocate them on what basis?
Oh, stop blathering. People have a right to a home, as distinct from an (automatic) right to own rental properties.
1. they only rose to those levels because Orr facilitated an abnormally low level of mortgage rates.
2. Orr wants an abrupt change to higher than normal mortgage rates to cause a recession.
The guy over-reacts to everything.
The government needs to assist in lowering inflation by freezing rents. If this means there are more landlords willing to sell (before fully impacted by the phasing out of interest deductability) but there is a lack of buyers (waiting for mortgage rates to fall to normal levels) then
1. the government can buy and later on-sell to first homeowners (when the mortgage rates ease)
2. the government and or Orr or the banks could manage this period with more 5 year loans to first home buyers.
Worse still if the market falls far enough, as you seem to wish, a large fraction of existing homeowners will go underwater with their mortgage
You cannot be serious, mortgagee sales only occur when someone cannot pay the mortgage.
Which means either they will not sell unless forced to, reducing supply on the market.
No it does not. How does someone staying in their property reduce the number of houses in the market?
Or if they do have to sell and wind up with no equity, they finish up back renting again and increasing demand in that sector.
If they have to. And not necessarily because if the property goes to a first homeowner, they move into the rental vacated by them elsewhere.
Lots of interacting factors your simplistic demand to collapse the property market does not really take into account.
Appreciate your comments Red, nice to have some logic to the discussions on here.
If housing is a human right, wouldn't food come before that ? Problem is someone else is required on the other side of the transaction to deliver the goods (at no cost ?)
By all means make an argument against the human right to food, I'd like to hear that. But please reference the actual right not what you are imagining.
If housing is a human right, wouldn't food come before that ? Problem is someone else is required on the other side of the transaction to deliver the goods (at no cost ?)
Are you telling that the human right to food is not being met. That's terrible. It's certainly something that should be rectified.
Landlords deduct those costs from rent income before tax on rent is assessed. Rents are higher here than overseas, not because of these costs, but because of seeking a rate of return on the land/property values (which were overvalued and are now falling).
Landlords are losing their right to deduct mortgage cost (where these are existing properties rather than new builds) against rent income. This encourages sales to first home buyers and purchase of new builds.
A rent freeze for a year, alongside the reduction in petrol taxation, is a way to reduce cost in the economy. It would assist the RB in reducing inflation and thus result in an earlier return to lower mortgage rates.
It's a no brainer. And given National would not do it, is an easy political win with renters.
But, also guaranteed to lose votes from all of the Mum and Dad investors (that's around 1/3 of the rental stock in NZ). A heck of a lot of them voted Labour last time. Do you really think Labour want to risk it?
They deserve to lose, if they do not. There are not that many such landlords either. And in any case they are already losing their right (being phased out) to deduct interest under Labour … .
It is dated from 2020 – so may have changed a bit – but I haven't seen anything in the news about the rental property ownership profile changing significantly.
Landlords know that they are losing the right to deduct interest. That's part of the reason that rents have been going up (it's one of the increased costs I mentioned above).
If Labour freeze rent for a year to reduce inflastion, the incentive to these landlords to sell will increase. Labour wants more first homeowners – thus earlier decision to end mortgage deductability. Landlords who own their property without mortgage, or run it as a business (thus can claim interest as a cost and thus pay tax on any sale CG) are not affected. And some investors will buy into 100% property ownership once values fall far enough, as will some companies.
Whereas, my pick is, that they will lose if they do put a rent freeze in place.
Too many middle NZ investors are tied into property. Governments meddle with this at their peril.
Labour would be putting a lot of 'soft' centre votes at risk. These are people who voted Labour in 2020, and like Ardern (or don't like Luxon) – but have no 'tribal' loyalty to Labour.
Put their economic future at risk (most Mum and Dad investors, are doing this to cover their retirement) – and they'll change their votes.
As you point out – rent-freeze policies going to be more popular with the renters – but how many of them vote National or ACT (or, vote at all, for that matter)?
The polls indicate they have already moved from Labour, and given National's offering the return of interest deductability (and threshold movement), for mine Labour's best chance is to hold down rent costs and make the chance of owning greater.
Currently our level of home ownership is lower than that of the UK and it is going down. Labour has to be seen to be acting.
And its actions need to also include houses to get people out of motels (before on-selling them later).
I don't think that would work. A "business vehicle" – company, trust, partnership, or whatever – would, or should, be subject to the same tax rules as an individual landlord.
The landlord shouldn't really be passing on mortgage costs. The tenant might be expected to pay a fair rent, but he shouldn't have to pay for the landlord's property.
I disagree. The reason is that housing is a basic need, and comes out of income before anything else. Landlords as a group are a monopoly, as social housing is the only alternative to living in your car. They can form cartels to push the cost up, and have been. Property managers, who earn a % of the rent, encourage increases as often as possible.
However, residential property investors are acting as if they carry no risk, despite the fact they are investors, and all investments carry risk. The property investors (and banks) expect renters to top up their extra costs, to retain a nice annual return, plus untaxed capital gains. But they, along with banks should carry the negative consequences of investment as well as the positive. I'd especially like to see banks have to eat loses in property value, as they did for the 20% drop in California residential property after the 2008 housing bubble crash. After all, the banks magic the money for mortgages out of thin air, and then charge us interest for the privilege.
The number of landlords/businesses lodging residential bonds is 120, 00 or so from the link below, for more than 500, 000 rentals. This small percentage of NZ is trying to convince the rest of us to suck it up for their benefit.
Once again, housing costs come first out of income, before food and power. If we can push rents down by making the banks and landlords take the hit for their investment risk, many more Kiwis would be in a stronger position to weather other inflationary costs.
Landlords as a group are a monopoly, as social housing is the only alternative to living in your car. They can form cartels to push the cost up, and have been.
Yet later on you state:
The number of landlords/businesses lodging residential bonds is 120, 00 or so from the link below, for more than 500, 000 rentals.
Obviously 120,000 landlords cannot be a monopoly – and claiming they are 'as a group' adds no meaningful information whatsoever. You might as well argue all farmers are a monopoly cartel because there is 'no alternative to eating'.
As for your quaint notion that landlords carry no risk, this really tells me you know nothing about the business – nor the slim margins it operates on.
In which case, you should argue (as others have above) that rental housing should only be provided by the government or other not-for-profit social agencies.
And provide a mechanism to get there from here.
ATM, rental housing is a business – just as running a restaurant or a delivery company is a business.
If you don't want it to be a business (with bottom line profitability a significant factor), then you don't want private landlords in the game, at all.
A house is capable of providing accommodation. The landlord did not create that capability, he merely purchased a pre-existing house and exploited it for his own gain. He cannot be deemed to be "providing a service".
A service would normally entail active participation such as, for example, when a barber gives you a “trim”.
So, according to your argument: the owner of a storage unit is not providing a service; the owner of a hire car is not providing a service; the owner of a for-lease post-hole borer is not providing a service.
None of those entail active participation. They involve ownership of a capital asset which is rented or leased out for a period of time.
The storage unit is subject to some sort of regulation I expect. Hire car definitely needs a WOF. Not so a rental property. If "provision of housing is a service", why do landlords and their bodies squeal like stick pigs when they are asked to provide a decent product?
The operator of a storage unit will have built the facility himself. He is renting out capabilities which he has created. A car hire firm has to hire car groomers, mechanics to check over cars, office and counter staff, drivers to drive cars to where they are needed. and quite independently of the cars themselves, they have hire or own premises. Both are clearly providing a service fromwhich the community benefits, in much same way that a shop owner provides a service although he does not actually create the goods he sells. These businessmen are providing locations where people know they can obtain specific goods or services.
Ah, so now your service definition has morphed to 'one where the community benefits'
I think that it's entirely arguable that the community benefits from the service of providing housing.
Landlords also hire lots of people (maintenance, cleaning, repairs, renovation, lawn care, etc.). And most owners of storage units certainly didn't build them, themselves.
Really. If you want to argue that the provision of housing is too important (and/or critical) to be provided by individuals – and should be a government monopoly – then stick to that argument.
Hmm. One was the result of (possible) institutional systems failure in the mine – and was an isolated event; the other was the result of a criminal act by an individual – which followed a pattern of multiple other similar criminal acts which (by luck) didn't result in deaths.
There's a strong element of 'I told you so' going on. Everyone could see that it was just a matter of time before someone was killed in one of these attacks on shops.
Failures in workplace safety and anyone to take responsibility is not an isolated event. We’ve had many industries where contracting out and avoiding responsibility is standard.
Even a Granny Weatherwax tribute act (at least in name) should be able to see that.
Ahh, workplace deaths are isolated incidents not at all related.
Whereas ram raids, where a feature of the crime is an empty shop, is part of a series of crime where death is inevitable?
I agree, very different reactions from David Seymour and his ilk. A preventable death is a preventable death. No one should face death as part and parcel of their regular duties at work.
Sandringham death wasn't the result of a ram raid – it was a robbery from a staffed shop – in much the same way that we've seen many others (in Auckland, at least – and I assume in the rest of the country).
The LGBTQ writer said 'groupthink' led her to believe the Harry Potter author was a transphobe
In the tread, EJ Rosetta wrote: 'Right, I'm done. 3 months ago, I was tasked with writing an article detailing '20 Transphobic JK Rowling Quotes We're Done With' After 12 weeks of reading her books, tweets, full essay & finding the context of these 'quotes', I've not found a single truly transphobic message.'
Rosetta concluded: 'You're burning the wrong witch. I stand with @jk_rowling.'
"Group think, brainwashing & listening unquestioningly to the voices of my LGBT peers over critical thought & doing my own research/thinking. 5 years I have spent nodding along while JK was buried, and for that I apologise [sic]. I’m glad to report I’m thinking for myself again now," Rosetta wrote.
Rosetta has previosuly called herself a reformed TERF, trans-exclusionary radical feminist, a term used to describe women who others believe is excluding trans rights from women's rights movements.
I haven't been onsite this past week to address the Incitement to Hatred and Discrimination legislation that has been drastically watered down as regards the rainbow community of Aotearoa. Various reasons; other commitments, shock, and grieving amongst them. But at least there are more solid details about the proposed reduced bill that will be presented to parliament before next election:
The Green Party said it sent a signal to gender, rainbow, and disability communities that they were less deserving of protection, worried that those communities were targets of extremism.
Executive director of Auckland Pride Max Tweedie welcomed the change for religious groups, but said it should not take a “heinous terrorist attack for hate speech laws with that affected community to take effect”. He was disappointed the proposal did not include the Rainbow community, gender minorities and people who were disabled. “It’s frustrating when issues are so clear-cut to our communities. Hate speech has consequences. I really hope it doesn't take another mass violence incident … for some action to be taken on this issue.”…
The Law Commission will undertake a review of “legal responses to hate-motivated offending, and of speech that expresses hostility towards, or contempt for, people who share a common characteristic”, Justice Minister Kiri Allan said. “It will include whether further protections should be afforded to specific groups, including the Rainbow and disabled communities.”
The public submissions to the select committees progressing this legislation are likely to have restricted terms of reference, and the Labour government has enough votes to pass it even without the Green party – who will likely vote for it, after a few speeches saying it should go further. But I will have to wait for specifics of the bill before working on my own submission, so don't have much to say about that yet.
Instead, I will focus on reasons for expanding the prohibition of Incitement of Hatred against not just the present; race, skin colour or national origin, not just to religion, but also; gender, rainbow, and disability communities. With particular LGBTQ+ emphasis; given recent events, plus my own familiarity with that community, and the all too frequent Incitement to Discrimination with which it is beset.
Under present NZ law; there is no Hate Crime against the LGBTQ+ community, which does not reflect the lived experience of Aotearoa's rainbow people. There is provision in the Sentencing Act (2002) for some regard to be paid to hate crimes as Aggravating and Mitigating factors:
In sentencing or otherwise dealing with an offender the court must take into account the following aggravating factors to the extent that they are applicable in the case…
(h) that the offender committed the offence partly or wholly because of hostility towards a group of persons who have an enduring common characteristic such as race, colour, nationality, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, or disability; and
(I) the hostility is because of the common characteristic; and
(ii) the offender believed that the victim has that characteristic:
However, this is not very useful for deterrence if the perpetrator has an effective lawyer, as:
In sentencing or otherwise dealing with an offender the court must take into account the following mitigating factors to the extent that they are applicable in the case:
(a) the age of the offender:
(b) whether and when the offender pleaded guilty:
(c) the conduct of the victim:
(d) that there was a limited involvement in the offence on the offender’s part:
(e) that the offender has, or had at the time the offence was committed, diminished intellectual capacity or understanding:
(f) any remorse shown by the offender, or anything as described in section 10:
(fa) that the offender has taken steps during the proceedings (other than steps to comply with procedural requirements) to shorten the proceedings or reduce their cost:
(fb) any adverse effects on the offender of a delay in the disposition of the proceedings caused by a failure by the prosecutor to comply with a procedural requirement:
(g) any evidence of the offender’s previous good character:
(h) that the offender spent time on bail with an EM condition
To see how this works out in practice, we turn now to an example from this year's Pride Month that has been wending its way through the courts:
On October 12, two of the four men appeared in court and were discharged without conviction.
A third man is due to be sentenced in December.
"The attack left me feeling shaken and vulnerable," victim Sam Duckor-Jones said…
On June 2, four men attacked his house with anti-Semitic and homophobic graffiti while he slept inside, and a burnt rainbow flag was left staked on the front.
"It is commonly known that I am a member of the LGBTQIA+ and Jewish communities," Duckor-Jones said.
"The four men planned the attack on my home for weeks, including a getaway driver and change of clothes." …
"I expressed to police that I was unconcerned about any damage to property but that rather I was concerned about the nature of the attack – a hate crime.
"I attended an effective Restorative Justice session with two of the men…
Duckor-Jones said he learned through the media that one of the men told the court at the sentencing he had made a $500 donation to a charity of his choice.
"This is untrue. I also learned that the men had all written letters of apology to me.
"At that time, I had not received, read or been made aware of the existence of any letters of apology. Following the discharge without conviction I was emailed said letters."
Duckor-Jones said it was "deeply concerning" to him that hate crime could be dismissed by the court in such a blase manner.
{The previous post was thrown together mostly from unposted writing last weekend (trimmed and updated). This second one dealing with more recent events needs more of a CONTENT WARNING for the references to a mass shooting (particularly in the links). Edit: also the colour stayed after I removed the in-text links, I can’t recall how to get around that.}
In understanding the need for Incitement to Hatred and Discrimination legislation to protect LGBTQ+ people in NZ, I turn now to overseas examples of where unchecked campaigns of incitement against Rainbow Communities can lead.
Firstly, I find this Stochastic Terrorism model a valuable lens. Here described by Brynn Tannehill (author of American Fascism) in a September 28th Salon interview with Chauncey Devega:
Tannehill:The right-wing propagandists and the others who are inciting violence will of course say that they are not responsible for it, or that it is all a hoax. That is the model of stochastic terrorism they are using. The next massacre is imminent. Tucker Carlson and other right-wing personalities and leaders across cable news and now online are targeting hospitals and other places that provide care to trans youth. They are lying about trans youth.
For example, there's the ridiculous lie that children are being mutilated. It's outright fear-mongering and hatred. The right-wing propagandists and hate-talkers are becoming ever more brazen about directly targeting specific people for violence. Eventually someone is going to walk into one of these hospitals or gender clinics, and they're just going to start killing people. They're going to kill as many people as quickly as they can. One of these terrorists is going to specifically target parents and medical providers. It is almost inevitable…
Devega:Tucker Carlson has literally been telling "neighborhood dads" to attack teachers if they dare to do their jobs by educating children about gender identity or human sexuality. What are the elements of the propaganda model that the right-wing opinion leaders are using?
Tannehill: This is what is known as the "firehose of falsehoods" model. It just needs to be high volume, repetitious and simple. What is being spread doesn't even need to be particularly consistent. It only needs to be loosely associated with reality, if at all. You can just make up whatever you want people to believe, as long as it confirms their pre-existing beliefs.
This was not just the opinion of a Trans Activist, but also shared by medical professionals at the time – from October 3rd:
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and the Children's Hospital Association (CHA) sent a letterto U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland urging him to "investigate the organizations, individuals, and entities coordinating, provoking, and carrying out bomb threats and threats of personal violence against children's hospitals and physicians across the U.S."…
"The attacks are rooted in an intentional campaign of disinformation, where a few high-profile users on social media share false and misleading information targeting individual physicians and hospitals, resulting in a rapid escalation of threats, harassment, and disruption of care across multiple jurisdictions," the groups wrote in the letter to Garland…
The groups noted that children's hospitals across the country have had to substantially increase security and are working with local and federal law enforcement to ensure the safety of patients and staff.
So with hospitals being less easy targets than previously, and the November midterms concluded, it looked almost like Tannehill might be wrong in her prediction, at least for this year. But then came November 19th in the USA (already the Transgender Day of Remembrance in Aotearoa):
{Grzecka}The co-owner of the Colorado Springs gay nightclub where a shooter turned a drag queen’s birthday celebration into a massacre said he thinks the shooting that killed five peopleand injured 17 others is a reflection of anti-LGBTQ sentiment that has evolved from prejudice to incitement…
Authorities haven’t said why the suspect opened fire at the club before being subdued by patrons, but they are facing hate crime charges…
Grzecka said he believes the targeting of a drag queen event is connected to the art form being cast in a false light in recent months by right-wing activists and politicians who complain about the “sexualization” or “grooming” of children.
Even though general acceptance of the LGBTQ community has grown, this new dynamic has fostered a dangerous climate, he said… “I would rather be spit on in the street than the hate get as bad as where we are today.”… “Lying about our community, and making them into something they are not, creates a different type of hate,” Grzecka said.
Grzecka, who started mopping floors and bartending at Club Q in 2003 a year after it opened, said he hopes to channel his grief and anger into rebuilding the support system for Colorado Springs’ LGBTQ community that only Club Q had provided.
Finally, Rebecca Shaw makes important points about the fragility of safety for vulnerable people, and the need for solidarity:
…conservatives, transphobes and “gender critical” forces have created a climate of scrutiny and fear around transgender and queer people.
It is almost impossible to wholly explain why LGBTQI spaces like Club Q and others are so sacred... the special feeling, the rare feeling, is that in those moments, we can thoroughly relax, like we can’t anywhere else. I don’t even mean just because we are protected from bigotry, or from people who don’t like us (although that’s great).
I mean that in those spaces weget a break. We get a break from noticing strangers seeing us, clocking our differences, thinking about us, discussing us. I can have some drinks and kiss my girlfriend on the dancefloor, without having to assess who might be noticing us. In those spaces, when I feel comfortable, looking around first doesn’t even have to enter my mind – that’s the break. It’s a beautiful, vital relief.
But these spaces are becoming fewer, and harder to find, even in a city like Sydney. Colorado Springs has a population of about 500,000 and, until recently, Club Q was the only queer bar in the city…
But it is not just an American problem – it is being imported to Australia. Drag brunches and storytelling events in Australia have already started being targeted by various groups…
The voices driven by hate are already trying to use this horrific incident to further their agenda. They are twisting things, blaming trans people for the attack, and trying to separate transphobia and homophobia – hoping the trans community will become even easier to target.
It can’t work. We cannot let it. An attack on some of us is an attack on all of us. It’s time to decide which side of history you are on.
This "firehose of falsehoods" technique has been adopted from Russian propaganda, and we see it in this thread in the nonsense being posted by the Putin fanbois who demand Ukraine negotiate or claim the Ukraine is somehow the agressor.
Adopted by Trump and US Fascists and disseminated here frequrently by pro-Russia posters, their claims are repetitive, lacks commitment to objective reality and they lack commitment to consistency.
My condolances to all the victims of this shooting. And all the victims of the countless shooting across the US.
The writer of the Guardian ariticle article speaks of how important it is for the LBGT community to have safe spaces such as the nightclub to go and I couldn't agree more.
I am puzzled though.. The writer of the Guardian article says
"Defence attorneys have since told the court that the alleged shooter is non binary, and that the motive for the shooting is yet to be determined"
Shouldn't we wait to verify that this person is non binary (not quite sure how you do that because it is afterall a declaration) and tease out the motives for the crime before we talk about it being a hate crime?
