The Green’s electoral law reform petition
Written By:
- Date published:
8:47 am, March 4th, 2019 - 389 comments
Categories: Deep stuff, democracy under attack, democratic participation, electoral systems, greens, labour, making shit up, Media, MMP, national, Politics, referendum, same old national, spin, the praiseworthy and the pitiful -
Tags: Golriz Ghahraman, matthew hooton
The Greens want to reform electoral law. One of their goals is to stop donations from foreign sources happening.
Sounds sensible. Other jurisdictions have similar prohibitions.
It is hard to work out what the implications are. There is a requirement to report party donations from overseas sources but only those over $1,500 are required to be reported.
The latest returns suggest that Labour received no donations that had to be reported, nor did the Greens, but National received $53,975 in total of these particular donations. They also received $150,000 from Inner Mongolia Rider Horse Industry (NZ) Limited which for electoral purposes not an overseas person. It appears that the prohibition may be easily avoided.
It is interesting that National declared total donations of $4.58 million compared to Labour’s $1.61 million. And the Greens received $0.85 million.
The Greens’ petition also seeks to enable Māori voters to change electoral rolls more easily, to overturn the prisoner voting ban to give everyone the right to vote, and to implement the recommendations of the 2012 MMP review.
The last proposal, which seems innocent enough, has led to an eruption of dissent from the right on twitter.
Matthew Hooton thought it would lead to a civil uprising:
And he wants Labour to rule itout.
His rhetoric, “corrupt”, “dumb” and “civil uprising”, is getting pretty Trumpian on it. Matthew can we dial the rhetoric back and debate the detail?
There are a couple of issues posed by this particular proposal, do we have to hold a referendum to reduce the MMP threshold, and will the reduction of the MMP threshold from 5% to 4% cause a civil uprising?
As to the first question well no. Some parts of the electoral system are entrenched. Things like provisions relating to the Representative Commission, voting methods, size of electorates, tolerances for size, age of voting and method of voting. These require 75% of Parliamentarians to vote in support of change, or a majority at a referendum. There is an interesting question about if the entrenching provision is not itself entrenched and could be changed by simple Parliamentary majority but for current purposes this can be ignored.
It is pretty clear that changing the MMP level can be achieved by simple Parliamentary majority and amending legislation
Should it be done without a referendum?
The Electoral Commission report recommended that the changes should happen.
From its 2012 report:
The party vote threshold is the mechanism by which the competing objectives of proportionality, on the one hand, and effective Parliaments and stable governments, on the other, are balanced. At 5%, it is higher than it needs to be to strike the right balance. It could be lowered to 4% without any risk to effectiveness or stability and this is what we recommend be done. It could arguably be lowered to 3%, on the basis of previous MMP results, without significant risk. But this, a massive 40% reduction from the current threshold, would be a step too far at this stage. It may be in time that a 4% threshold proves to be higher than it needs to be. For this reason, the Commission proposes it be required to review and report on the new threshold after three general elections. This is an area in which New Zealand should move cautiously and incrementally.
The one electorate seat threshold should go. An exception to the party vote threshold, it is not a necessary feature of the MMP system. Whilst it does increase the proportionality of Parliament, it does so in an arbitrary and inconsistent way that would be better achieved by lowering the party vote threshold. Its effect has been to undermine the principles of fairness and equity and the primacy of the party vote in determining the overall composition of Parliament that underpin MMP. It gives voters in some electorates significantly more influence over the make-up of Parliament than voters in other electorates. It causes excessive focus to be placed on a few electorates and distorts election campaigning.
And the Commission said this about the referendum issue:
We have considered the process for implementing our recommendations, should they be accepted. Since 1956, where significant change to a defining characteristic of the electoral system has been proposed, a referendum has usually been held. For example, the term of Parliament has been the subject of referendums in 1967 and 1990, and the type of voting system in 1992, 1993 and 2011. However, important changes to aspects of the operation of our voting system (such as, in 1965, the basis for determining the number of electorate seats, or, in 1995, the form of the ballot paper) have been enacted by a broad consensus of Parliament.
While our recommendations are important and some require legislation, they do not fundamentally alter the nature of the voting system. For this reason we believe a referendum would not be required to implement them.
Will the reduction of the MMP threshold to 4% adversely affect our democratic system?
Well no. It will improve proportionality. If a political party can achieve 4% of the party vote why shouldn’t they be in Parliament? The lower the figure goes, the weaker the argument becomes. If there is too much fracturing of the vote and of support then effective Government may be difficult to achieve. But 4% provides a fairly daunting hurdle and Rob Salmond who looked at the situation overseas found no evidence of increased instability.
And we have had this weird situation where single seats have had disproportionate effects on election results. Epsom is the one that stands out. It is weird that 16,000 voters in Epsom can get their vote counted but 100,000 voters for a party can watch their vote be wasted.
How much of a difference will it make and will it favour the left?