Because until we know that it was a hate crime,motivated by hate towards the LGBT community it is mischeif making to go on to do what the author does and I quote
"conservative, transphobes and Gender Critical have created a climate of scrutiny and fear around transgender and queer people". She is associating people who scrutinize gender ideology and queer theory with a mass shooter.
You mention the likes of Tucker Carlson and others who have made threats against gender clinics, all of which I condemn. And thats where our current hate speech laws serve us so well. Because my understanding is if anyone threatens or incites violence in NZ, it is a crime. And that's how it should be.
I will just talk about my impressions in NZ. Over the decades of the 70's 80s and 90s there were a small number of transgender people (transexuals or transvestites as they were known as). Three very prominant trans people over these decades were Carmen, Bob Moodie (a police commissioner who crossed dressed) and of course Georgina Beyer. All of them were publicly well known. Georgina of course was able to secure enough support to be voted in as Mayor and then an MP. All were judged on thier merits. Did these people have a hard life (undoubtedly). Were they generally accepted? Seem to be. Were they free of harrassment? Unlikely.
Gender critical feminists became concerned about the gender ideology for many reasons. Our concerns include the increase in young people identifying as trans and being fast tracked into a medical intervention (see Laura Lopezs excellent article about this published yesterday). We are concerned that medics are using drugs to treat gender dysphoria, that they are not licenced to do. (especially when the use of such drugs are being rolled back in other countries (Sabine also put a clip of Dr Marci Bowers in the comments section of Laura's article. In this Dr Bowers admits that children started on PBs at Tanner stage 2 cannot orgasm.
I would argue that the above situation with the medicalisation of children are deserving of scrutiny.
GC feminists are also concerned about laws such as self id that allows any male who identifies as a female access to womens change rooms, accomodation, sporting competitions etc. Women are entitled to feel protective of their spaces. Not everyone believes that because a man says he is a woman that makes it so. It is gas lighting to expect people to accept it as truth. It may be someones personal truth, but that doesn't make it so.
So I am not sure if you were hoping that the hate speech laws would shut down gender critical voices? Again I think it is essential that women's voices be heard around these issues.
Anker: There are, and have been, many more gender diverse people in Aotearoa than the three you mention. Many of them died at their own (or another's) hands, disappeared, or been forced to live inauthentic lives behind a socially acceptable mask. So it is hardly surprising that there is a bit of a backlog in trans people coming out now that some slight social acceptance is possible.
Our current "hate speech" laws do not serve us at all well, with very few successful convictions to the point where it is hardly worth the effort to lodge a complaint. Even if successful, the penalties are so low that that they wouldn't even prevent someone convicted of the offense of being elected to public office:
Section 131 states that a person who commits the criminal offence is "liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $7,000”.
I had been avoiding referencing the (alleged) mass murderer, as they are more of a symptom than a cause. But waiting until all the details have been ironed out in court is not far removed from ignoring the event entirely. The (alleged) shooter's past does not seem to back up their lawyer's claims (for whatever reason) of their client being nonbinary. The name change seems to be more so the mother could cut contact with the (proportedly) violent meth-head of a father:
Included in the court documents, the suspect’s defense team noted: “Anderson Aldrich is non-binary. They use they/them pronouns, and for the purposes of all formal [court] filings, will be addressed as Mx. Aldrich.”
The Gazette reported District Attorney Michael Allen said following the advisement hearing, that Aldrich’s identity as nonbinary would not impact how the District Attorney’s Office prosecutes the case.
“His legal definition in this proceeding is ‘the defendant,’” Allen said…
“Just expressed he didn’t like the LGBTQ community,” said Xavier Kraus, a neighbor of the accused shooter, said he and his girlfriend lived across the hall from Aldrich and his mother until September. “And pretty sure at one point he expressed he hated the LGBTQ community, he hated gays.”
Kraus said he specifically remembered one time “Aldrich vocalized verbally using a derogatory term for them [LGBTQ people].” He added that many other “outbursts” were “racial.”
“This is not the type of person I would take around my gay friends,” he said.
Kraus told NBC 9 News he and Aldrich became close friends last year. They bonded over tech and video games. Kraus added that Aldrich never mentioned being nonbinary in their times together…
KFMB-TV CBS News 8 San Diego spoke with the biological father of the suspect, a former federal inmate and adult porn actor Aaron Brink, 48, who told News 8 “we’re Mormons, we don’t do gay!” He added that his ex-wife called him from Colorado in 2016 to tell him their son, Nicholas Brink, had changed his name to Anderson Aldrich, and had killed himself…
Brink, who currently works as a mixed martial arts coach says he taught his son how to fight.
“I praised him for violent behavior really early. I told him it works. It is instant and you’ll get immediate results,” Brink said.
The transtwittersphere is having multiple meltdowns over that. One side is "he is lying to get off the hate crime charges", the other side is "how dare you challenge their identity" and the "third side" is sniping in with "I thought you folx always say that nobody will ever lie about their gender identity for nefarious purposes". Much popcorn consumed on the sidelines.
the thing about blaming UK feminists bears examination. Not because it's daft (it is in the extreme), but because we probably should be figuring out how someone's thinking can be like that. I get that some people believe that GC feminism somehow convinces people to be transphobic and act out on it, but it's such a vague idea with no substance to it. Which leads us to the problem of genderists not being able to make even a halfway decent argument for their position. It was the same in the Cambridge debate that Stock was in. The genderists had very little in the way of rationale for what they were saying (some were better than others, and I've only listened to the first half so maybe it go better).
He is not only lying to get of the hate crime charge, being a non binary allows him to identify into a female prison with the born women who are of course not allowed to say a thing in protest to having an entire male locked up with them lest they are happy with loss of privileges and such for misgendering.
And lets also not discuss the amount of dead women that litter the ground of the US, or the amount of dead kids that litter the US, or the amount of native american women that recorded as missing but never found, or the amount of men that get shot in mass shootings or police killings as quite a few blokes of all colors/creed/identity get shot down quite routinely and so on and so forth.
I pity all those that go out for a night of fun, go to school, go to work, go shop in a grocery store and do so without even thinking of having a right to be free of shootings cause it is the US and every dick and john have a gun or a whole collection thereof.
Sabine how can you possibly say the criminal is lying about being non binary to get out of being prosecuted for hate crimes and to go to a women's prison. That would never, ever, ever, ever happen. Its sounds like you are being transphobic
Of course there have been many more gender diverse than the three I mention Temp. I was merely using them to illustrate how NZders are a pretty accepting bunch and will take people how they find them. This isn't to say that there is a small minority of a..holes who will bully and torment anyone who is different or vulnerable.
I don't think you can account for the exponential growth of young girls identifying as trans nowadays is that it is because there is now "slight social acceptance". If there was we would be seeing a comparable rise in women in their 30s, 40s, 50s and 60's coming out as trans and that is not happening.
I agree that many have been forced to live inauthentic lives behind a mask. These would be the male to female cross dressers who often married women who had no idea they liked to cross dress. A lot of this group are made up of autogynophiles.
How do you mean they "disappeared"? Sounds a little 1984ish
I mean that they disappeared; one day they were there, and the next they weren't. Given that it's a community that is almost defined by their difficulty in getting their names on official documents and often lacking traditional families, it has been difficult to get police to take an interest. That's if anyone was keen to interact with police in the first place, which has historically had its own dangers. Best case scenario is they left town and set up under a new (or old) name elsewhere. But that is a bit optimistic.
"Autogynephiles"? I have no more time for Blanchard and his discredited pseudoscience, than I do for Freudian; "penis envy".
Well then – where is the "discrediting"? They are all around you – middle aged men with wives (usually ex-wives) and kids – littering lesbian dating services. I personally know at least 2 of them right here in Auckland.
You may have no time for Blanchard and his "discredited pseudoscience" but in this article Blachard and his colleague Lawrence quote trans who idendify with autogynophilia and the concepts Blanchard was proposing. It describes their experiences of cross dressing and sexual arousal.
God I thought you queer theorists were all for breaking down the charmed circle (as in Gabrielle Reubin's term for hetero sexual monogamous sex).
People get aroused by all sorts of things. As long as it isn't children or animals, degrading women or violent porn. What is your problem with the idea that some men get arounsd at the thought of themselves being and dressing as women. TBH it absolutely isn't my thing and I wouldn't want to be part of it, but in the privacy of one's own home and all that?
By denying autogynephilia you are the one making it shameful. As I say, I dont care if this is what some men get off on (as long as it doesn't involve my knickers or clothing or me in anyway). The problem I have with it is they are wanting me to agree with the idea that they are women and can access my spaces.
The problem with Blanchard's transsexualism typology is that it rests upon a dichotomy of homosexual and autogynephilic transsexuals. Which is insufficient to explain the spectrum of gender diversity even within white trans women in north America, let alone trans men and nonbinary people of differing cultures and ethnicity. Leaving aside the issue of generalizability of Blanchard's notions, there are still the problems of his research lacking; control groups, and replicability by others. Still, better than Freud I guess.
Here Serano refers to Feminine Embodiment Fantasies (FEFs) rather than AGP, because research that used a control group of cis women to the trans women found similar patterns of reported behaviour in both groups to the same questionnaires that had Blanchard used previously to posit his typology.:
Amongst the most prevalent objections to the theory were:
Blanchard was a clinician who was attempting to make sense of the patterns he was seeing amongst his clients. It is common for research to start with observation, case studies and the RCTs.
I agree the trans umbrella encompasses many variations. AGP being one of them.
As for teenage girls presenting as trans, their pathway is often through chat rooms. Girls who have body disatisfaction who then develop a trans identity on line. There is a huge social contagion factor here. prior to 2012 which happens to be when the smart phone was introduced, that number of teen girls presenting as trans was extremely low. The exponential increase is a new cohort. They have high rates of other mental health issues including anoerexia. This new cohort has appeared not because it is now more socially acceptable to be trans. If it was as I previously wrote we would see middle age women presenting in increased numbers as trans.
The ideology has hijacked the needs of the very, very small minority of people who suffer from gender dysphoria and it is clouding the work of clinicians such as Blanchard who are trying ot make sense of peoples suffering
"Which is insufficient to explain the spectrum of gender diversity even within white trans women in north America, let alone trans men and nonbinary people of differing cultures and ethnicity."
It refers to a specific group that resides under the current trans definition, it doesn't claim to define all.
The Government in 2020 promised to make changes after the RC Inquiry into the Christchurch mosque terror attacks found the law failed to “appropriately capture” hate-motivated offending, or deal with hate speech.
After public submissions on proposals to strengthen the incitement provisions of the Human Rights Act 1993, the Government has announced it will amend the law to address incitement towards religious communities.
It first announced reforms last year, but they were largely unpopular.
Justice Minister Kiri Allan said any further change will “face a battle” against ACT, National and other groups outside Parliament who oppose the idea, she said.
Meanwhile, members of the Muslim community have told the commission it’s unfair other groups aren’t covered, and that they did not want any other community to suffer what they have.
“The Government has forgotten its fundamental human rights duty to protect vulnerable groups,” he said.
“Sometimes the Government has to do the morally right thing, it has to stand with vulnerable groups and not the majority.”
… Paul Hunt said fears legislating against speech which incites hostility and hatred based on disability, sexual orientation and gender would infringe on free speech have been “greatly exaggerated”, and based on a misunderstanding.
This was because the threshold for hate speech was never up for debate, only who can be affected by it. There have only been three cases of hate speech prosecuted in the last 40 years, he said.***
”The threshold is high, and it should be,” he said.
The Government has referred to the Law Commission for a “fundamental review” (of incitement, discrimination and hate crimes), but Hunt said this could take years, and in the meantime it could “get cracking” with expanding the scope of who is covered by hate speech laws.
For mine, the essential problem was that hate speech law – incitement of hate was too nebulous (too easy to connect to taking offence at what others say). If they had toughened it up to an "incitement to hate crimes "standard, then few would have seen it as a limitation of free speech to include birth sex, gender ID, sexuality along with religion.
Then leaving the matter of speech that incites hostility and hatred to the review as to regulation of social media etc.
***There have been only three prosecutions because the police and courts have applied a higher threshold than stated in the legislation (there is no guarantee that would continue).
SPC, The wording on the; Proposals against incitement of hatred and discrimination, were not at all nebulous. Though it may be over a year since you read the discussion document, the pdf is still available through
Proposal 1 This proposal would change the wording of the criminal (currently section 131 but see Proposal 2 below) and civil (section 61) incitement provisions in the Human Rights Act so that they applied to more groups protected from discrimination by section 21 of the Human Rights Act (see Appendix One for this section)…
Proposal 2 This proposal would create a new criminal provision in the Crimes Act that has the same purpose as section 131 of the Human Rights Act but would be clearer and simpler. This proposal would maintain the requirement that there be the mental element of intention. In other words, the person would need to intend to incite hatred. This is appropriate for a criminal provision with the level of penalty that is being proposed. The terms “hostility”, “ill-will”, “contempt” and “ridicule” would be replaced by “hatred”. The Royal Commission noted that this would mean that the new offence would be more narrowly expressed than the current section 131. This proposal would prohibit speech which “maintains or normalises” hatred, in addition, to speech which incites or stirs up hatred.
The section 131 offence currently requires the following elements:
1. A person publishes or distributes or broadcasts speech or written matter which is threatening, abusive, or insulting
2. With intent to excite hostility or ill will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule
3. Against any group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons, and
4. The words or written matter are likely to excite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any such group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons.
A new provision would be added to the Crimes Act, which would create a new offence with four key elements. It would be a crime to:
1. intentionally incite/stir up, maintain or normalise hatred
2. against any group protected from discrimination by section 21 of the Human Rights Act
3. through threatening, abusive or insulting communications, including inciting violence
4. made by any means.
The exact wording of this provision will be determined following consultation. This includes whether to use the term “incite”, “stir up” or some other term with the same meaning. 31 Detail of proposal Current wording of Human Rights Act Proposed change to Human Rights Act or Crimes Act The proposal would also include incitement through ‘explicit or implicit calls for violence’. The Royal Commission stated ‘that this would further pre-empt reliance on a defence along the lines that the defendant was only “only” preaching to the converted’. This proposal does not include the requirement that the communication must be “likely to” incite, maintain or normalise hatred. This exists in the both section 61 and 131 currently (and is not proposed to be removed from section 61). The Royal Commission did not think it was a necessary element of a new offence. We are interested in feedback on this. The proposal would cover all methods of communicating speech. The current provision does not clearly cover communication by electronic means (unlike section 61). This new offence would be placed in the Crimes Act 1961. 32 Detail of proposal Current wording of Human Rights Act Proposed change to Human Rights Act or Crimes Act The current requirement in section 132 that the Attorney-General consent to any prosecution for the criminal incitement provision is intended to be retained…
Proposal 4 This proposal would change the wording of section 61 of the Human Rights Act to include “inciting/stirring up, maintaining or normalising hatred” alongside the existing wording…
Section 61 is focused on speech that is “likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons in or who may be coming to New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons.”…
Proposal 5 This proposal would add “incite others to discriminate against” certain groups protected by section 21 of the Human Rights Act to the behaviour of exciting hostility or bringing into contempt in section 61 of the Human Rights Act.
Yes, as noted in the Proposal 4 excerpt: "The exact wording of this provision will be determined following consultation", so not every detail was specified in advance. And there will be public submissions yet to the select committee on whatever text is presented to parliament next year. However, it seems fair to assume that the final text will be less, rather than more; nebulous, than the current asystematic mishmash of legislation. For example (from proposal 2); "The terms “hostility”, “ill-will”, “contempt” and “ridicule” would be replaced by “hatred”".
because the threshold for hate speech was never up for debate, only who can be affected by it. There have only been three cases of hate speech prosecuted in the last 40 years, he said
Nebulous refers to the difference between legislation and applied standard. In the same period there were no blasphemy law cases in courts.
This Parliament quite cheerfully passed legislation about Conversion Therapy and the ability to change the SEX marker on a Birth Certificate without having the slightest idea of what "gender identity" or "gender expression" actually means.
There is no agreed definition of "gender" as opposed to "sex" and there will not be because gender is an ideology – a belief system. Therefore it is what you say it is, the minute you say it is – and it is something else 5 minutes later if you change your mind.
Writing legislation on any other basis for this belief system is almost impossible.
There are agreed definitions of the words sex and gender amongst biological scientists, though you might not agree with them yourself Visubversa. There is always academic debate, of course; some of it more sincere than others. Here is the WHO definition – as it was quick to google, and a good nontechnical summary:
Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.
Gender is hierarchical and produces inequalities that intersect with other social and economic inequalities. Gender-based discrimination intersects with other factors of discrimination, such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, age, geographic location, gender identity and sexual orientation, among others. This is referred to as intersectionality.
Gender interacts with but is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs. Gender and sex are related to but different from gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth.
Gender influences people’s experience of and access to healthcare. The way that health services are organized and provided can either limit or enable a person’s access to healthcare information, support and services, and the outcome of those encounters. Health services should be affordable, accessible and acceptable to all, and they should be provided with quality, equity and dignity.
Gender is to sex what astrology is to astronomy. We don't make laws based on astrology. Astronomy got us to the moon.
And nobody is designated a sex at birth. Your sex is determined at the second of your conception. It is with you all your life – every drop of your blood tells the truth about your sex. The truth is in your bones, and even in your cremains.
The things described as "gender" are just the usual sexist stereotypes that most of us moved on from decades ago.
Your "gender identity” shares a room in your head with your immortal soul. Nobody in a civilised society should be forced to believe in either of them.
Sex relates to biological reality, and remains significant in a number of ways. (Gender sometimes used historically for the genteel, which lead to conflation later).
2. Gender – a different meaning and application, was used when speaking around issues that related to societal manifestations due to sex, eg. gender pay gap, gendered violence;
3. Gender stereotypes – societal/cultural expectations regarding presentation, behaviour, interests achievements based on someone's sex,
4. Gender identity – someone's self-declared personal identity.
Your excerpt above mixes gender 2. and 3., and conflates all in the final paragraph:
Gender influences people’s experience of and access to healthcare.
Actually, sex is very important in healthcare delivery, much more significant than 2., 3. and 4. Yet is not mentioned.
The term "hatred" is impossible to define in a legal sense, and so is difficult to discuss pre-legislative change.
There is no sense of what the intended outcome is.
Is it preventative, or punitive as a means of reducing harm?
And what level of harm is considered legally harmful? IIRC – existing laws prohibit an incitement to genocide – a high bar, but a necessary distinction.
Humans are messy, imperfect, intolerant and obnoxious. While these aspects are not welcomed, should they be criminalised – is one of the discussion points – and how will this be practically managed – is another.
We know increased punishment for violent crime is unsuccessful at persuading those who commit it to restrain themselves. (Sometimes, it increases the violence as they don't want any witnesses). It is unlikely to be a preventative measure here. UNLESS, the threshold is lowered to the point that people are unwilling to speak or challenge orthodoxies for fear of prosecution, or the fear that there may be negative impacts on their livelihood, families and well-being.
In which, case, this legislation should not go ahead.
If it is intended to be punitive, there is also a problem. ANY crime of violence and harm to a person, should have a level of punishment associated with that crime that is applied after successful prosecution.
We should not have a two-tier system of victim, that considers that it is the victim's protected characteristics that increase the level of punishment.
This is disrespectful in two ways: one, that the victims' most important characteristic was in the protected category to which they belonged, two: victims not so categorised do not require the same diligence and outcome, and the impact of their loss or harm on their family and friends is not so great.
For example, taking the conversation above regarding landlords. There is a lot of rhetoric and shaming being directed to landlords as the primary reason (unsubstantiated) for people being unable to find secure, affordable housing.
If someone developed a "hatred" of landlords due to their own housing crisis, and decided to break into a Property Investors meeting and committed violence, would this be a "hate" crime?
This legislation proposal is performative, and as such is vague and does not identify the level of need for it, the intended outcomes, and the measures by which those outcomes will be achieved.
Due to this, a full and frank discussion is unable to take place. But this method has worked previously – unfortunately we may end up with further legislation that was well-intentioned but badly conceived, written and implemented.
Molly; any word can be given a strict legal definition, though it may not correspond well to conventional usage within a given portion of the society subject to those laws. The definition of; "Hatred", and whether any other terminology might be preferable instead of, or as well as, this; was one of the main foci of the public consultation last year. And once we finally get to see the draft legislation next year, will be the subject of submissions to the relevant select committee.
Laws not being perfect instruments seems a poor reason for a government to not introduce new laws. As for results, I would appreciate that those found to be guilty of; incitement to hatred and/or discrimination, be barred from public office in the future. Which under our present system takes an offense with a maximum jail term of over 2 years – whether or not they receive that sentence.
England fans dressed as crusaders have been banned from entering World Cup stadiums at the risk of upsetting locals.
Two supporters were seemingly led away by security this week after turning up at the Khalifa International Stadium donning chain mail and helmets depicting the Patron Saint of England. Footage appears to show Qatari officials ushering the duo away from the turnstiles though it is unclear as to whether the fans were later allowed to watch the Three Lions' opening Group B fixture.
This guy! I always suspected there was more to his Twitter 'purchase'. He didn't care about the cost – how could he as a centi-billionaire – but control. He will now have direct insight into our transport habits, buying habits and philosophical leanings. And use them to change our behaviour, not just respond to it.
More fool us; the guy is a doof but he's far from stupid.
On February 14, 2023 we announced our Rebuttal Update Project. This included an ask for feedback about the added "At a glance" section in the updated basic rebuttal versions. This weekly blog post series highlights this new section of one of the updated basic rebuttal versions and serves as a ...
TL;DR: In today’s ‘six-stack’ of substacks at 6.06pm on Tuesday, March 19:Kāinga Ora’s dry rot The Spinoff DailyBill McKibben on ‘Climate Superfunds’ making Big Oil pay for climate damage The Crucial YearsPreston Mui on returning to 1980s-style productivity growth NoahpinionAndy Boenau on NIMBYs needing unusual bedfellows Urbanism SpeakeasyNed Resnikoff's case ...
Negative yesterday, negative today. Negative all year, according to one departing reader telling me I’ve grown strident and predictable. Fair enough. If it’s any help, every time I go to write about a certain topic that begins with C and ends with arrrrs, I do brace myself and ask: Again? Are ...
Bryce Edwards writes – It’s been a tumultuous time in politics in recent months, as the new National-led Government has driven through its “First 100 Day programme”. During this period there’s been a handful of opinion polls, which overall just show a minimal amount of flux in public support ...
Inspirational: The Family of Man is a glorious hymn to human equality, but, more than that, it is a clarion call to human freedom. Because equality, unleavened by liberty, is a broken piano, an unstrung harp; upon which the songs of fraternity will never be played.“Somebody must have been telling lies about ...
Tax Lawyer Barbara Edmonds vs Emperor Justinian I- Nolo Contendere: False historical explanations of pivotal events are very far from being inconsequential.WHEN BARBARA EDMONDS made reference to the Roman Empire, my ears pricked up. It is, lamentably, very rare to hear a politician admit to any kind of familiarity ...
It’s been a tumultuous time in politics in recent months, as the new National-led Government has driven through its “First 100 Day programme”. During this period there’s been a handful of opinion polls, which overall just show a minimal amount of flux in public support for the various parties in ...
Buzz from the Beehive Housing Minister Chris Bishop delivered news – packed with the ingredients to enflame political passions – worthy of supplanting Winston Peters in headline writers’ priorities. He popped up at the post-Cabinet press conference to promise a crackdown on unruly and antisocial state housing tenants. His ...
Ele Ludemann writes – The Reserve Bank is advertising for a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion advisor. The Bank has one mandate – to keep inflation between one and three percent. It has failed in that and is only slowly getting inflation back down to the upper limit. Will it ...
Last week former National Party leader Simon Bridges was appointed by the Government as the new chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA). You can read about the appointment in Thomas Coughlan’s article, Simon Bridges to become chair of NZ Transport Agency Waka KotahiThe fact that a ...
Bryce Edwards writes – Last week former National Party leader Simon Bridges was appointed by the Government as the new chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA). You can read about the appointment in Thomas Coughlan’s article, Simon Bridges to become chair of NZ Transport Agency ...
TL;DR: My top 10 news and analysis links this morning include:Today’s must-read: Gavin Jacobson talks to Thomas Piketty 10 years on from Capital in the 21st CenturyThe SalvoLocal scoop: Green MP’s business being investigated over migrant exploitation claims StuffSteve KilgallonLocal deep-dive: The commercial contractors making money from School ...
It’s a home - but Kāinga Ora tenants accused of “abusing the privilege” may lose it. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: The Government announced a crackdown on Kāinga Ora tenants who were unruly and/or behind on their rent, with Housing Minister Chris Bishop saying a place in a state ...
This is a guest post by Connor Sharp of Surface Light Rail Light rail in Auckland: A way forward sooner than you think With the coup de grâce of Auckland Light Rail (ALR) earlier this year, and the shift of the government’s priorities to roads, roads, and more roads, it ...
Note: As a paid-up Webworm member, I’ve recorded this Webworm as a mini-podcast for you as well. Some of you said you liked this option - so I aim to provide it when I get a chance to record! Read more ...
TL;DR: In my ‘six-stack’ of substacks at 6.06pm on Monday, March 18:IKEA is accused of planting big forests in New Zealand to green-wash; REDD-MonitorA City for People takes a well-deserved victory lap over Wellington’s pro-YIMBY District Plan votes; A City for PeopleSteven Anastasiou takes a close look at the sticky ...
Buzz from the Beehive Here’s hoping for a lively post-cabinet press conference when the PM and – perhaps – some of his ministers tell us what was discussed at their meeting today. Until then, Point of Order has precious little Beehive news to report after its latest monitoring of the ...
David Farrar writes – We now have almost all 2023 data in, which has allowed me to update my annual table of how labour went against its promises. This is basically their final report card. The promiseThe result Build 100,000 affordable homes over 10 ...
I’m a bit worried that I’ve started a previous newsletter with the words “just when you think they couldn’t get any worse…” Seems lately that I could begin pretty much every issue with that opening. Such is the nature of our coalition government that they seem to be outdoing each ...
Geoffrey Miller writes – Timing is everything. And from China’s perspective, this week’s visit by its foreign minister to New Zealand could be coming at just the right moment. The visit by Wang Yi to Wellington will be his first since 2017. Anniversaries are important to Beijing. ...
Depictions of Islam in Western popular culture have rarely been positive, even before 9/11. Five years on from the mosque shootings, this is one of the cultural headwinds that the Muslim community has to battle against. Whatever messages of tolerance and inclusion are offered in daylight, much of our culture ...
Last week Transport Minster Simeon Brown and Mayor Wayne Brown opened the new Auckland Rail Operations Centre. The new train control centre will see teams from KiwiRail, Auckland Transport and Auckland One Rail working more closely together to improve train services across the city. The Auckland Rail Operations Centre in ...
Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: Retiring former Labour Finance Minister Grant Robertson said in an exit interview with Q+A yesterday the Government can and should sustain more debt to invest in infrastructure for future generations. Elsewhere in the news in Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy at 6:36am: Read more ...
Timing is everything. And from China’s perspective, this week’s visit by its foreign minister to New Zealand could be coming at just the right moment. The visit by Wang Yi to Wellington will be his first since 2017. Anniversaries are important to Beijing. It is more than just a happy ...
TL;DR: The key events to watch in Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy in the week to March 18 include:China’s Foreign Minister visiting Wellington today;A post-cabinet news conference this afternoon; the resumption of Parliament on Tuesday for two weeks before Easter;retiring former Labour Finance Minister Grant Robertson gives his valedictory speech in Parliament; ...
New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters’s state-of-the-nation speech on Sunday was really a state-of-Winston-First speech. He barely mentioned any of the Government’s key policies and could not even wholly endorse its signature income tax cuts. Instead, he rehearsed all of his complaints about the Ardern Government, including an extraordinary claim ...
A listing of 35 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, March 10, 2024 thru Sat, March 16, 2024. Story of the week This week we'll give you a little glimpse into how we collect links to share and ...
A listing of 35 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, March 10, 2024 thru Sat, March 16, 2024. Story of the week This week we'll give you a little glimpse into how we collect links to share and ...
“I’ve been internalising a really complicated situation in my head.”When they kept telling us we should wait until we get to know him, were they taking the piss? Was it a case of, if you think this is bad, wait till you get to know the real Christopher, after the ...
Happy fourth anniversary, Pandemic That Upended Bloody Everything. I have been observing it by enjoying my second bout of COVID. It’s 5.30 on Sunday morning and only now are lights turning back on for me.Allow me to copy and paste what I told reader Sara yesterday:Depleted, fogged and crappy. Resting, ...
Happy fourth anniversary, Pandemic That Upended Bloody Everything. I have been observing it by enjoying my second bout of COVID. It’s 5.30 on Sunday morning and only now are lights turning back on for me.Allow me to copy and paste what I told reader Sara yesterday:Depleted, fogged and crappy. Resting, ...
Happy fourth anniversary, Pandemic That Upended Bloody Everything. I have been observing it by enjoying my second bout of COVID. It’s 5.30 on Sunday morning and only now are lights turning back on for me.Allow me to copy and paste what I told reader Sara yesterday:Depleted, fogged and crappy. Resting, ...
.“$10 and a target that bleeds” - Bleeding Targets for Under $10!.Thanks for reading Frankly Speaking ! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.This government appears hell-bent on either scrapping life-saving legislation or reintroducing things that - frustrated critics insist - will be dangerous and likely ...
“It hardly strikes me as fair to criticise a government for doing exactly what it said it was going to do. For actually keeping its promises.”THUNDER WAS PLAYING TAG with lightning flashes amongst the distant peaks. Its rolling cadences interrupted by the here-I-come-here-I-go Doppler effect of the occasional passing car. ...
Subversive & Disruptive Technologies: Just as happened with that other great regulator of the masses, the Medieval Church, the advent of a new and hard-to-control technology – the Internet – is weakening the ties that bind. Then, and now, those who enjoy a monopoly on the dissemination of lies, cannot and will ...
Been Here Before: To find the precedents for what this Coalition Government is proposing, it is necessary to return to the “glory days” of Muldoonism.THE COALITION GOVERNMENT has celebrated its first 100 days in office by checking-off the last of its listed commitments. It remains, however, an angry government. It ...
Bob Edlin writes – And what is the world watching today…? The email newsletter from Associated Press which landed in our mailbox early this morning advised: In the news today: The father of a school shooter has been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter; prosecutors in Trump’s hush-money case ...
Bryce Edwards writes – Is another Green MP on their way out? And are the Greens severely tarnished by another integrity scandal? For the second time in three months, the Green Party has secretly suspended an MP over integrity issues. Mystery is surrounding the party’s decision to ...
For the last few years, the Green Party has been the party that has managed to avoid the plague of multiple scandals that have beleaguered other political parties. It appears that their luck has run out with a second scandal which, unfortunately for them, coincided with Golraz Ghahraman, the focus ...
TL;DR: The six newsey things that stood out to me as of 6:46am on Saturday, March 16.Andy Foster has accidentally allowed a Labour/Green amendment to cut road user chargers for plug-in hybrid vehicles, which the Government might accept; NZ HeraldThomas CoughlanSimeon Brown has rejected a plea from Westport ...
What seemed a booming success a couple of years ago has collapsed into fraud convictions.I looked at the crash of FTX (short for ‘Futures Exchange’) in November 2022 to see whether it would impact on the financial system as a whole. Fortunately there was barely a ripple, probably because it ...
Anybody following the situation in Ukraine and Russia would probably have been amused by a recent Tweet on X NATO seems to be putting in an awful lot of effort to influence what is, at least according to them, a sham election in an autocracy.When do the Ukrainians go to ...
TL;DR:Shaun Baker on Wynyard Quarter's transformation. Magdalene Taylor on the problem with smart phones. How private equity are now all over reinsurance. Dylan Cleaver on rugby and CTE. Emily Atkin on ‘Big Meat’ looking like ‘Big Oil’.Bernard’s six-stack of substacks at 6pm on March 15Photo by Jeppe Hove Jensen ...
Buzz from the Beehive Finance Minister Nicola Willis had plenty to say when addressing the Auckland Business Chamber on the economic growth that (she tells us) is flagging more than we thought. But the government intends to put new life into it: We want our country to be a ...
The Transport and Infrastructure Committee has reported back on the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill, basicly rubberstamping it. While there was widespread support among submitters for the principle that EV and PHEV drivers should pay their fair share for the roads, they also overwhelmingly disagreed with ...
Peter Dunne writes – This week’s government bailout – the fifth in the last eighteen months – of the financially troubled Ruapehu Alpine Lifts company would have pleased many in the central North Island ski industry. The government’s stated rationale for the $7 million funding was that it ...
See if you can spot the difference. An Iranian born female MP from a progressive party is accused of serial shoplifting. Her name is leaked to the media, which goes into a pack frenzy even before the Police launch an … Continue reading → ...
Ele Ludemann writes – The government is omitting general Treaty references from legislation : The growth of Treaty of Waitangi clauses in legislation caused so much worry that a special oversight group was set up by the last Government in a bid to get greater coherence in the public service on Treaty ...
What was that judge thinking?Peter Williams writes – That Golriz Ghahraman and District Court Judge Maria Pecotic were once lawyer colleagues is incontrovertible. There is published evidence that they took at least one case to the Court of Appeal together. There was a report on ...
TL;DR: My top 10 news and analysis links this morning include:Today’s must-read:Climate Scorpion – the sting is in the tail. Introducing planetary solvency. A paper via the University of Exeter’s Institute and Faculty of Actuaries.Local scoop:Kāinga Ora starts pulling out of its Auckland projects and selling land RNZ ...
Wellington’s massively upzoned District Plan adds the opportunity for tens of thousands of new homes not just in the central city (such as these Webb St new builds) but also close to the CBD and public transport links. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: Wellington gave itself the chance of ...
It’s Friday and we’re halfway through March Madness. Here’s some of the things that caught our attention this week. This Week in Greater Auckland On Monday Matt asked how we can get better event trains and an option for grade separating Morningside Dr. On Tuesday Matt looked into ...
Something you might not know about me is that I’m quite a stubborn person. No, really. I don’t much care for criticism I think’s unfair or that I disagree with. Few of us do I suppose.Back when I was a drinker I’d sometimes respond defensively, even angrily. There are things ...
Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: The five things that mattered in Aotearoa’s political economy that we wrote and spoke about via The Kākā and elsewhere for paying subscribers in the last week included:PM Christopher Luxon said the reversal of interest deductibility for landlords was done to help renters, who ...
It was not so much the Labour Party but really the Chris Hipkins party yesterday at Labour’s caucus retreat in Martinborough. The former Prime Minister was more or less consistent on wealth tax, which he was at best equivocal about, and social insurance, which he was not willing to revisit. ...
Buzz from the BeehiveThe text reproduced above appears on a page which records all the media statements and speeches posted on the government’s official website by Melissa Lee as Minister of Media and Communications and/or by Jenny Marcroft, her Parliamentary Under-secretary. It can be quickly analysed ...
For forty years, Robert Muldoon has been a dirty word in our politics. His style of government was so repulsive and authoritarian that the backlash to it helped set and entrench our constitutional norms. His pig-headedness over forcing through Think Big eventually gave us the RMA, with its participation and ...
Bryce Edwards writes – Is the new government reducing tax on rental properties to benefit landlords or to cut the cost of rents? That’s the big question this week, after Associate Finance Minister David Seymour announced on Sunday that the Government would be reversing the Labour Government’s removal ...
Saudi Arabia is rarely far from the international spotlight. The war in Gaza has brought new scrutiny to Saudi plans to normalise relations with Israel, while the fifth anniversary of the controversial killing of Jamal Khashoggi was marked shortly before the war began on October 7. And as the home ...
Questions need to be asked on both sides of the worldPeter Williams writes – The NRL Judiciary hands down an eight week suspension to Sydney Roosters forward Spencer Leniu , an Auckland-born Samoan, after he calls Ezra Mam, Sydney-orn but of Aboriginal and Torres Strait ...
Ele Ludemann writes – Contrary to what many headlines and news stories are saying, residential landlords are not getting a tax break. The government is simply restoring to them the tax deductibility of interest they had until the previous government removed it. There is no logical reason ...
I can't remember when it was goodMoments of happiness in bloomMaybe I just misunderstoodAll of the love we left behindWatching our flashbacks intertwineMemories I will never findIn spite of whatever you becomeForget that reckless thing turned onI think our lives have just begunI think our lives have just begunDoes anyone ...
Michael Bassett writes – At first reading, a front-page story in the New Zealand Herald on 13 March was bizarre. A group of severely intellectually limited teenagers, with little understanding of the law, have been pleading to the Justice Select Committee not to pass a bill dealing with ram ...
How much political capital is Christopher Luxon willing to burn through in order to deliver his $2.9 billion gift to landlords? Evidently, Luxon is: (a) unable to cost the policy accurately. As Anna Burns-Francis pointed out to him on Breakfast TV, the original ”rock solid” $2.1 billion cost he was ...
TL;DR: My top 10 news and analysis links this morning include:Today’s must-read:Jonathon Porritt calling bullshit in his own blog post on mainstream climate science as ‘The New Denialism’.Local scoop:The Wellington City Council’s list of proposed changes to the IHP recommendations to be debated later today was leaked this ...
TL;DR:Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said yesterday tenants should be grateful for the reinstatement of interest deductibility because landlords would pass on their lower tax costs in the form of lower rents. That would be true if landlords were regulated monopolies such as Transpower or Auckland Airport1, but they’re not, ...
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Tom Toro Tom Toro is a cartoonist and author. He has published over 200 cartoons in The New Yorker since 2010. His cartoons appear in Playboy, the Paris Review, the New York Times, American Bystander, and elsewhere. Related: What 10 EV lovers ...
The business section of the NZ Herald is full of opinion. Among the more opinionated of all is the ex-Minister of Transport, ex-Minister of Railways, ex MP for Auckland Central (1975-93, Labour), Wellington Central (1996-99, ACT, then list-2005), ex-leader of the ACT Party, uncle to actor Antonia, the veritable granddaddy ...
Hi,Just quickly — I’m blown away by the stories you’ve shared with me over the last week since I put out the ‘Gary’ podcast, where I told you about the time my friend’s flatmate killed the neighbour.And you keep telling me stories — in the comments section, and in my ...
The first season of Rings of Power was not awful. It was thoroughly underwhelming, yes, and left a lingering sense of disappointment, but it was more expensive mediocrity than catastrophe. I wrote at length about the series as it came out (see the Review section of the blog, and go ...
Buzz from the Beehive Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden told Auckland Business Chamber members they were the first audience to hear her priorities as a minister in a government committed to cutting red tape and regulations. She brandished her liberalising credentials, saying Flexible labour markets are the ...
Chris Trotter writes – TO UNDERSTAND WHY NEWSHUB FAILED, it is necessary to understand how TVNZ changed. Up until 1989, the state broadcaster had been funded by a broadcasting licence fee, collected from every citizen in possession of a television set, supplemented by a relatively modest (compared ...
Bob Edlin writes – The Māori Party has been busy issuing a mix of warnings and threats as its expresses its opposition to interest deductibility for landlords and the plans of seabed miners. It remains to be seen whether they follow the example of indigenous litigants in Australia, ...
The Government has accepted Labour’s change to the Road User Charge (RUC) discount for hybrid vehicles, meaning there will still be some incentive for people to buy greener vehicles. ...
Kicking the most vulnerable people out of state housing and pushing them towards homelessness will result in a proliferation of poverty and trauma across our most vulnerable communities. ...
Te Pāti Māori co-leader and MP for Waiariki, Rawiri Waititi has penned a letter asking MPs to support his members bill to remove GST from all food. The bill is expected to go through its first reading in parliament this Wednesday. “I’m calling on all political parties to support my ...
This year is about getting real with Kiwis and discussing the tough issues, as the National Government exacerbates inequality and divides New Zealand, Labour Leader Chris Hipkins said ...
The Government adding Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) to its already roaring environmental policy bonfire is an assault on the future of wildlife that makes Aotearoa unique. ...
After 12 years of fighting to protect our moana we are finding ourselves back at square one and back at court. Today, the Environmental Protection Agency is sitting in Hawera to reconsider an application from Trans-Tasman Resources to dig up 50 million tonnes of the seabed in South Taranaki. This ...
Minister Shane Jones’ decision to step away from a seabed mining project is evidence of the murky waters surrounding the Government’s fast-track legislation. ...
The growth of Treaty of Waitangi clauses in legislation caused so much worry that a special oversight group was set up by the last government in a bid to get greater coherence in the publicservice on Treaty matters. When ministers first considered the need for tighter oversight in 2021, there ...
The growth of Treaty of Waitangi clauses in legislation caused so much worry that a special oversight group was set up by the last government in a bid to get greater coherence in the publicservice on Treaty matters. When ministers first considered the need for tighter oversight in 2021, there ...
The Coalition Government’s miscalculation saga continues as it has forgotten an eyewatering $90 million gap in its interest deductibility cost figures, say Labour Finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds and Revenue Spokesperson Deborah Russell. ...
He Pou a Rangi Climate Change Commission has today released advice that says if the Government doesn’t act now New Zealand is at risk of not meeting its climate goals. ...
The Coalition Government has today confirmed it is abandoning first home buyers who are struggling to get ahead, says Labour Finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds. ...
The New Zealand public voted for a change in direction at the 2023 general election and that is exactly what this coalition government has been delivering in its first 100 days. There was an immediate focus on the economy, easing the cost of living, cracking down on law and order ...
The Government has left the health system as an afterthought, announcing half-baked targets at the last minute of their 100-day plan, says Labour Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall. ...
Kiwis are still waiting for their promised cost of living support after 100 days of a National Government that is taking us backwards, Labour Leader Chris Hipkins said today. ...
The National Government has spent its first 100 days stopping, cutting and reversing. They have scrapped stuff for stuff for the sake of it, without putting up any solutions of their own – and it’s hardworking New Zealanders who will pay for it. ...
100 days of National taking NZ backwardsThe National Government has spent its first 100 days stopping, cutting and reversing. They have scrapped stuff for stuff for the sake of it, without putting up any solutions of their own – and it’s hardworking New Zealanders who will pay for it. ...
The Government must commit to funding free and healthy school lunches, as thousands of people sign the petition to keep them, education spokesperson Jan Tinetti says. ...
If the Government was serious about moving families into public housing, they would build more houses so there is actually somewhere for people to go. ...
The free and healthy school lunches programme feeds our kids, helps them to learn, and saves families money – but it is at risk under this Government, education spokesperson Jan Tinetti said. ...
The Government’s proposed changes to Firearms Prohibition Orders (FPO) add almost nothing new and are merely an attempt to distract from its plans to loosen gun laws, police spokesperson Ginny Andersen and justice spokesperson Dr Duncan Webb said. ...
The great Victorian era English politician Lord Macauley stood in the British House of Parliament and said, "The gallery in which the reporters sit has become a fourth estate of the realm".He understood and outlined even way back then, the significant role and influence media have in a democracy. ...
"The Government is moving quickly to realise an additional $46 million in tariff savings in the EU market this season for Kiwi exporters,” Minister for Trade and Agriculture, Todd McClay says. Parliament is set, this week, to complete the final legislative processes required to bring the New Zealand – European ...
New Zealand’s social workers are qualified, experienced, and more representative of the communities they serve, Social Development and Employment Minister Louise Upston says. “I want to acknowledge and applaud New Zealand’s social workers for the hard work they do, providing invaluable support for our most vulnerable. “To coincide with World ...
Cabinet has agreed to a reduced road user charge (RUC) rate for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. Owners of PHEVs will be eligible for a reduced rate of $38 per 1,000km once all light electric vehicles (EVs) move into the RUC system from 1 April. ...
Minister of Agriculture and Trade, Todd McClay, says that today’s opening of Riverland Foods manufacturing plant in Christchurch is a great example of how trade access to overseas markets creates jobs in New Zealand. Speaking at the official opening of this state-of-the-art pet food factory the Minister noted that exports ...
Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters met with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Wellington today. “It was a pleasure to host Foreign Minister Wang Yi during his first official visit to New Zealand since 2017. Our discussions were wide-ranging and enabled engagement on many facets of New Zealand’s relationship with China, including trade, ...
Kāinga Ora – Homes & Communities has been instructed to end the Sustaining Tenancies Framework and take stronger measures against persistent antisocial behaviour by tenants, says Housing Minister Chris Bishop. “Earlier today Finance Minister Nicola Willis and I sent an interim Letter of Expectations to the Board of Kāinga Ora. ...
Tēna koutou katoa. Greetings everyone. Thank you to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and the Honourable Simon Bridges for hosting this address today. I acknowledge the business leaders in this room, the leaders and governors, the employers, the entrepreneurs, the investors, and the wealth creators. The coalition Government shares your ...
Minister Winston Peters completed the final leg of his visit to South and South East Asia in Singapore today, where he focused on enhancing one of New Zealand’s indispensable strategic partnerships. “Singapore is our most important defence partner in South East Asia, our fourth-largest trading partner and a ...
Minister of Internal Affairs and Workplace Relations and Safety, Hon. Brooke van Velden, will travel to the Republic of Korea to represent New Zealand at the Third Summit for Democracy on 18 March. The summit, hosted by the Republic of Korea, was first convened by the United States in 2021, ...
ICNZ Speech 7 March 2024, Auckland Acknowledgements and opening Mōrena, ngā mihi nui. Ko Andrew Bayly aho, Nor Whanganui aho. Good morning, it’s a privilege to be here to open the ICNZ annual conference, thank you to Mark for the Mihi Whakatau My thanks to Tim Grafton for inviting me ...
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Lead Coordination Minister Judith Collins have expressed their deepest sympathy on the five-year anniversary of the Christchurch terror attacks. “March 15, 2019, was a day when families, communities and the country came together both in sorrow and solidarity,” Mr Luxon says. “Today we pay our respects to the 51 shuhada ...
Speech for Financial Advice NZ Conference 5 March 2024 Acknowledgements and opening Morena, Nga Mihi Nui. Ko Andrew Bayly aho, Nor Whanganui aho. Thanks Nate for your Mihi Whakatau Good morning. It’s a pleasure to formally open your conference this morning. What a lovely day in Wellington, What a great ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters held discussions in Jakarta today about the future of relations between New Zealand and South East Asia’s most populous country. “We are in Jakarta so early in our new government’s term to reflect the huge importance we place on our relationship with Indonesia and South ...
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters has announced that the Foreign Minister of China, Wang Yi, will visit New Zealand next week. “We look forward to re-engaging with Foreign Minister Wang Yi and discussing the full breadth of the bilateral relationship, which is one of New Zealand’s ...
Transport Minister Simeon Brown has today opened the new Auckland Rail Operations Centre, which will bring together KiwiRail, Auckland Transport, and Auckland One Rail to improve service reliability for Aucklanders. “The recent train disruptions in Auckland have highlighted how important it is KiwiRail and Auckland’s rail agencies work together to ...
The Government is proud to support the 10th edition of Crankworx Rotorua as the Crankworx World Tour returns to Rotorua from 16-24 March 2024, says Minister for Economic Development Melissa Lee. “Over the past 10 years as Crankworx Rotorua has grown, so too have the economic and social benefits that ...
Legislation implementing coalition Government tax commitments and addressing long-standing tax anomalies will be progressed in Parliament next week, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says. The legislation is contained in an Amendment Paper to the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023–24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill issued today. “The Amendment Paper represents ...
Associate Environment Minister Andrew Hoggard has today announced that the Government has agreed to suspend the requirement for councils to comply with the Significant Natural Areas (SNA) provisions of the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity for three years, while it replaces the Resource Management Act (RMA).“As it stands, SNAs ...
Agriculture Minister Todd McClay has classified the drought conditions in the Marlborough, Tasman, and Nelson districts as a medium-scale adverse event, acknowledging the challenging conditions facing farmers and growers in the district. “Parts of Marlborough, Tasman, and Nelson districts are in the grip of an intense dry spell. I know ...
The Government is helping farmers eradicate the significant impact of facial eczema (FE) in pastoral animals, Agriculture Minister Todd McClay announced. “A $20 million partnership jointly funded by Beef + Lamb NZ, the Government, and the primary sector will save farmers an estimated NZD$332 million per year, and aims to ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters has completed a successful visit to India, saying it was an important step in taking the relationship between the two countries to the next level. “We have laid a strong foundation for the Coalition Government’s priority of enhancing New Zealand-India relations to generate significant future benefit for both countries,” says Mr Peters, ...
Cabinet has agreed to provide $7 million to ensure the 2024 ski season can go ahead on the Whakapapa ski field in the central North Island but has told the operator Ruapehu Alpine Lifts it is the last financial support it will receive from taxpayers. Cabinet also agreed to provide ...
Health Minister Dr Shane Reti says the launch of a new mobile breast screening unit in Counties Manukau reinforces the coalition Government’s commitment to drive better cancer services for all New Zealanders. Speaking at the launch of the new mobile clinic, Dr Reti says it’s a great example of taking ...
Health Minister Dr Shane Reti says the launch of a new mobile breast screening unit in Counties Manukau reinforces the coalition Government’s commitment to drive better cancer services for all New Zealanders. Speaking at the launch of the new mobile clinic, Dr Reti says it’s a great example of taking ...
Unlocking economic growth and land for housing are critical elements of the Government’s plan for our transport network, and planned upgrades to State Highway 29 (SH29) near Tauriko will deliver strongly on those priorities, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “The SH29 upgrades near Tauriko will improve safety at the intersections ...
Unlocking economic growth and land for housing are critical elements of the Government’s plan for our transport network, and planned upgrades to State Highway 29 (SH29) near Tauriko will deliver strongly on those priorities, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “The SH29 upgrades near Tauriko will improve safety at the intersections ...
Lower fruit and vegetable prices are welcome news for New Zealanders who have been doing it tough at the supermarket, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says. Stats NZ reported today the price of fruit and vegetables has dropped 9.3 percent in the 12 months to February 2024. “Lower fruit and vege ...
Tēnā koutou katoa and greetings to you all. Chair, I am honoured to address the sixty-eighth session of the Commission on the Status of Women. I acknowledge the many crises impacting the rights of women and girls. Heightened global tensions, war, climate related and humanitarian disasters, and price inflation all ...
Tēnā koutou katoa and greetings to you all. Chair, I am honoured to address the 68th session of the Commission on the Status of Women. I acknowledge the many crises impacting the rights of women and girls. Heightened global tensions, war, climate related and humanitarian disasters, and price inflation all ...
The coalition Government is supporting farmers to enhance land management practices by investing $3.3 million in locally led catchment groups, Agriculture Minister Todd McClay announced. “Farmers and growers deliver significant prosperity for New Zealand and it’s vital their ongoing efforts to improve land management practices and water quality are supported,” ...
Good evening everyone and thank you for that lovely introduction. Thank you also to the Honourable Simon Bridges for the invitation to address your members. Since being sworn in, this coalition Government has hit the ground running with our 100-day plan, delivering the changes that New Zealanders expect of us. ...
Recommendations from the Climate Change Commission for New Zealand on the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) auction and unit limit settings for the next five years have been tabled in Parliament, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says. “The Commission provides advice on the ETS annually. This is the third time the ...
The coalition Government is beginning its fight to lower building costs and reduce red tape by exempting minor building work from paying the building levy, says Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk. “Currently, any building project worth $20,444 including GST or more is subject to the building levy which is ...
Proposed changes to tax legislation to prevent the over-taxation of low-earning trusts are welcome, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says. The changes have been recommended by Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee following consideration of submissions on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023–24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill. “One of the ...
Assalaamu alaikum. السَّلَام عليكم In light of the holy month of Ramadan, I want to extend my warmest wishes to our Muslim community in New Zealand. Ramadan is a time for spiritual reflection, renewed devotion, perseverance, generosity, and forgiveness. It’s a time to strengthen our bonds and appreciate the diversity ...
Former Transport Minister and CEO of the Auckland Business Chamber Hon Simon Bridges has been appointed as the new Board Chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) for a three-year term, Transport Minister Simeon Brown announced today. “Simon brings extensive experience and knowledge in transport policy and governance to the role. He will ...
Good morning all, it is a pleasure to be here as Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology. It is fantastic to see how connected and collaborative the life science and biotechnology industry is here in New Zealand. I would like to thank BioTechNZ and NZTech for the invitation to address ...
Regional Development Minister Shane Jones says he is looking forward to the day when three key water projects in Northland are up and running, unlocking the full potential of land in the region. Mr Jones attended a community event at the site of the Otawere reservoir near Kerikeri on Friday. ...
Associate Finance Minister David Seymour has today announced that the Government has agreed to restore deductibility for mortgage interest on residential investment properties. “Help is on the way for landlords and renters alike. The Government’s restoration of interest deductibility will ease pressure on rents and simplify the tax code,” says ...
Sport and Recreation Minister Chris Bishop will travel to Switzerland today to attend an Executive Committee meeting and Symposium of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Mr Bishop will then travel on to London where he will attend a series of meetings in his capacity as Infrastructure Minister. “New Zealanders believe ...
Pacific Media Watch Earthwise hosts Lois and Martin Griffiths. Earthwise presenters Lois and Martin Griffiths on Plains FM 96.9 community radio talk to Dr David Robie, a New Zealand author, independent journalist and media educator with a passion for the Asia-Pacific region. David talks about the struggle to raise awareness ...
Pacific Media Watch Ismail al-Ghoul, an Al Jazeera Arabic correspondent who was held for 12 hours at Gaza’s al-Shifa hospital, says Israeli forces rounded up Palestinian journalists at the facility and made them kneel on the ground for hours, while naked and blindfolded. “The occupation forces handcuffed and blindfolded us ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tony Wood, Program Director, Energy, Grattan Institute chinasong, Shutterstock Electricity customers in four Australian states can breathe a sigh of relief. After two years in a row of 20% price increases, power prices have finally stabilised. In many places they’re ...
Chumbawamba have reportedly issued the deputy PM a cease-and-desist notice after he used their song 'Tubthumping' before his state of the nation speech. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deborah Lupton, SHARP Professor, Vitalities Lab, Centre for Social Research in Health and Social Policy Centre, and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, UNSW Sydney kitzcorner/Shutterstock The assertion from Queensland’s chief health officer John Gerrard that ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Martin, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University Shutterstock Why are musicians so keen to get played on the radio? It can’t be because of the money. In Australia they are paid at rates so low they ...
"Farmers make a point not to tell our urban cousins how to live, yet Chlöe from central Auckland is hell-bent on having her say about farmers," says ACT Rural Communities spokesman Mark Cameron. “On her first day in the House as Green ...
Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards – Democracy Project (https://democracyproject.nz)Political scientist, Dr Bryce Edwards. It’s been a tumultuous time in politics in recent months, as the new National-led Government has driven through its “First 100 Day programme”. During this period there’s been a handful of opinion polls, which overall just ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Curran, Associate Professor of Ecology, Lincoln University, New Zealand Getty Images/Gerald Corsi In the latest move to reform environmental laws in New Zealand, the coalition government has introduced a bill to fast-track consenting processes for projects deemed to ...
Uber has argued it does not have as much control over drivers as the unions suggest, and wants a judgment ruling that drivers are employees and not contractors set aside and sent back to the Employment Court. The 2022 ruling followed a three-week hearing in which four drivers sought to ...
What can and can’t be purchased by disabled people or their carers has been slashed in an effort by the Ministry of Disabled People Whaikaha to save money. The purchasing guidelines, a set of rules that sets out what can be purchased using the various streams of Government disability funding, ...
The Treasury has published today a new Analytical Note by Tod Wright and Hien Nguyen, Fiscal incidence in New Zealand: The effects of taxes and benefits on household incomes in tax year 2018/19 . Analyses of the distributional impact of taxation and government ...
The Treasury has published today a new Analytical Note by Cory Davis, Boston Hart and Benjamin Stubbing, Household cost-of-living impacts from the Emissions Trading Scheme and using transfers to mitigate regressive outcomes . This Analytical Note ...
A coalition of public transport and climate organisations, united as ‘Transport for All’, is actively opposing the government’s transport proposals. The draft Government Policy Statement (GPS) includes plans for higher fares for public transport, ...
Greater Wellington is inviting feedback on proposed changes to its Revenue and Financing Policy. The Revenue and Financing Policy covers the Council’s various sources of funding, and how the cost of services is shared across the region. This includes ...
Labour has conceded it could have done more to deal with disruptive state housing tenants while in government but says the current coalition is going too far. ...
The band has asked their record label to issue a cease and desist to stop the NZ First leader using their 1997 hit to support his ‘misguided political views’. “I get knocked down, but I get up again,” blared through the speakers on Sunday as Winston Peters took the stage ...
By Lydia Lewis, RNZ Pacific journalist Food rationing is underway in remote areas in Papua New Guinea’s Highlands following torrential rain and flash flooding. More than 20 people have been reported dead in Chimbu Province. In nearby Enga Province, the centre of last month’s massacre, a 15-year-old boy has been ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Hughes, Lecturer, Research School of Management, Australian National University After months of debate and intrigue, the AFL’s 19th and newest team, the Tasmania Devils, finally launched its jumper, logo and colours in Devonport this week. The Devils will wear green, ...
Brannavan Gnanalingam reviews the debut novel by Saraid de Silva.One of the most baffling things for children who move to a new country is what their parents’ (or grandparents’) lives were like prior to moving – for kids in particular, they’re too busy trying to fit in in their ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Gaunson, Associate Professor in Cinema Studies, RMIT University Narelle Portanier/Binge “If you don’t know who your mob are, you don’t know who you are,” Detective Andrea “Andie” Whitford (played by Leah Purcell) is told early into the new crime ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elise Klein, Associate professor, Australian National University It’s commonly accepted that women do the vast majority of caregiving in Australian society. But less appreciated is that Indigenous women do larger amounts of unpaid care than any other group. Working with the Aboriginal ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne Joe Biden and Donald Trump have both secured their parties’ nominations for the November 5 United States general election by winning a ...
Comment: There has been a striking contrast in trans-Tasman interest about Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi’s visit to New Zealand and Australia. While the Australian press has been full of articles about the visit – including his curious decision to meet with former prime minister and China booster Paul Keating ...
After years of pressuring banks and other institutions to stop investing in fossil fuels, climate campaigners are making some progress. So how does divestment work?For years, climate activists have been pushing banks and other big institutions to divest from fossil fuels. New research from climate advocacy group 350 Aotearoa ...
For Boba, Ethan and Ashley, K-pop is a place to belong, a way to express themselves, and a bridge to connect with others. The three young Polynesians are part of a K-pop fan community in Tāmaki Makaurau. It’s one of many that have sprung up worldwide as K-pop has gone ...
For Boba, Ethan and Ashley, K-pop is a place to belong, a way to express themselves, and a bridge to connect with others. This one-off documentary presents three intimate portraits of young Polynesians who are pulled into a Korean cultural phenomenon. K-POLYS is directed by Litia Tuiburelevu, Produced by Hex ...
There’s ample evidence demonstrating free school lunch programmes provide wide benefits across schools, households and communities according to public health researchers. ACT Minister David Seymour wants to reduce the spending on Aotearoa New Zealand’s ...
By Wata Shaw in Suva Fiji is facing an exodus of Fijians as many are leaving for overseas seeking employment and education and others are migrating, says Opposition MP Viliame Naupoto. Speaking in Parliament, he said: “His Excellency’s speech (Ratu Wiliame Katonivere) comes after a little over one year of ...
The Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming comments from Christopher Luxon this morning recommitting to ‘no new taxes’ as part of Budget 2024. “Mr Luxon’s refusal at the Post-Cabinet press conference yesterday to repeat the ‘no new taxes’ promise ...
SAFE is urgently calling on the Environment Committee to reject the Government’s Fast-Track Approvals Bill, and is urging New Zealanders to rally behind the call. The proposed Bill, currently under consideration with the Environment select committee, ...
Teammates who spend all their time picking fights with spectators are only helpful for the other team, writes Madeleine Chapman. Anyone who has ever played a team sport competitively, particularly as a child and particularly, for some reason, basketball, will know that there’s a lot of politics involved. While there ...
The long-running Wellington music festival is too focused on the Jim Beam-ness and not enough on the Homegrown-ness.There is something about Homegrown that’s difficult to place. A barely perceptible-ness. Like feeling a ghost is watching you from the corner of the room but when you look, there’s nothing there. ...
The latest Ipsos New Zealand Issues Monitor reveals that fewer New Zealanders believe crime / law and order is one of the top issues facing our country. In 2018, Ipsos New Zealand started tracking the key issues facing New Zealand. In this wave ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Griffiths, Deputy Program Director, Budgets and Government, Grattan Institute Australia’s political donations rules are woefully inadequate, but donations reform is finally on the agenda. The federal government has signalled its interest in reform and will soon begin briefing MPs on its ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Patrick Taylor, Chief Environmental Scientist, EPA Victoria; Honorary Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University Naiyana Somchitkaeo/Shutterstock A recent study published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has linked microplastics with risk to human health. The study ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Albert Van Dijk, Professor, Water and Landscape Dynamics, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University Global climate records were shattered in 2023, from air and sea temperatures to sea-level rise and sea-ice extent. Scores of countries recorded their hottest year ...
As part of our series exploring how New Zealanders live and our relationship with money, a teacher explains why he and his partner are in frugal mode – and how they’re making it work. Gender: Male Age: 35Ethnicity: Pākehā Role: I am an intermediate school teacher and my partner is ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Bendall, Senior Lecturer, Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences, Australian Catholic University Binge Mary & George, the new British television drama series, depicts the real-life story of Mary Villiers and her son George, and their social climbing at the ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jason Nassios, Associate Professor, Centre of Policy Studies, Victoria University This article is part of The Conversation’s series examining the housing crisis. Read the other articles in the series here. Australian state and federal governments spend money in many ways to ...
The finance minister is denying that there’s a $5.6b shortfall in paying for the government’s campaign promises, including tax cuts. At his post-cabinet press conference yesterday, the PM refused to rule out new taxes to pay for the cuts, writes Anna Rawhiti-Connell in this excerpt from The Bulletin, The Spinoff’s ...
Kāinga Ora tenants abused by their neighbours are doubting the government's crackdown on disruptive tenants will make a difference on their behaviour. ...
Kāinga Ora is New Zealand’s biggest residential landlord, housing more than 180,000 vulnerable people in more than 67,000 properties. Yesterday the government announced a crackdown on its tenants who fall behind on rent. One longtime Kāinga Ora tenant shares her experience.For 18 years I lived in a 1960s standalone ...
Why does this myth persist, and what’s the real reason our skin is suffering?It’s one of the biggest international grievances New Zealanders hold, up there with the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior and 1981’s underarm incident. We’re quick to tell international travellers that the world’s pollution led to the ...
SailGP’s races feature in-your-face action, with agile, hydro-foiling catamarans tacking and jibing for the title over several days. However, public comments ahead of the global series’ return to New Zealand have left this past year’s controversy in the shadows, as a key appointment attracts criticism from dolphin advocates. A year ...
Opinion: We are fast approaching a fundamental change in prisons. As the number of people on custodial remand looks set to overtake the number of sentenced prisoners, the main function of prisons in New Zealand may become incarcerating un-sentenced people who may not be guilty of offending. We have already ...
A huge seven months lies in store for the White Ferns, beginning this week with the visit of England and culminating with the T20 World Cup in Bangladesh in September and October. Starting on Tuesday in Dunedin, the world ranked No. 2 visitors will play five T20s and three ODIs, ...
Opinion: In a move that has shocked road safety advocates across the country, the new Minister of Transport, Simeon Brown, is poised to abandon the previous government’s speed limit reduction policy, particularly around schools. Even more alarmingly, he wants school speed limits to be variable rather than full-time, arguing ...
Auckland Council is opposing a fast-track development backed by Sir John Kirwan and Spark NZ, because it doesn’t meet stringent new climate adaptation requirements The post Surf-data centre faces new 3.8C climate warming rules appeared first on Newsroom. ...
When the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act was introduced in 2009 it was firmly targeted at gangs and drugs. The legislation means police no longer need a conviction to seize assets that criminals can’t prove were paid for legitimately, as long as their alleged offences are punishable by more than a ...
Loading…(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){var ql=document.querySelectorAll('A[quiz],DIV[quiz],A[data-quiz],DIV[data-quiz]'); if(ql){if(ql.length){for(var k=0;k<ql.length;k++){ql[k].id='quiz-embed-'+k;ql[k].href="javascript:var i=document.getElementById('quiz-embed-"+k+"');try{qz.startQuiz(i)}catch(e){i.start=1;i.style.cursor='wait';i.style.opacity='0.5'};void(0);"}}};i['QP']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){(i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m)})(window,document,'script','https://take.quiz-maker.com/3012/CDN/quiz-embed-v1.js','qp'); Got a good quiz question?Send Newsroom your questions. The post Newsroom daily quiz, Tuesday 19 March appeared first on Newsroom. ...
Bob’s relationship with certain members of Lincoln’s academic staff continued to deteriorate in the 1990s. Others supported him publicly, though articles such as Roland Clark’s 1993 piece in Growing Today cannot have pleased the university management. Clark wrote that Bob was selling onions from the Biological Husbandry Unit to a ...
The letters, which were published last week, were addressed to Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) Chairperson Megawati Sukarnoputri, National Democrat Party (NasDem) Chairperson Surya Paloh, National Awakening Party (PKB) Chairperson Muhaimin Iskandar, Justice and Prosperity Party (PKS) President Ahmad Syaikhu and United Development Party (PPP) Chairperson Muhammad Mardiono. In ...
Evicting more people from state housing is ignorant to the consequences of poverty, the Greens say, but the Housing Minister says it's a privilege that can be taken away if abused. ...
Evicting more people from state housing is ignorant to the consequences of poverty, the Greens say, but the Housing Minister says it's a privilege that can be taken away if abused. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emerald L King, Lecturer in Humanities, University of Tasmania IMDB Between Netflix’s 2023 live-action version of One Piece, and its latest take on Avatar: The Last Airbender, fans are once again asking: why are live-action anime adaptations so tricky to ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emerald L King, Lecturer in Humanities, University of Tasmania IMDB Between Netflix’s 2023 live-action version of One Piece, and its latest take on Avatar: The Last Airbender, fans are once again asking: why are live-action anime adaptations so tricky to ...
The government says it still intends to deliver tax cuts by July, but will not lock them in until they have got them past their coalition partners. ...
Bit of a left field one.
Does anyone know how to completely uninstall that annoying "Petal" app from a Samsung Galaxy?
there’s a typo in your email address holding you comments back.
Angela Merkel has come out and said she was prevented from from having a dialogue with the Russian President , before leaving the post of German Chancellor.
In an interview with Der Spiegel, she said that the start of the special operation was not unexpected, because the Minsk agreements were destroyed.
That sets the cats amongst the pigeons.
Another thin tissue to cover for Russia's unprovoked aggression and vile targeting of civilians.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/russia-ukraine-war-russia-rains-missiles-on-liberated-kherson/JA36MYOQTBANPHE6R7WKR6TUAY/
Russia's strategy now seems to be to hold the territory they've gained and force the Ukranians to the negotiating table. To this end they are trying to make the rest of the country unlivable in. Given that Ukranian aggression sees no signs of abating, it would seem to be the Russian's only sensible strategy. Tough on Ukranian civilians, of course, but latter seem to be showing no signs of wanting a ceasefire and negotiations, any more than the military.
Blame the victim.
Blame the victim.
Nobody is blaming the victim. Such statements are just propaganda.
Describing Ukraine's defence of ITS own country and attempts to regain ITS territory as "aggression" is quite clearly victim blaming, whether you realise it or not.
At present Luhansk, Donetsk, Mariupol etc. belong to Russia, and I don't think Ukraine will be getting them back, so they had best come to terms with Russia before the latter does even more damage to the rest of their country. As I say the ball is now in the Ukranian court. Time, I think, to start negotiations, rather than continue with their aggrefssion.
Well, yes. But you didn't think that Ukraine would gain any territory back following the Russian invasion. So your prediction that Russia will retain those territories is somewhat .. suspect.
Given that Russia attacked a sovereign nation – and is continuing to deliberately bomb civilian infrastructure (and, is apparently unworried by the collateral loss of lives) – I know who I would characterise as the "aggressor"
100% you are blaming the victim, while cheerleading for and excusing vile war criminals.
Since when was having your country invaded by a military that then proceeds to establish torture chambers across your territory, "Aggression"?
Yuk Yuk Yuk.
The Russians killed a 2 day old baby in a maternity ward, fuck them fuck putin if I was Ukrainian I'd try kill them all.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/300748354/ukraine-war-russian-rocket-strikes-hospital-maternity-wing-killing-newborn
If you've been fooled once about a maternity hospital, what's to say you've been fooled again? Have a read, keep an open mind.
"A key witness to the widely publicized incident at the Mariupol maternity hospital has punctured the official narrative of a Russian airstrike on the facility, and raised serious questions about Western media ethics. Meanwhile, news of a massacre in the city of Bucha contains suspicious elements."
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/03/testimony-mariupol-hospital-ukrainian-deceptions-media-malpractice/
The first casualty in war is the truth, as the old saying goes.
All I can say is that (a) war sucks and (b) the media are not telling us the whole truth about Ukraine
I've been watching since the Vietnam War and what I've found out is that the media lines we are feed are mostly a constant inversion of the truth, anyone who took any notice of the middle east wars in the last 20yrs will know that. The question I have to ask is why would they suddenly be telling the truth after 70yrs of lying.
The first thing that came up when I googled "who's greyzone" was its a conspiracy theory spreading outfit.
Not to surprised as you usually are a bit out the gate with your stuff.
Worth doing a bit of research on that claim. Nothing is what it seems.
https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1595561350310334465?cxt=HHwWgsC46YWmyaQsAAAA
The entire civilized world is behind the Ukraine. The fact you seem to want to make common cause with the theocratic monsters of Teheran, the butchers in Beijing, the tinpot despots in Russia, the punctilliously murderous regime in North Korea and the BJP chancers in India is, I guess, a matter for you and your conscience.
Of course you would like the bombing to stop so the Russians can lose the war. The Ukranians are not going to stop their aggression..
Russian mobiks offered up in full-frontal assaults by brutal, corrupt commanders continue dying. Hypothermic Russian mobiks at the tail end of a corrupt logistics chain, denied adequate winter attire, kit, shelter and food continue dying.
Why would Ukraine stop their aggression?
There are dozens of videos on telegram channels showing mobs of freezing and apathetic Russian mobiks being killed by AFU drone attacks and artillery strikes. They are untrained, poorly equipped with no warm clothing in sub-zero temperatures and have been basically abandoned by their officers.
The Russian 155th Naval Brigade apparently lost 450-500 men KIA and about the same woulded in just two days frontally assaulting the town of Pavlivka (Donetsk Oblast) – almost all it's infantry, and all it's tanks and AFVs – for zero gain.
This is what happens when a regime run by criminal desperadoes who have no regard for human life fight a war.
Everyone suffers, but at least the AFU sooldiers are dying for the noblest of causes – to defend their homeland from an invader.
Snow on the ground and some of the poor buggers appear to have no gloves. Another fortnight and night temperatures will be below -10°C and not rise until late February, the ground will be frozen solid so they won't be able to dig in, artillery will be more effective, Kälteidiotie, cold idiocy, will set in and a night out in the open will be unsurvivable.
And Poots knows it, hence the must negotiate talking point pushed by hishasbarists.
TBH it seems clear the Russian high command is simply sacrificing some of the first wave of mobiks as speed bumps while other units get better training and equipment. A criminal waste of life, but who would notice another crime from Putins gangster state?
Yup, one rifle, two men. There's a short video of a Chehcen, apparently identified by the red trainers they wear, NVKD like barrier troop blocking a Russian serviceman on a rural road and beating him around the head as he was sending him back to wherever he'd come from.
Cruelty is their thing.
I prefer reasoned argument to just hurling insults. Unlike you apparently.
Well, no. Russia's sensible strategy would be to withdraw behind the previous frontier – and declare a cease-fire & request negotiations. Of course, Putin shows no signs of 'sensible' in any of his communications.
I fail to see how conducting some kind of scorched earth policy – self-proclaimedly against civilian targets – is in any way admirable.
This type of 'attack the civilians' policy would be condemned – and very rightly so – by the left across the world – if just about any other country were conducting it.
Why on earth would you support it as in any way admirable?
Well, no. Russia's sensible strategy would be to withdraw behind the previous frontier – and declare a cease-fire & request negotiations. Of course, Putin shows no signs of 'sensible' in any of his communications.
That would not be sensible. The ball is in the Ukranians’ court: they need to negotiate.
A brutal and genocidal Fascist enemy from a despotic country run like a giant criminal enterprise launch an unprovoked invasion of New Zealand. Only after a most desperate and valiant defense they are repelled from seizing Auckland and Wellington in coup-de-main.
After heavy fighting, they retreat to Northland, Taranaki and the King Country after looting anything of vlaue and destroying everything they can't steal – leaving behind tales of torture, rape and mass graves of anyone who dared to say they were a proud New Zealander.
After months more of fighting, they are driven out of Northland in a brilliant counter attack and forced to retreat from the King Country. The enemy is on the backfoot, our Allies have supplied us with heaps of weapons. Just Taranaki and bits of Whanganui remain held by the invaders. The invaders respond by annexing all of the territory they’ve occupied and constantly repeating maximalist war aims that include the complete destruction of the New Zealand stae and it’s absorption into their country.
Thousands and thousands on New Zealand soldiers have died to liberate their country. We are united in our determination to drive out the invader. The enemy responds to defeat by mercilessly bombing our hydropower stations, and blowing up the Cook strait cable. They begin attacking our cities indiscrimantely with hundreds and hundreds of cruise missiles in a deliberate attempt to terrorize us into submission, weapons against which we have little initial defense and whose bombardment our citizens must endure.
mikesh says we should negotiate, because to continue to defeat the invader to liberate all our land and free our people would be unnecessarily aggressive.
You seem to me to be the sort of Quisling who would welcome your new overlords and take every opportunity to inform on the resistance because you want to be on what you assume to the winning side, and you didn't like the government anyway.
A brutal and genocidal Fascist enemy from a despotic country run like a giant criminal enterprise launch an unprovoked invasion of New Zealand. Only after a most desperate and valiant defense they are repelled from seizing Auckland and Wellington in coup-de-main.
How awful. When did that happen? Are any of our cities still standing. I would hope that we did not mount a defense on the basis that Uncle Sam would assist us, and then found that he let us down, being only interested in supplying weapons.
"…mount a defense on the basis that Uncle Sam would assist us, and then found that he let us down, being only interested in supplying weapons…"
Ummm, call me an old fashioned pedant, but I am reasonably sure that "supplying weapons" constitutes "assisting".
You missed out the rather important part of the story where New Zealand was shelling enemy territory for 8 years prior, and not allowing some of the enemy territories any independence. Just the main precursor for the war… don't worry though it sort of ruins a good piece of fiction.
That is a selective simplification of a much more complex matter. And rather leaves out the small matter of Russia invading and annexing Crimea at the same time. Hardly a gesture that was going to assure the Ukrainians of Putin's fine brotherly intentions.
Hmm, that's a written history of a war that relies heavily on references from the BBC and a Ukrainian newspaper. Would I be right to question that history?
The other point I would make is that it makes no mention of the ongoing shelling in the Donbass, that has been reported by countless independent media, and seems to have a lot to do with why Russia got involved.
Tankie reckons don't cut it.
/
I appreciate there a lot of reasons not to unthinkingly trust any media source these days maui. I think most of us struggle with making sense of the world one way or another. I don't expect perfection from anyone, but I do try to understand what direction they are heading in – up or down?
Setting aside the politics, perhaps one good measure of this is the resolve and morale of the Ukrainian people themselves. Their courage and sacrifice has meant their military has completely outperformed all pre-war expectations – and on that undeniable basis I give them them my support.
Oh, so Russia doesn't need to negotiate…. because they hope that they can sufficiently destroy civilian life in Ukraine, so that Ukraine will offer an unconditional surrender.
And, you, apparently, feel this is a worthy strategy. My contempt is deep.
Luckily, your opinion doesn't seem to be widely shared on the left – judging from the spectacular lack of support on TS – (or in the centre, or, to be fair, by much of the right).
This style of jackbooted militarism seems to be out of favour with most civilized countries.
Tell me, if this was the US – launching an attack on Mexico – and raining down missiles on the civilian infrastructure to force a surrender – would you still be so supportive of the military strategy? I somehow, think not.
So the situation is hopeless. Neither side wishes to negotiate. So the mayhem continues. Do you think that is a good thing?
It is not Russia's cities being bombed, so the ball is in Ukraine's court.
It is not that I approve of any of of this. I’ve simply resigned myself to the fact that Russia will not relinquish her gains willingly. It’s just not going to happen.
It's Russia doing the bombing. The ball is in Russia's court. They can stop any time they please.
You haven't answered my question BTW.
"Tell me, if this was the US – launching an attack on Mexico – and raining down missiles on the civilian infrastructure to force a surrender – would you still be so supportive of the military strategy? I somehow, think not."
Exactly. If Russia removed all of it's troops back to the widely recognised 2014 borders and stopped bombing Ukraine – the war would be over tomorrow. (The converse – Ukraine invading and bombing Russia being exceedingly unlikely in the current circumstances.)
Unfortunately because nothing the Russians sign up to can be relied upon – Ukraine would also have to become a full member of NATO. As have Sweden and Finland.
Nothing else can assure their sovereignty now.
just because youre a quitter, dont expect the ukrainians to do the same. and if you any sort of student of history, you will know that once invited, the russians stay and expand.
Tell me, if this was the US – launching an attack on Mexico – and raining down missiles on the civilian infrastructure to force a surrender – would you still be so supportive of the military strategy? I somehow, think not.
I don't know. I could only answer such a question if it happened, and I was able to look at the surrounding circumstances. Unlike you I first of all apply the the "little grey cells" (to plagiarize Agatha Christie).
Gosh, your strict adherence to critical reasoning, in this instance has completely passed me by /sarc/
I've seen plenty of uncritical acceptance of Russian propaganda. And very little application of "the little grey cells"
Gosh, your strict adherence to critical reasoning, in this instance has completely passed me by /sarc/
Why would I be surprised at that? I've noticed that reason and logic are not really your forte.
Nor yours, apparently.
This style of jackbooted militarism seems to be out of favour with most civilized countries.
It seems to be out of favour with the USA as well.
But, apparently not with either Russia, or with you.
I would have to plead "not guilty", though I can't speak for Russia.
Well, you're defending their 'jackbooted militarism' – which speaks volumes for both of you.
Jackboots?? The current propaganda efforts are telling us that the Russians do not have adequate footwear.
"The ball is in the Ukranians’ court: they need to negotiate."
They are negotiating – on the battlefield, which is the only negotiation that will work. Russia has proven entirely unreliable in all agreements previously. Not to mention being murderous, looting, raping war criminals.
Every democratic country should assist Ukraine with their "negotiations" to the maximum extent possible.
The Russians, I am sure, would love to negotiate – which they will do, as usually, in bad faith.
Negotiation time is time for them to regroup, to reequip, ready for the next onslaught on the Ukrainians.
“Every democratic country should assist Ukraine with their "negotiations" to the maximum extent possible.”
Every democratic country should have made clear right from the start – even before the invasion started – that Ukraine would not be accepted as a member of NATO, and they should not have pledged support for Ukraine against Russia. As Kissinger pointed out at a recent conference countries in the area, such as Ukraine and Finland, should follow a policy of strict neutrality.
As for “sovereign rights”, rights come with obligations.
Hang on though, Russia wants to conquer Ukraine to de-Nazify the place, you Putin fanbois have got shorter memories than my goldfish.
Why?
Sovereign means just that, Sovereign.
Ukraine gets to decide who they want to play with on the international stage. Russia doesn't get a veto – just because they *used* to be the imperial power.
The parallels with Czechoslovakia and Nazi Germany are too stark for anyone with even a modicum of historical knowledge. Which is why Europe pledged support against Russia.
Sovereign means just that, Sovereign.
Ukraine gets to decide who they want to play with on the international stage. Russia doesn't get a veto – just because they *used* to be the imperial power.
Fine. So they accept the consequences. Russia's alarm at their joining N'ATO is understandable.
If the consequences of exercising your sovereignty is your neighbour declaring war on you (because we all know that's what it is despite Putin's fig-leaf of a "special military operation") – then one can see why Ukraine would seek support from other countries.
Your metaphorical rabbit hole is getting very dark.
"Might makes right" is a philosophy – but not one I'd expect to see espoused on TS.
Sovereignty does not give them the right to threaten a neighbouring country. Clearly, their joining NATO is a threat to Russia, as also is their stated intention to obtain ownership of Crimea, presumably by invasion as Russia is not going to give it up.
Russia also has a fear of fascists, which is understandable given their experience of WWII.
You mean the Crimea – which was outright stolen from Ukraine in 2014 – in a military annexation!
Ukrainian fascists are Ukraine’s problem. Not Russia’s. That’s what sovereignty means.
Eastern Europe also has a fear of Russians, which is understandable, given their experiences in the latter half of the 20th century – considerably more recently than WWII.
“You mean the Crimea – which was outright stolen from Ukraine in 2014 – in a military annexation!”
Both Crimea (and Ukraine were part of Russia prior to the early nineties, when Ukraine gained independence. This had been the case since Tsarist times. When Ukraine became independent the Crimean population, who were mostly Russian anyway, made it clear that they did not wan to be part of Ukraine, preferring to be either completely independent or part of Russia. So Ukraine effectively 'stole' Crimea at that time.
Do you have any evidence that the overwhelming majority of the population in Crimea A) didn't want to be part of Ukraine in 1991 (at the time of independence); and/or B) still didn't want to be part of Ukraine in 2014 (when Russia invaded)?
Evidence, that is, other than Russian propaganda.
In any case, military annexation was a violation of Russian agreements to safeguard the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
"Do you have any evidence that the overwhelming majority of the population in Crimea A) didn't want to be part of Ukraine in 1991 (at the time of independence); and/or B) still didn't want to be part of Ukraine in 2014 (when Russia invaded)?"
Referenda were held on both occasions. And both indicated that the majority did not want to be part of Ukraine.
They are negotiating, with the Americans.
How long before Russian power plants start to go down for no detectable reason.
Only the evil Russians could do something so " vile" eh jawty ?
Ukrainians couldnt do anything bad ……..noooooooo
they wouldnt for example spread 'petal 'mines all over a civilian neighborhood
nooooooooo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qyo5U5Umns
That video ("MAIMED In A PLAYGROUND") provides zero evidence of who deployed the mine in question. Curiously, it is the Russians who have been documented hitting playgrounds etc with missiles.
Here is an article that discusses the presence of PFM ("petal") mines in Ukraine:
https://observers.france24.com/en/europe/20220817-ukraine-russia-donetsk-petal-butterfly-antipersonnel-mines
Human Rights Watch notes that Ukraine signed up to the Ottawa ban on anti-personnel mines, while Russia did not. The loudest accusations of Ukraine using PFM mines come from Russian government sources ('accuse the other side of that which you are guilty').
(Background Briefing on Landmine Use in Ukraine)
Well maybe Human Rights Watch reckons "no credible info " that Ukraine has used petal mines etc but ive seen lots of video showing widespread dissemination of 'petal 'mines in Donetsk .Tanks in one example running up and down city streets trying to explode as many as possible .Mines scattered accross rooftops ,verges ,streets ,parks etc even video of neighborhood kids deliberately detonating them with air rifles !!
Some months ago since their initial use but i'll endeavour to track some down by the way yr first link does'nt work just comes up 'Forbidden' !
Here's one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6wJbPJv0kk
That is another video reporting the presence of PFM mines in Donetsk (which is not disputed)….but the question is – who put them there?? Several times the video says "Ukrainians" but provides no actual evidence that it was Ukraine at all.
Russia was notorious for widespread use of PFM mines in Afghanistan and have refused to sign treaties banning them. Ukraine on the other hand signed the treaty in 1997 and have been destroying their old stocks of them.
Other banned anti-personnel mines have been scattered in Ukraine (POM-2, POM-3), and these are mines that Ukraine has never possessed but which Russia has plenty of.
Who is more credible?
"Who's more credible " ?
Which option is the more logical ?
What possible reason would Russia have to deliberately over time pollute the cities of its allies and countrymen with antipersonnel mines ???
Seems to me that the idea of Russia shelling its own infrastructure or that it controls is inherently flawed although that is exactly what we are ever increasedly expected to believe !!
So following Ukraine's warped logic Russia shells its own pow facility ,was plotting to blow the dam across the Dnipro river in order to drown its own soldiers and wash away the pontoon bridges that were the only supporting structures of a precariously held bridgehead !!??Likewise we're expected to believe they'd shell a nuclear power station that they are guarding ?!!Do you not get the impression that we are getting bullshitted to by Ukraines ott propaganda dept ?
Perhaps Ukraine's signature on the landmine agreement signifies good intent but its by no means clear how much ordinance it has left undestroyed and the fact that it has been shelling civilians in Donetsk for a very long time would tend to support the contention that it was Ukraine that spread the petal mines imo.
A seat on a petro board in the offering?
/
https://twitter.com/germanyinusa/status/1497244517954641925?lang=en
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/merkel-condemns-russian-invasion-legacy-comes-under-scrutiny-2022-02-25/
https://twitter.com/derJamesJackson/status/1595350733716684800
For the most part Merkel seems to have been guilty of believing that trade alone could be a path toward unity and peace. Sadly for her that was never a sufficient condition. In my view until both the Kremlin and the CCP fully repudiate their marxist heritage – neither can be trusted.
That'll be the day, when a pollie goes to gaol for putting party before country.
With the RBNZ manufacturing a recession to reduce consumer spending those who rent are going to find that difficult as landlords pursue increased passive income:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/479433/rents-on-rise-again-as-landlords-pass-on-costs
Rent is an unavoidable cost that is seemingly completely disconnected from traditional supply/demand price fluctuation. The Government must reinstate the Rent Freeze.
Renters United petition here: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/rent-controls-now
It's difficult to accuse landlords of pursuing passive income – when their costs (rates, mortgage, insurance, maintenance, improvements (healthy homes stds), etc.) are also increasing.
Passing these costs on, in the form of rent increases is the way the market operates.
Unless you want the Government to nationalize all rental housing (in which case, bye-bye to any chance of a left government in 2023) – there is little the government can actually do about this.
Perhaps you can point to a successful long-term rent freeze – which has not resulted in 'unintended outcomes'.
What this graph appears to actually show is that inflation is out-stripping wages. Which is not news.
Passive income is any that is generated by capital rather than labour. This is definitionally what property income is. Landlords ‘earn’ profit above and beyond the costs you mention merely by ownership.
The graph is demonstrating that fixed costs for over a million NZers are diverging further and further from affordability. In a functioning market an oversupply of rental properties would result in lower cost rentals, but this is not the case as people have to live somewhere. Landlords are able to make increasing profits from this need for housing, a human right.
Rent controls exist all over the place, can you point to our housing and rental market and say its working for anyone other than Aussie banks and those already owning multiple properties?
In that case, all investments – even your $100 in the bank for a rainy day – is passive income.
Well, yes. Landlords are *running a business* – if they don't make a profit (either in income stream or capital value) – then they exit the market.
If the Government wants to have an 'oversupply of rental properties' – then they need to adjust the costs of construction and supply – as well as making owning rental property an attractive proposition.
I hope this isn't news, but *no one* apart from the government (or those supplying to the government) is building for the lower end of the rental market – because there is literally no money in it. All of the development going on (and most of that is coming to a halt) is at the mid- and upper- end.
If rent controls exist all over the place, perhaps you can point to one working successfully, in a market similar to NZ (i.e. with the majority of the rental stock privately owned).
Yes, all investments are passive income. Most forms of investment aren’t just about rent-seeking though. For the majority of people their only significant source of income is earned income, that which they acquired from their labour.
It’s got nothing to do with what the government wants, there is currently an oversupply of rentals but rental prices have reached record highs despite this. This is isn’t a functioning market.
Until relatively recently both local and central government built and rented low cost housing in significant numbers. Those assets were sold. It was a decision that a less-regulated market would provide what is needed but as you state there is no incentive for businesses to provide for those in need; there’s literally no money in it. One of the major problems of applying ‘market-solutions’ to providing for people.
If we believe that housing is a human right then the government must substantially alter the balance of the current market so that it can perform it’s basic function of housing everyone. As NZ previously demonstrated, and weka’s link explains, social housing is necessary for a more equitable and healthy housing market for everyone. Leaving it to capitalism has demonstrably failed.
It’s got nothing to do with what the government wants, there is currently an oversupply of rentals but rental prices have reached record highs despite this. This is isn’t a functioning market.
Too many have borrowed heavily to get into the market. Now that interest rates have risen their investments have turned bad. To recover they are, by passing on their mortgage costs as part of the rent, trying to make the tenant pay for their "mistakes".
TBH – that doesn't seem to have been true in NZ for at least the last 2 years.
Investors needs a 40% deposit to buy an existing property, and 20% for a new build
https://www.opespartners.co.nz/mortgage/lvr
The increase in mortgage costs doesn't mean their investments have turned bad – it means that the cost of operating their 'business' has increased – and they need to increase income (in this case, rent) Just as if you're running a delivery business – the increase in petrol/diesel costs means you have to increase delivery fees; or if you're running a restaurant – the increase in staff costs means you have to increase prices.
The higher LVR means that they have quite a cushion in terms of property price before they'd be in negative equity territory. Remember that a 20% drop (which is what the RB is signalling) just puts prices back where they were in early 2020.
it means that the cost of operating their 'business' has increased – and they need to increase income (in this case, rent)
It is only the interest component of the mortgage that has recently become non deductible. The principal was never deductible. However the mortgage, both principal and interest, represents the cost of the house to the landlord, and has nothing to do with the tenant. The tenant should not have to pay for the landlord's property, so the mortgage should not be a determinant of how much rent he pays. If the cost to the landlord of operating his business has increased and that increase is due to an increase in mortgage costs, then so be it: he has simply made a bad business decision and he is being "punished" by the market. That's what capitalism is all about.
AFAIK – there isn't a political party in NZ which has this rather radical policy – to prevent landlords from recouping interest costs or even capital repayments from rental income.
And, no. No business owner makes the decision to just give up because costs have increased. They first look to see if they can increase their income.
Do you also propose that trucking firms should somehow absorb petrol/diesel price rises? And that restaurants should somehow absorb the increased cost of staffing? Should they, too, be "punished by the market" for making bad business decisions?
Of course, if it is not possible to increase income to offset increased costs, then the landlord goes out of business – and sells up – potentially at a loss; just as the trucking firm and restaurant also go broke.
Your argument seems to be that, like Weka, you regard rental housing as a public good – and that, therefore it should not be commercialized (i.e. it should all be government owned, or owned by non-profit entities; and rents should be controlled by the ability to pay.)
Well and good – but not practical in NZ. Unless you have a realistic pathway to get there from here.
“Do you also propose that trucking firms should somehow absorb petrol/diesel price rises? And that restaurants should somehow absorb the increased cost of staffing? Should they, too, be "punished by the market" for making bad business decisions?”
No, I do not. I instance interest because, unlike diesel, etc, it is not a true 'business cost'. since businesses don't borrow. Proprietors borrow and the cost of their borrowing, ie interest, is a personal expense. It makes no difference to a business whether or not interest is paid on the capital invested in it.
Some have argued that it was unfair of Grant Robertson to single out landlords for this treatment and I would agree. Non deductibility of interest should apply across the board; but I guess that's another story
Oh dear, oh dear …
https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/series/registered-banks/banks-assets-loans-by-business-size
AFAIK – there isn't a political party in NZ which has this rather radical policy – to prevent landlords from recouping interest costs or even capital repayments from rental income.
Raf Manji, leader of the Opportunities Party has mentioned the possibility of preventing banks from lending for the purpose of financing residential rental investments. I don't know whether this was just an off the cuff remark or whether it is TOP policy. If it isn't then I think it should be.
since businesses don’t borrow. [sic]
The additive "(sic)" seems entirely appropriate. The author of the link, presumably the RBNZ, seems to have been a little loose in their description of what actually happens. A business is not a person so it cannot walk into a bank and ask for a loan. Only a person, usually the proprietor, can do that.
Accountants have a convention they call the "entity convention". This asserts that the proprietor and his business are separate entities for business and accounting purposes. Interest is an expense incurred for by the proprietor for the purpose of raising capital. It is of no concern to the business.
The Income Tax Act says that an expense is deductible if it is incurred for the purpose of gaining "taxable income". Capital, as any accountant will tell you, is not income, taxable of otherwise, so expenses relating to the raising of capital should not be deductible.
As usual, you concoct your own narrative twisting ordinary language into sophistry and techo-gibberish that only you seem to believe in. Sadly, it doesn’t stop there and you seem to have your own ‘unique’ view of reality that, unfortunately, sucks up a lot of oxygen here.
I would have more respect for your comments if you explained them. For instance, why do you call my comments "sophistries and techno-gibberish"? Do you have an argument to support that claim? If not, then you may as well stop your blathering.
As a matter of interest I took a look at TOP's housing policy as per their website, these are the relevant parts:
The third item would seem to prevent borrowing for private rental purposes, so the question of tax deductibility mentioned in the second item would not arise, except for current rentals. The only reason for borrowing would then be to carry out renovations after purchasing, but this would be covered by the new builds provisions presumably. Or for normal business expenses such as rates, insurance, repairs, etc, for cash flow purposes.
This, the third item aside, would bring the business more into line with normal businesses. I still think that all interest should be non deductible, but that, as I said somewhere else in the comments to this blog, is another story.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/12/vienna-housing-policy-uk-rent-controls
I don't give a flying fuck about how some people think the market should work. Human rights take precedence.
+1
Same issue with this outrageous 'manufactured recession'. If the market working as it should, screws us over to protect others' "wealth", then it's not fit for purpose as a governing philosophy.
Tautoko Roy and weka
The manufactured recession is a consequence of having to constrain inflation due to lowered interest rates,increased money supply,and keynsian fiscal stimulus that create asset bubbles,that implode leaving both debt,unemployed politicians,and distressed consumers with buyers remorse.
It is an expectation of MPS tightening,why it surprised politicians,shows ignorance rather then discovery,the inability to be able to suggest policy that removes cost,show an inability to govern.
Not all of the inflation is caused by stimulus, some comes from supply chain (foreign and domestic) disruption, including to international logistics (containers etc).
And reducing demand by higher interest rates is not the best way to encourage investment in labour replacement (crop harvesting machines, machine milking and the like). Some of price escalation is caused by monopoly (gib board) practice.
Actions such as lower petrol taxation and a rent freeze also lower inflation.
PS Orr held interest rates down too long, he also allowed investors off the deposit ratio to buy property with cheap money (rather than directing them to new investment to reduce price pressures caused by rental shortage) to increase our collective debt.
Freight rates have been decreasing since March,they are now down to pre covid levels.A substantive portion of the imported inflation is from the depreciation of the NZ dollar,due to capital flight and the appreciation of the US$ as a safe haven,with higher debt liquidity,without the forex hedge costs.
There is no shortage of rental properties,there is a shortage of suitable tenants due to policy changes,and the difficulty in removing poor performing tenants,
Yip they'll force them onto the dole then hate them for taking it.
From your link
"two-thirds of Viennese citizens live in municipal or publicly subsidised housing. "
Which certainly doesn't apply in NZ – and can't, in the near – or even mid- term, without massive Government acquisition of rental property either by paying market price or compulsorily (cf above comment on one quick way to ensure there is no left government in 2023)
"Where rent controls do work, many Viennese agree, is in tandem with Vienna’s vast offering of unghettoised, social housing and an aggressive policy to add more of these homes."
The market doesn't care whether you approve or not. If there is a shortage of housing – and/or increasing provision costs – the price will go up. Whether that's 'officially' or the plethora of ways that a landlord can move out tenants (renovations to meet standards is a current favourite), and re-let at a higher price.
If you want to have massive amounts of government subsidised housing in NZ – then you have to find an effective pathway (i.e. one which can gain electoral support) to get there from here. I've yet to see one which is even vaguely achievable.
The (phased) end of mortgage interest deductability will, with a higher OCR, lead to more sales by landlords (and at lower values than now) to first home buyers.
A rent freeze and the option of 5 year loans (lower than the floating rate of the next year or two) to these first buyers would help. An alternative is for government to buy off landlords and on-sell to first home buyers later when the mortgage rates fall back.
Where do you think the money for the Government to buy from existing landlords is going to come from?
Kainga Ora are well over their current budget for builds both underway and in the planning phase. And, are well behind their targets for getting their current rental stock to meet healthy homes standards.
With the Government being told by the RB to restrain their spending – I doubt a big new property acquisition income stream is going to magically appear.
It's not spending if it is buying and on-selling. It's just a transaction. And Orr is not boss of government, and governments can borrow on the bond market anytime they want.
It most certainly is spending. If you (the government) purchase something, then you need to have the income stream to do so (it has to be in the budget somewhere).
You (the government) may later sell off part of your assets – and that then becomes positive cash balance in a later budget cycle.
I really don't think that the government want Orr to be telling the country that increased spending in their 2023 budget will increase inflation even further – so, they will be listening very closely to what he has to say.
Kainga Ora is already using bonds – and, as you can see, it's reported as a liability against the government accounts
https://debtmanagement.treasury.govt.nz/investor-resources/new-zealand-debt-management-undertake-financing-kainga-ora
There really is no magic money tree.
One has an income stream from rent to pay the cost of the debt and then the money from selling the property (to those who would buy once the OCR comes back down) to pay the debt back.
Whether the government, or first home buyers borrowing from banks with 5 year loans, buy up property makes no difference to aggregate spending in the economy.
Different budget cycles. Unless you are postulating that prices would crash significantly within a year.
It also postulates a capital loss on every sale (government selling for significantly less than they bought the property) – so you would never recover even the base price from sales – let alone the borrowing costs.
Rental income might cover the borrowing costs (maybe…) – but wouldn't do a thing to cover the capital cost.
Orr is commenting on the *government* needing to restrain spending. And, is also predicting a fall in house prices of around 20% (don't rejoice too soon, that would get us back to about 2020 price levels – hardly sustainable)
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/130565288/reserve-bank-telling-government-to-slow-spending-to-bring-inflation-under-control-economist-says
A rent freeze would assist house price fall. The government would determine the timing of its buy in.
Re-sale would, and there will be more businesses looking at buying into this market with the end of interest deductablility for investors speculating for untaxed CG using borrowed money.
Housing corp has both a budget deficit ( 344 m at 1 july) an increased debt 9.8b 1 July,increasing again ( by 2.3 b in nov) as it now needs to borrow on the government account due to the lack of interest in the secondary bond market.
https://www.nzx.com/markets/NZDX
It now has no ability to repay debt,due to now borrowing for operations and maintenance.A revaluation downwards of 10% in its asset valuations,how does it provide a sustainable income?
"Re-sale would, and there will be more businesses looking at buying into this market with the end of interest deductablility for investors speculating for untaxed CG using borrowed money."
There is no possible way this can be true. If the government buys and then waits for the market to fall before re-selling – as you postulate – there is no possible way that they can recoup even the capital cost – let alone the cost of borrowing.
If the government buys at 1 million – and sells, 3 years later at 750K – they've made an absolute lost of 250K + whatever the borrowing costs might be.
I'm sorry, but I have better use for my taxes.
I said
Government policy leads to a price fall and then the government buys in and then on sells to first home buyers (they would be still be waiting for mortgage cost to fall).
@ Poission
A devaluation in Housing Corp assets (with a downward correction in the market value) has no impact on its operational finances (just more difficulty borrowing against its assets – which is sorted out via new government input as is the case at present).
The period of greater cost – increasing property to the required standard is a one time thing. And inevitably required government input. Another impost will be sufficiency of disability housing with aging tenants.
People don't spend money, they spend incomes. A money tree does exist: it's called the "velocity of money". As money moves through the economy it creates income, and the faster it moves the more income it creates. If we wish to avoid demand inflation we need to ensure that the flow of goods and services matches that increase in income.
You didn't ask for an example that could be used by NZ without NZ having to change much. You asked for an example that,
Which is the standard line from people who believe in TINA. But TINA is something that neoliberals made up. We have choices and TINA basically says fuck off poors, we don't really care about you.
The market is a system that humans created. It doesn't have opinions of feelings. Humans can change that system.
Your example of how the market works fails in two fundamental ways.
Humans rights matter more that the ability of some people to make passive income. What would help change things if is we were honest about the fact that adhering to TINA = relinquishing the right to a healthy and meaningful life.
Apologies for not specifically stating that I was looking for an example of a rent freeze in a country which was comparable to NZ.
Because, right now, all the examples I can see – which are trying to resolve rocketing rents – rather than being long-term 'the way we do business' – have very significant unintended consequences.
If you want to argue for massive state intervention in the market – switching NZ to majority state ownership of rentals – go to.
I'd like to see your thinking on how to get there from here – other than handwavium. Because the budgetary implications are staggering.
However, I don't think a rent freeze is going to win an election for the left in 2023.
Humans matter in lots of ways. Our government doesn't support or fund lots of areas effectively (livable income for sickness beneficiaries, dental treatment, timely hospital care, routine medical treatment, etc.). Housing is just one instance.
If the answer is simple and obvious, then no doubt we'll see it as a central platform of the Left in 2023.
Housing isn't just one of many instances though. It's fundamental to everything. Because we all need a home, and because the cost of housing is now the main driver of poverty here. Anything else the government and NGOs do to alleviate poverty is undermined by the cost of housing. Even raising benefits will partially fail because landlords will raise rents in response.
Snort, we don't have a left to adopt such a platform. And it's not simple or obvious, it's really fucking complex. TINA arguments make it that much worse.
There are no single, silver bullet solutions. A rent cap would need to be strategic and part of a broader overall plan. Which means not just housing but everything eg we cannot solve the housing crisis without looking at Accommodation Supplement and we can't look at that without looking at benefits and welfare.
Have a look at the GP policy to see where we might go on this.
https://www.greens.org.nz/housing_policy
Well if you are going to abandon market mechanisms altogether – or in your own words:
the alternative you seem to be espousing is that the govt provides housing as 'a human right'. This is your core jsutification.
Now given that human rights are universal, it is fair to ask why the govt would only provide some people with housing and not others. And why it might charge some people more than others. Or why it might provide some people with houses in more desirable places than others. Or newer ones for some people, but not others.
I have lived in such a housing system for a while – a standard Soviet apartment building – but I am not sure this is what you have in mind. Nor what I suspect most New Zealanders would choose either. So if we are to get past the handwavium – how about giving us some hard details as to how you think this human rights based universal state housing system would work please?
As for the Green Party policy – again long on handwavium with multiple contradictions around keeping rents and mortgages less than 30% or 25% – but then nothing on keeping costs down. Quite the opposite a long whole wish list that demand more capital and costs. Even if you want to reject markets altogether I am not sure how anyone can square that circle.
Fuck off Red. I've told you so many times that you are making shit up about what I believe, there's no point in engaging with you seriously. Basically you just take what I say, shift it out of context and/or misrepresent it, and then use that to push your own barrow.
For the benefit of others reading,
I quoted your exact words:
That statement is a repudiation of market mechanisms if I ever read one.
If you are going to base your argument that on the idea that housing is a human right – again your words precisely – then they have to be universal. Or do you think some people get different rights to housing depending on intersectionality or something?
yes you quoted my words and completely misunderstood what I meant. This is what I have been saying for ages, you actually don't understand my arguments, politics or position. And you almost never ask for clarification.
And here you are doing it again, thinking you know what I meant when I’ve already told you you don’t and you still don’t ask for clarification.
Combine your statement that emphatically appears to repudiate markets, with your reference to Green Party policy that seems to demand both rental reductions and cost increases at the same time – then you maybe could offer us ignorant ones some clarification about how you think markets should work.
And if you are going to base your argument squarely on the claim that housing is a human right – then you also need to clarify how you think that will work. Because as I explained – there are some fairly obvious practical problems with this approach.
The property market in New Zealand was already overvalued because investment is directed into land ownership as there is no CGT.
And allowing people to speculate by borrowing money cheaply to own property made things worse.
Fortunately there is a plan – end deductability of interest to encourage sale to first home buyers or business ownership (subject to company tax on CG and can claim interest as a cost).
A way to improve on this plan would be a rent freeze and better regulation of property being up to standard. Thus increase the pressure to sell and thus take down property values – fix Orr's mess.
Red, you just keep making shit up about my views and I'll just keep not responding.
Nah – you resort to the 'you are just making shit up about my views' persecution ploy whenever I offer even the simplest and most obvious challenges.
If you do believe in markets – as you now claim – then how do you markets manage to decrease rental prices while increasing supplier costs at the same time?
And if housing is a universal human right – then how do you allocate it if – as you now claim – you do not think the state should be the universal provider?
These are really obvious questions that did not require me to make up anything.
It’s not that I have to resort to it, it’s that you make it so obvious I just have to point it out.
I don’t “believe in” markets. Again, you simply don’t understand my position, nor do you want to.
I’d suggest you go read what rights to housing so you can stop arguing with your staw man there.
No way am I going to engage with the points you are making until you stop misrepresenting mine.
The problem is solved by a collapse in property values. Such is crisis capitalism.
@SPC
Current prices are reducing because interest rates have increased.
But unless you happen to have the purchase price sitting around in cash, most people are going to need to borrow – and increasing interest rates will pretty much cancel out any gain from decreasing prices.
And in a falling market, banks quite reasonably tend to demand higher deposit equity – which does not help affordability either.
Worse still if the market falls far enough, as you seem to wish, a large fraction of existing homeowners will go underwater with their mortgage – ie the value of the property becomes less than the mortgage. Which means either they will not sell unless forced to, reducing supply on the market. Or if they do have to sell and wind up with no equity, they finish up back renting again and increasing demand in that sector.
And in Aus and NZ you cannot walk away from a mortgage if you have made a loss on it – the residual debt remains.
Lots of interacting factors your simplistic demand to collapse the property market does not really take into account.
@weak
If you refuse to explain yourself – then why are you upset with me?
upset would be overstating it, but now you’re basically trolling me 🙄
First of all you say you don't give a flying fuck about how other people think markets should work, then you say you don't believe in abandoning market mechanisms altogether, and now you say you 'don't believe in markets'. No wonder no-one knows what you mean, because it seems to shift about from comment to comment.
And when asked how you think the housing market should work when you both reduce rental prices and increase rental costs at the same time – crickets.
Over the years I have contributed both at length and in detail on this topic – in essence arguing that if you are going to try and fix something as complex and important as housing in this country – it would be a good idea to demonstrate that you have a solid, well thought out idea of how it worked. Because in my experience, taking a simplistic blunt hammer to a complex mechanism rarely has the claimed result.
And again if you are going to base your argument on housing being a human right, then it has to be a universal human right. One that only the state can deliver on – universally. That you have not thought this through does not change the fact of it.
And again. The reason you don’t know what I think is because you spend all this time, every time, asserting what I think instead of asking. In this case, you are just plain wrong. As I said, I’m not going to talk politics with someone who does this so consistently. What would be the point.
You can also keep asserting your ideas about human rights, but without out referencing the work people have done on the rights to housing and what that means in a HR frame, all that’s happening is you are sitting in a room arguing with a bunch of straw men.
But unless you happen to have the purchase price sitting around in cash, most people are going to need to borrow – and increasing interest rates will pretty much cancel out any gain from decreasing prices.
Everybody has a right to a home, but no-one has an automatic right to own rental properties, Purchasing rental properties increases demand and presumably pushes up prices. Bank lending for that purpose is therefor counterproductive. To become a landlord it should be necessary to either have a spare freehold property that you can rent out, or sufficient dosh to be able, without borrowing, to purchase one. .
The leader of TOP has suggested that banks be prevented from lending for that purpose. I don't know whether this is TOP policy, but I think it probably should be. It would also probably lead to a lowering of rentals since landlords would then have no need to illicitly pass on mortgage costs to tenants.
@mikesh
Everybody? All New Zealanders or everyone on the planet? And do they get a choice of which home, or do you imagine some govt entity would allocate them on what basis?
Perhaps even if they had no income or savings and if this is going to be a proper meaningful right, then it would have to be a free home. But why then would some people get free houses and others have to pay? Maybe they should all be free?
This is the problem with making housing a right. Rights are an abstract universal and apply equally to all humans. Housing is not; they are in different locations, different sizes, styles and quality. Not to mention all differing ages. There is nothing abstract or universal about housing. Jamming the two concepts on top of each other results in an absurd mess the moment you look past the superficial slogan.
In any real world case whether you are borrowing from a bank directly, or indirectly via a landlord (who is effectively providing the equity and creditworthiness you do not have) – there is no such thing as free houses.
The problem extreme left wingers have is they are generally too poor to even qualify for the capital to own a home outright; and deeply resent the fact they have to ask others – either a landlord or a bank – to provide it for them. Hence the blind desire to smash capitalism – rather than make it work intelligently for everyone.
@ weka
Well about three comments ago would have been a good moment to provide a reference. Like how you insist other do all the time.
A breathtaking departure at 9:50pm by WhiteLogix from what defines the socially conscious left.
ACT in nature, ACT in name.
Everybody? All New Zealanders or everyone on the planet? And do they get a choice of which home, or do you imagine some govt entity would allocate them on what basis?
Oh, stop blathering. People have a right to a home, as distinct from an (automatic) right to own rental properties.
@RedLogix
House prices are falling because
1. they only rose to those levels because Orr facilitated an abnormally low level of mortgage rates.
2. Orr wants an abrupt change to higher than normal mortgage rates to cause a recession.
The guy over-reacts to everything.
The government needs to assist in lowering inflation by freezing rents. If this means there are more landlords willing to sell (before fully impacted by the phasing out of interest deductability) but there is a lack of buyers (waiting for mortgage rates to fall to normal levels) then
1. the government can buy and later on-sell to first homeowners (when the mortgage rates ease)
2. the government and or Orr or the banks could manage this period with more 5 year loans to first home buyers.
You cannot be serious, mortgagee sales only occur when someone cannot pay the mortgage.
No it does not. How does someone staying in their property reduce the number of houses in the market?
If they have to. And not necessarily because if the property goes to a first homeowner, they move into the rental vacated by them elsewhere.
Stuff and nonsense.
Appreciate your comments Red, nice to have some logic to the discussions on here.
If housing is a human right, wouldn't food come before that ? Problem is someone else is required on the other side of the transaction to deliver the goods (at no cost ?)
Well put. The hard left often overlooks that for every human right there is an complementary and balancing human responsibility.
Do you know what a human right is?
Yes, there is a human right to food.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-food/about-right-food-and-human-rights
By all means make an argument against the human right to food, I'd like to hear that. But please reference the actual right not what you are imagining.
If housing is a human right, wouldn't food come before that ? Problem is someone else is required on the other side of the transaction to deliver the goods (at no cost ?)
Are you telling that the human right to food is not being met. That's terrible. It's certainly something that should be rectified.
Landlords deduct those costs from rent income before tax on rent is assessed. Rents are higher here than overseas, not because of these costs, but because of seeking a rate of return on the land/property values (which were overvalued and are now falling).
Landlords are losing their right to deduct mortgage cost (where these are existing properties rather than new builds) against rent income. This encourages sales to first home buyers and purchase of new builds.
A rent freeze for a year, alongside the reduction in petrol taxation, is a way to reduce cost in the economy. It would assist the RB in reducing inflation and thus result in an earlier return to lower mortgage rates.
It's a no brainer. And given National would not do it, is an easy political win with renters.
But, also guaranteed to lose votes from all of the Mum and Dad investors (that's around 1/3 of the rental stock in NZ). A heck of a lot of them voted Labour last time. Do you really think Labour want to risk it?
They deserve to lose, if they do not. There are not that many such landlords either. And in any case they are already losing their right (being phased out) to deduct interest under Labour … .
Sorry. Are you saying that Labour deserve to lose?
According to this article, around 1/3 of rental properties in NZ are owned by Mum and Dad investors.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/part-time-paradise-mum-and-dad-landlords-own-more-than-a-third-of-property/L5S3MVSOUZLW74K575GKOAO3NU/
It is dated from 2020 – so may have changed a bit – but I haven't seen anything in the news about the rental property ownership profile changing significantly.
Landlords know that they are losing the right to deduct interest. That's part of the reason that rents have been going up (it's one of the increased costs I mentioned above).
I'll repeat.
They deserve to lose, if they do not.
If Labour freeze rent for a year to reduce inflastion, the incentive to these landlords to sell will increase. Labour wants more first homeowners – thus earlier decision to end mortgage deductability. Landlords who own their property without mortgage, or run it as a business (thus can claim interest as a cost and thus pay tax on any sale CG) are not affected. And some investors will buy into 100% property ownership once values fall far enough, as will some companies.
Whereas, my pick is, that they will lose if they do put a rent freeze in place.
Too many middle NZ investors are tied into property. Governments meddle with this at their peril.
Labour would be putting a lot of 'soft' centre votes at risk. These are people who voted Labour in 2020, and like Ardern (or don't like Luxon) – but have no 'tribal' loyalty to Labour.
Put their economic future at risk (most Mum and Dad investors, are doing this to cover their retirement) – and they'll change their votes.
As you point out – rent-freeze policies going to be more popular with the renters – but how many of them vote National or ACT (or, vote at all, for that matter)?
Of course, just my opinion.
The polls indicate they have already moved from Labour, and given National's offering the return of interest deductability (and threshold movement), for mine Labour's best chance is to hold down rent costs and make the chance of owning greater.
Currently our level of home ownership is lower than that of the UK and it is going down. Labour has to be seen to be acting.
And its actions need to also include houses to get people out of motels (before on-selling them later).
Well, I guess we'll see if/when Labour make this a central plank of their housing policy.
Loss of interest deductibility was tolerable when rates were around 3% – much less so if they go back up to the > 7% range.
So don't just freezer rent, but help middle class NZ either protect their investments in other ways, or find other ways to invest.
or run it as a business (thus can claim interest as a cost and thus pay tax on any sale CG) are not affected.
Who are these? I thought all (residential) landlords were affected.
People can form a business vehicle for owning rental property.
It would allow people to form partnerships with others to do so.
I don't think that would work. A "business vehicle" – company, trust, partnership, or whatever – would, or should, be subject to the same tax rules as an individual landlord.
It's been this way for a long time.
What's been what way for a long time?
The landlord shouldn't really be passing on mortgage costs. The tenant might be expected to pay a fair rent, but he shouldn't have to pay for the landlord's property.
I disagree. The reason is that housing is a basic need, and comes out of income before anything else. Landlords as a group are a monopoly, as social housing is the only alternative to living in your car. They can form cartels to push the cost up, and have been. Property managers, who earn a % of the rent, encourage increases as often as possible.
However, residential property investors are acting as if they carry no risk, despite the fact they are investors, and all investments carry risk. The property investors (and banks) expect renters to top up their extra costs, to retain a nice annual return, plus untaxed capital gains. But they, along with banks should carry the negative consequences of investment as well as the positive. I'd especially like to see banks have to eat loses in property value, as they did for the 20% drop in California residential property after the 2008 housing bubble crash. After all, the banks magic the money for mortgages out of thin air, and then charge us interest for the privilege.
The number of landlords/businesses lodging residential bonds is 120, 00 or so from the link below, for more than 500, 000 rentals. This small percentage of NZ is trying to convince the rest of us to suck it up for their benefit.
Once again, housing costs come first out of income, before food and power. If we can push rents down by making the banks and landlords take the hit for their investment risk, many more Kiwis would be in a stronger position to weather other inflationary costs.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/real-estate/124320645/nearly-80-per-cent-of-landlords-own-just-one-property-data-shows
Yet later on you state:
Obviously 120,000 landlords cannot be a monopoly – and claiming they are 'as a group' adds no meaningful information whatsoever. You might as well argue all farmers are a monopoly cartel because there is 'no alternative to eating'.
As for your quaint notion that landlords carry no risk, this really tells me you know nothing about the business – nor the slim margins it operates on.
In which case, you should argue (as others have above) that rental housing should only be provided by the government or other not-for-profit social agencies.
And provide a mechanism to get there from here.
ATM, rental housing is a business – just as running a restaurant or a delivery company is a business.
If you don't want it to be a business (with bottom line profitability a significant factor), then you don't want private landlords in the game, at all.
ATM, rental housing is a business – just as running a restaurant or a delivery company is a business.
Businesses produce goods or services. Rentier activities produce nothing, but merely exploit existing assets.
Provision of housing is a service.
A house is capable of providing accommodation. The landlord did not create that capability, he merely purchased a pre-existing house and exploited it for his own gain. He cannot be deemed to be "providing a service".
A service would normally entail active participation such as, for example, when a barber gives you a “trim”.
So, according to your argument: the owner of a storage unit is not providing a service; the owner of a hire car is not providing a service; the owner of a for-lease post-hole borer is not providing a service.
None of those entail active participation. They involve ownership of a capital asset which is rented or leased out for a period of time.
The storage unit is subject to some sort of regulation I expect. Hire car definitely needs a WOF. Not so a rental property. If "provision of housing is a service", why do landlords and their bodies squeal like stick pigs when they are asked to provide a decent product?
The operator of a storage unit will have built the facility himself. He is renting out capabilities which he has created. A car hire firm has to hire car groomers, mechanics to check over cars, office and counter staff, drivers to drive cars to where they are needed. and quite independently of the cars themselves, they have hire or own premises. Both are clearly providing a service fromwhich the community benefits, in much same way that a shop owner provides a service although he does not actually create the goods he sells. These businessmen are providing locations where people know they can obtain specific goods or services.
PS: I forgot to mention advertisiing.
Ah, so now your service definition has morphed to 'one where the community benefits'
I think that it's entirely arguable that the community benefits from the service of providing housing.
Landlords also hire lots of people (maintenance, cleaning, repairs, renovation, lawn care, etc.). And most owners of storage units certainly didn't build them, themselves.
Really. If you want to argue that the provision of housing is too important (and/or critical) to be provided by individuals – and should be a government monopoly – then stick to that argument.
Because, this one has more holes than a colander.
It’s weird to compare the reaction to the Sandringham murder to Pike River. The way nobody was at fault, everything was a tragedy at Pike River.
Here immediately everything was the government’s fault. The government, not the police were called soon to investigate and solve the crime.
But both were preventable workplace deaths.
Probably too soon to be talking about it.
Hmm. One was the result of (possible) institutional systems failure in the mine – and was an isolated event; the other was the result of a criminal act by an individual – which followed a pattern of multiple other similar criminal acts which (by luck) didn't result in deaths.
There's a strong element of 'I told you so' going on. Everyone could see that it was just a matter of time before someone was killed in one of these attacks on shops.
Failures in workplace safety and anyone to take responsibility is not an isolated event. We’ve had many industries where contracting out and avoiding responsibility is standard.
Even a Granny Weatherwax tribute act (at least in name) should be able to see that.
This was in relation to Pike River. I'm not aware of a sequence of similar workplace safety failures in that or any other mine.
And, I still don't see the equivalence with a series of similar criminal attacks, which have now resulted in a death.
Two very different incidents. With two very different public responses.
Ahh, workplace deaths are isolated incidents not at all related.
Whereas ram raids, where a feature of the crime is an empty shop, is part of a series of crime where death is inevitable?
I agree, very different reactions from David Seymour and his ilk. A preventable death is a preventable death. No one should face death as part and parcel of their regular duties at work.
Sandringham death wasn't the result of a ram raid – it was a robbery from a staffed shop – in much the same way that we've seen many others (in Auckland, at least – and I assume in the rest of the country).
https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/10/01/watch-michael-hill-albany-thieves-flee-scene-of-daylight-robbery/
Yes. Many people have been saying, that a death in the cause of one of these criminal activities, was, indeed, inevitable.
When one walks away from tribalism.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/huffpost-writer-defends-jk-rowling-no-evidence-transphobic-quotes-burning-wrong-witch
Rosetta's been on fire this week. The original thread,
https://twitter.com/ejrosetta/status/1595060392031657984
I haven't been onsite this past week to address the Incitement to Hatred and Discrimination legislation that has been drastically watered down as regards the rainbow community of Aotearoa. Various reasons; other commitments, shock, and grieving amongst them. But at least there are more solid details about the proposed reduced bill that will be presented to parliament before next election:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/130534545/hate-speech-change-what-it-means-and-why-it-matters
The public submissions to the select committees progressing this legislation are likely to have restricted terms of reference, and the Labour government has enough votes to pass it even without the Green party – who will likely vote for it, after a few speeches saying it should go further. But I will have to wait for specifics of the bill before working on my own submission, so don't have much to say about that yet.
Instead, I will focus on reasons for expanding the prohibition of Incitement of Hatred against not just the present; race, skin colour or national origin, not just to religion, but also; gender, rainbow, and disability communities. With particular LGBTQ+ emphasis; given recent events, plus my own familiarity with that community, and the all too frequent Incitement to Discrimination with which it is beset.
Under present NZ law; there is no Hate Crime against the LGBTQ+ community, which does not reflect the lived experience of Aotearoa's rainbow people. There is provision in the Sentencing Act (2002) for some regard to be paid to hate crimes as Aggravating and Mitigating factors:
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0009/latest/DLM135545.html
However, this is not very useful for deterrence if the perpetrator has an effective lawyer, as:
To see how this works out in practice, we turn now to an example from this year's Pride Month that has been wending its way through the courts:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/distressed-and-dismayed-greymouth-hate-crime-victim-worried-after-offenders-discharged-without-conviction/5RJ3UUPQP5UF4DMXHJGT76B5JU/
{The previous post was thrown together mostly from unposted writing last weekend (trimmed and updated). This second one dealing with more recent events needs more of a CONTENT WARNING for the references to a mass shooting (particularly in the links). Edit: also the colour stayed after I removed the in-text links, I can’t recall how to get around that.}
In understanding the need for Incitement to Hatred and Discrimination legislation to protect LGBTQ+ people in NZ, I turn now to overseas examples of where unchecked campaigns of incitement against Rainbow Communities can lead.
Firstly, I find this Stochastic Terrorism model a valuable lens. Here described by Brynn Tannehill (author of American Fascism) in a September 28th Salon interview with Chauncey Devega:
https://www.salon.com/2022/09/28/trans-activist-and-author-in-a-fascist-america-lgbtq-folk-will-be-systematically-targeted/
This was not just the opinion of a Trans Activist, but also shared by medical professionals at the time – from October 3rd:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/101030
So with hospitals being less easy targets than previously, and the November midterms concluded, it looked almost like Tannehill might be wrong in her prediction, at least for this year. But then came November 19th in the USA (already the Transgender Day of Remembrance in Aotearoa):
https://apnews.com/article/business-crime-shootings-colorado-springs-774c94125cbad7cf05af2c99b81d42cc
Finally, Rebecca Shaw makes important points about the fragility of safety for vulnerable people, and the need for solidarity:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/25/club-q-was-an-inclusive-welcoming-space-for-everyone-its-assault-is-an-attack-on-us-all
Moderators – could this be elevated to a post if Temp O'Rary is willing?
This "firehose of falsehoods" technique has been adopted from Russian propaganda, and we see it in this thread in the nonsense being posted by the Putin fanbois who demand Ukraine negotiate or claim the Ukraine is somehow the agressor.
Adopted by Trump and US Fascists and disseminated here frequrently by pro-Russia posters, their claims are repetitive, lacks commitment to objective reality and they lack commitment to consistency.
My condolances to all the victims of this shooting. And all the victims of the countless shooting across the US.
The writer of the Guardian ariticle article speaks of how important it is for the LBGT community to have safe spaces such as the nightclub to go and I couldn't agree more.
I am puzzled though.. The writer of the Guardian article says
"Defence attorneys have since told the court that the alleged shooter is non binary, and that the motive for the shooting is yet to be determined"
Shouldn't we wait to verify that this person is non binary (not quite sure how you do that because it is afterall a declaration) and tease out the motives for the crime before we talk about it being a hate crime?
Because until we know that it was a hate crime,motivated by hate towards the LGBT community it is mischeif making to go on to do what the author does and I quote
"conservative, transphobes and Gender Critical have created a climate of scrutiny and fear around transgender and queer people". She is associating people who scrutinize gender ideology and queer theory with a mass shooter.
You mention the likes of Tucker Carlson and others who have made threats against gender clinics, all of which I condemn. And thats where our current hate speech laws serve us so well. Because my understanding is if anyone threatens or incites violence in NZ, it is a crime. And that's how it should be.
I will just talk about my impressions in NZ. Over the decades of the 70's 80s and 90s there were a small number of transgender people (transexuals or transvestites as they were known as). Three very prominant trans people over these decades were Carmen, Bob Moodie (a police commissioner who crossed dressed) and of course Georgina Beyer. All of them were publicly well known. Georgina of course was able to secure enough support to be voted in as Mayor and then an MP. All were judged on thier merits. Did these people have a hard life (undoubtedly). Were they generally accepted? Seem to be. Were they free of harrassment? Unlikely.
Gender critical feminists became concerned about the gender ideology for many reasons. Our concerns include the increase in young people identifying as trans and being fast tracked into a medical intervention (see Laura Lopezs excellent article about this published yesterday). We are concerned that medics are using drugs to treat gender dysphoria, that they are not licenced to do. (especially when the use of such drugs are being rolled back in other countries (Sabine also put a clip of Dr Marci Bowers in the comments section of Laura's article. In this Dr Bowers admits that children started on PBs at Tanner stage 2 cannot orgasm.
I would argue that the above situation with the medicalisation of children are deserving of scrutiny.
GC feminists are also concerned about laws such as self id that allows any male who identifies as a female access to womens change rooms, accomodation, sporting competitions etc. Women are entitled to feel protective of their spaces. Not everyone believes that because a man says he is a woman that makes it so. It is gas lighting to expect people to accept it as truth. It may be someones personal truth, but that doesn't make it so.
So I am not sure if you were hoping that the hate speech laws would shut down gender critical voices? Again I think it is essential that women's voices be heard around these issues.
Anker: There are, and have been, many more gender diverse people in Aotearoa than the three you mention. Many of them died at their own (or another's) hands, disappeared, or been forced to live inauthentic lives behind a socially acceptable mask. So it is hardly surprising that there is a bit of a backlog in trans people coming out now that some slight social acceptance is possible.
Our current "hate speech" laws do not serve us at all well, with very few successful convictions to the point where it is hardly worth the effort to lodge a complaint. Even if successful, the penalties are so low that that they wouldn't even prevent someone convicted of the offense of being elected to public office:
Section 131 states that a person who commits the criminal offence is "liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $7,000”.
https://consultations.justice.govt.nz/policy/incitement-of-hatred/
I had been avoiding referencing the (alleged) mass murderer, as they are more of a symptom than a cause. But waiting until all the details have been ironed out in court is not far removed from ignoring the event entirely. The (alleged) shooter's past does not seem to back up their lawyer's claims (for whatever reason) of their client being nonbinary. The name change seems to be more so the mother could cut contact with the (proportedly) violent meth-head of a father:
https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/11/23/club-q-suspect-in-court-friend-says-never-claimed-to-be-nonbinary/
Oh but if they say they're non binary, then they are .How dare you question them?
The transtwittersphere is having multiple meltdowns over that. One side is "he is lying to get off the hate crime charges", the other side is "how dare you challenge their identity" and the "third side" is sniping in with "I thought you folx always say that nobody will ever lie about their gender identity for nefarious purposes". Much popcorn consumed on the sidelines.
https://reduxx.info/it-was-obvious-thats-a-man-cnn-guest-rejects-colorado-shooters-non-binary-claim/
the thing about blaming UK feminists bears examination. Not because it's daft (it is in the extreme), but because we probably should be figuring out how someone's thinking can be like that. I get that some people believe that GC feminism somehow convinces people to be transphobic and act out on it, but it's such a vague idea with no substance to it. Which leads us to the problem of genderists not being able to make even a halfway decent argument for their position. It was the same in the Cambridge debate that Stock was in. The genderists had very little in the way of rationale for what they were saying (some were better than others, and I've only listened to the first half so maybe it go better).
He is not only lying to get of the hate crime charge, being a non binary allows him to identify into a female prison with the born women who are of course not allowed to say a thing in protest to having an entire male locked up with them lest they are happy with loss of privileges and such for misgendering.
And lets also not discuss the amount of dead women that litter the ground of the US, or the amount of dead kids that litter the US, or the amount of native american women that recorded as missing but never found, or the amount of men that get shot in mass shootings or police killings as quite a few blokes of all colors/creed/identity get shot down quite routinely and so on and so forth.
I pity all those that go out for a night of fun, go to school, go to work, go shop in a grocery store and do so without even thinking of having a right to be free of shootings cause it is the US and every dick and john have a gun or a whole collection thereof.
Sabine how can you possibly say the criminal is lying about being non binary to get out of being prosecuted for hate crimes and to go to a women's prison. That would never, ever, ever, ever happen. Its sounds like you are being transphobic
Of course there have been many more gender diverse than the three I mention Temp. I was merely using them to illustrate how NZders are a pretty accepting bunch and will take people how they find them. This isn't to say that there is a small minority of a..holes who will bully and torment anyone who is different or vulnerable.
I don't think you can account for the exponential growth of young girls identifying as trans nowadays is that it is because there is now "slight social acceptance". If there was we would be seeing a comparable rise in women in their 30s, 40s, 50s and 60's coming out as trans and that is not happening.
I agree that many have been forced to live inauthentic lives behind a mask. These would be the male to female cross dressers who often married women who had no idea they liked to cross dress. A lot of this group are made up of autogynophiles.
How do you mean they "disappeared"? Sounds a little 1984ish
I mean that they disappeared; one day they were there, and the next they weren't. Given that it's a community that is almost defined by their difficulty in getting their names on official documents and often lacking traditional families, it has been difficult to get police to take an interest. That's if anyone was keen to interact with police in the first place, which has historically had its own dangers. Best case scenario is they left town and set up under a new (or old) name elsewhere. But that is a bit optimistic.
"Autogynephiles"? I have no more time for Blanchard and his discredited pseudoscience, than I do for Freudian; "penis envy".
Well then – where is the "discrediting"? They are all around you – middle aged men with wives (usually ex-wives) and kids – littering lesbian dating services. I personally know at least 2 of them right here in Auckland.
http://healthcareguild.com/transgender_files/Download%20-%20History%20of%20Autogynephilia.pdf
You may have no time for Blanchard and his "discredited pseudoscience" but in this article Blachard and his colleague Lawrence quote trans who idendify with autogynophilia and the concepts Blanchard was proposing. It describes their experiences of cross dressing and sexual arousal.
God I thought you queer theorists were all for breaking down the charmed circle (as in Gabrielle Reubin's term for hetero sexual monogamous sex).
People get aroused by all sorts of things. As long as it isn't children or animals, degrading women or violent porn. What is your problem with the idea that some men get arounsd at the thought of themselves being and dressing as women. TBH it absolutely isn't my thing and I wouldn't want to be part of it, but in the privacy of one's own home and all that?
By denying autogynephilia you are the one making it shameful. As I say, I dont care if this is what some men get off on (as long as it doesn't involve my knickers or clothing or me in anyway). The problem I have with it is they are wanting me to agree with the idea that they are women and can access my spaces.
it’s the same thing again. People with AGP are the wrong kind of trans women, only accept people’s self-assessment when it suits.
The problem with Blanchard's transsexualism typology is that it rests upon a dichotomy of homosexual and autogynephilic transsexuals. Which is insufficient to explain the spectrum of gender diversity even within white trans women in north America, let alone trans men and nonbinary people of differing cultures and ethnicity. Leaving aside the issue of generalizability of Blanchard's notions, there are still the problems of his research lacking; control groups, and replicability by others. Still, better than Freud I guess.
Here Serano refers to Feminine Embodiment Fantasies (FEFs) rather than AGP, because research that used a control group of cis women to the trans women found similar patterns of reported behaviour in both groups to the same questionnaires that had Blanchard used previously to posit his typology.:
https://www.juliaserano.com/av/Serano-AutogynephiliaEmbodiment.pdf
Blanchard was a clinician who was attempting to make sense of the patterns he was seeing amongst his clients. It is common for research to start with observation, case studies and the RCTs.
I agree the trans umbrella encompasses many variations. AGP being one of them.
As for teenage girls presenting as trans, their pathway is often through chat rooms. Girls who have body disatisfaction who then develop a trans identity on line. There is a huge social contagion factor here. prior to 2012 which happens to be when the smart phone was introduced, that number of teen girls presenting as trans was extremely low. The exponential increase is a new cohort. They have high rates of other mental health issues including anoerexia. This new cohort has appeared not because it is now more socially acceptable to be trans. If it was as I previously wrote we would see middle age women presenting in increased numbers as trans.
The ideology has hijacked the needs of the very, very small minority of people who suffer from gender dysphoria and it is clouding the work of clinicians such as Blanchard who are trying ot make sense of peoples suffering
Julia Serano has skin in the game, around reframing the conversation around AGP.
Queer theory language distorts and obscures, rather than clarifies and Serrano is skilled in its use:
"Which is insufficient to explain the spectrum of gender diversity even within white trans women in north America, let alone trans men and nonbinary people of differing cultures and ethnicity."
It refers to a specific group that resides under the current trans definition, it doesn't claim to define all.
The story so far
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/130588973/hate-speech-disabled-rainbow-communities-and-women-forgotten-in-watereddown-plans
For mine, the essential problem was that hate speech law – incitement of hate was too nebulous (too easy to connect to taking offence at what others say). If they had toughened it up to an "incitement to hate crimes "standard, then few would have seen it as a limitation of free speech to include birth sex, gender ID, sexuality along with religion.
Then leaving the matter of speech that incites hostility and hatred to the review as to regulation of social media etc.
***There have been only three prosecutions because the police and courts have applied a higher threshold than stated in the legislation (there is no guarantee that would continue).
SPC, The wording on the; Proposals against incitement of hatred and discrimination, were not at all nebulous. Though it may be over a year since you read the discussion document, the pdf is still available through
https://consultations.justice.govt.nz/policy/incitement-of-hatred/
From Appendix 2, starting on page 29:
Yes, as noted in the Proposal 4 excerpt: "The exact wording of this provision will be determined following consultation", so not every detail was specified in advance. And there will be public submissions yet to the select committee on whatever text is presented to parliament next year. However, it seems fair to assume that the final text will be less, rather than more; nebulous, than the current asystematic mishmash of legislation. For example (from proposal 2); "The terms “hostility”, “ill-will”, “contempt” and “ridicule” would be replaced by “hatred”".
My comment was guided by that of Paul Hunt
Nebulous refers to the difference between legislation and applied standard. In the same period there were no blasphemy law cases in courts.
This Parliament quite cheerfully passed legislation about Conversion Therapy and the ability to change the SEX marker on a Birth Certificate without having the slightest idea of what "gender identity" or "gender expression" actually means.
There is no agreed definition of "gender" as opposed to "sex" and there will not be because gender is an ideology – a belief system. Therefore it is what you say it is, the minute you say it is – and it is something else 5 minutes later if you change your mind.
Writing legislation on any other basis for this belief system is almost impossible.
There are agreed definitions of the words sex and gender amongst biological scientists, though you might not agree with them yourself Visubversa. There is always academic debate, of course; some of it more sincere than others. Here is the WHO definition – as it was quick to google, and a good nontechnical summary:
https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1
Gender is to sex what astrology is to astronomy. We don't make laws based on astrology. Astronomy got us to the moon.
And nobody is designated a sex at birth. Your sex is determined at the second of your conception. It is with you all your life – every drop of your blood tells the truth about your sex. The truth is in your bones, and even in your cremains.
The things described as "gender" are just the usual sexist stereotypes that most of us moved on from decades ago.
Your "gender identity” shares a room in your head with your immortal soul. Nobody in a civilised society should be forced to believe in either of them.
2. Gender – a different meaning and application, was used when speaking around issues that related to societal manifestations due to sex, eg. gender pay gap, gendered violence;
3. Gender stereotypes – societal/cultural expectations regarding presentation, behaviour, interests achievements based on someone's sex,
4. Gender identity – someone's self-declared personal identity.
Your excerpt above mixes gender 2. and 3., and conflates all in the final paragraph:
Gender influences people’s experience of and access to healthcare.
Actually, sex is very important in healthcare delivery, much more significant than 2., 3. and 4. Yet is not mentioned.
The term "hatred" is impossible to define in a legal sense, and so is difficult to discuss pre-legislative change.
There is no sense of what the intended outcome is.
Is it preventative, or punitive as a means of reducing harm?
And what level of harm is considered legally harmful? IIRC – existing laws prohibit an incitement to genocide – a high bar, but a necessary distinction.
Humans are messy, imperfect, intolerant and obnoxious. While these aspects are not welcomed, should they be criminalised – is one of the discussion points – and how will this be practically managed – is another.
We know increased punishment for violent crime is unsuccessful at persuading those who commit it to restrain themselves. (Sometimes, it increases the violence as they don't want any witnesses). It is unlikely to be a preventative measure here. UNLESS, the threshold is lowered to the point that people are unwilling to speak or challenge orthodoxies for fear of prosecution, or the fear that there may be negative impacts on their livelihood, families and well-being.
In which, case, this legislation should not go ahead.
If it is intended to be punitive, there is also a problem. ANY crime of violence and harm to a person, should have a level of punishment associated with that crime that is applied after successful prosecution.
We should not have a two-tier system of victim, that considers that it is the victim's protected characteristics that increase the level of punishment.
This is disrespectful in two ways: one, that the victims' most important characteristic was in the protected category to which they belonged, two: victims not so categorised do not require the same diligence and outcome, and the impact of their loss or harm on their family and friends is not so great.
For example, taking the conversation above regarding landlords. There is a lot of rhetoric and shaming being directed to landlords as the primary reason (unsubstantiated) for people being unable to find secure, affordable housing.
If someone developed a "hatred" of landlords due to their own housing crisis, and decided to break into a Property Investors meeting and committed violence, would this be a "hate" crime?
This legislation proposal is performative, and as such is vague and does not identify the level of need for it, the intended outcomes, and the measures by which those outcomes will be achieved.
Due to this, a full and frank discussion is unable to take place. But this method has worked previously – unfortunately we may end up with further legislation that was well-intentioned but badly conceived, written and implemented.
Molly; any word can be given a strict legal definition, though it may not correspond well to conventional usage within a given portion of the society subject to those laws. The definition of; "Hatred", and whether any other terminology might be preferable instead of, or as well as, this; was one of the main foci of the public consultation last year. And once we finally get to see the draft legislation next year, will be the subject of submissions to the relevant select committee.
Laws not being perfect instruments seems a poor reason for a government to not introduce new laws. As for results, I would appreciate that those found to be guilty of; incitement to hatred and/or discrimination, be barred from public office in the future. Which under our present system takes an offense with a maximum jail term of over 2 years – whether or not they receive that sentence.
The hate definition remains a problem, but it is not the fundamental issue:
Why create a two-tier system of crime and punishment for the same crime?
I deleted one of your long copypastas yesterday. Please stop doing this. The protocol goes something like this*:
You can direct people to read a longer quote by quoting the start of it and linking.
Two reasons for this.
*it's not absolute, but it's a good guide.
Class.
https://twitter.com/SimonRowntree1/status/1596210160933883905
England fans dressed as crusaders have been banned from entering World Cup stadiums at the risk of upsetting locals.
Two supporters were seemingly led away by security this week after turning up at the Khalifa International Stadium donning chain mail and helmets depicting the Patron Saint of England. Footage appears to show Qatari officials ushering the duo away from the turnstiles though it is unclear as to whether the fans were later allowed to watch the Three Lions' opening Group B fixture.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/england-crusader-costumes-world-cup-28574756
I'm sure this is the video that got his house fire boomed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8pyZCdaQ88
This guy! I always suspected there was more to his Twitter 'purchase'. He didn't care about the cost – how could he as a centi-billionaire – but control. He will now have direct insight into our transport habits, buying habits and philosophical leanings. And use them to change our behaviour, not just respond to it.
More fool us; the guy is a doof but he's far from stupid.
https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/the-techno-feudal-method-to-musks-twitter-madness/
(An easy, short read. Very articulate. Scary)
A good news story – how one man made Peru the world's blueberry powerhouse in a decade.
https://twitter.com/LatamData/status/1575133312460341249