The two times that parties have achieved over 4% of the vote and have not been coat tailed into Parliament were in 1996 when the Christian Coalition just missed out and 2008 when New Zealand First did the same. So based on this history no it will not.
The loss of the potential for puppet parties will hurt the right but they adversely affect proportionality.
Were the Greens trying to pull a swifty?
This is what the petition says:
[i]mplement the recommendations of the 2012 MMP review.
And this is what the review says hidden away on the leading page:
- The one electorate seat threshold should be abolished (and if it is, the provision for overhang seats should also be abolished);
- The party vote threshold should be lowered from 5% to 4% (with the Commission required by law to review how the 4% threshold is working) …
I bet National is working out the implications of this change. Its response will depend on its calculation on if the lower threshold will help Christian conservatives or its puppet Blue Green party. Self interest will determine what its response is.
There is nothing swift or underhand about the petition.
What was underhand was back in 2013 when Judith Collins shelved the review report on the basis there was not consensus. The reality was that a couple of turkey parties were not prepared to vote for an early christmas. There was no legislation introduced, no referendum, just executive action taken to kill the report because it threatened their political interests.
I hope the petition succeeds. Overseas donations should not be part of our electoral system, the provisions relating to changing election for the Maori role are unduly difficult, the prisoner voting ban was a breach of human rights, and the changes to the threshold have been recommended by the organisation in charge of our electoral system. Perhaps a referendum should be used for the change so that it is instilled with strong constitutional underpinning and so a future National Government cannot simply reverse the changes but there is no requirement that this happens.
I hope the rhetoric gets turned down. I suspect that this will be a forlorn hope.
389 comments on “The Green’s electoral law reform petition ”
- Comments are now closed
- Comments are now closed
CommentsOpinions
Recent Comments
FeedsPartyGovtMedia
- Bridges challenges Luxon’s foreign policy
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon last Friday appeared to be starting to moderate his pivot to the United States under the foreign policy reset. Back in August he had told Australia’s Lowy Institute last August that New Zealand’s independent foreign policy was a “nonsense”. But in his latest foreign policy speech, ...2 hours ago - 2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #47
A listing of 25 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, November 17, 2024 thru Sat, November 23, 2024. Story of the week This week, we again asked Gemini to create a topical summary of the articles we shared during ...8 hours ago - End Game
Related articles belowIntroductionRecently, I’ve been having some delays in putting pen to paper.It’s not because I’m short on words -Verbosity seems to be one of the banes of my life. And it’s not because there isn’t enough content: I just whipped up a long list from the past few days.So, ...14 hours ago - Rowdy scrappers, beautiful birds
Who doesn't love to watch Tūī? Who doesn't love those colours, almost too good to be true - the deepest, glossiest, most lustrous of deep blue, the iridescent turquoise, the crisp-as-a-vicar's-collar white tuft?Who doesn't love the way they move, swooping as swift as a jet or occasionally bashing the hell ...1 day ago - Fact brief – Has human-caused climate change increased extreme weather?
Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. This fact brief was written by Sue Bin Park from the Gigafact team in collaboration with members from our team. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline. Has human-caused climate ...2 days ago
- What’s Been Happening? Political Roundup
For paid subscribersI’m currently writing an article in response to a promise to Bill about where everything is heading - and I included a ‘quick’ snapshot of political updates.However, as that list of updates got longer, I thought it made sense to send out as a separate article.So here it ...2 days ago - Bitch
I'm a bitch, I'm a loverI'm a child, I'm a motherI'm a sinner, I'm a saintI do not feel ashamedI'm your Hell, I'm your dreamI'm nothing in betweenYou know you wouldn't want it any other wayWriters: Shelly Peiken, Meredith BrooksGood morning, all you lovely people. 🙂 A newsletter this morning ...2 days ago - Property Rights and the Treaty Principles Bill
Property rights – which enable decisions over tangible and intangible assets – are critical to an economy as Why Nations Fail pointed out. Not just private property rights for, as we shall see, they are more complicated than that. Neoliberals argue that private property rights lead to the maximum economic ...3 days ago - The Hoon around the week to November 22
The podcast above of the weekly ‘Hoon’ webinar for paying subscribers on Thursday night features co-hosts & talking about the week’s news with: on the US Presidential elections, Israel vs Gaza/Iran/Lebanon, Ukraine/Nato vs Russia/North Korea and whether NZ now joins AUKUS;Special guest Helen Clark on the issues above, ...3 days ago - Justice in Brazil
Following the 2022 Brazilian general election, election loser Jair Bolsonaro tried to do a Trump, attempting a coup to overturn the election. It failed. But unlike his American friend, he hasn't been allowed to get away with it: The former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and some of his closest ...3 days ago - Treasury warns deeper recession worsening Budget deficit
The gift that keeps giving: David Seymour has now opened a split in the coalition over the future of National’s promise to build a new medical school. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / TheKakaKia ora. Long stories short, here’s my top things to note in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and ...3 days ago
- Weekly Roundup 22-November-2024
It’s another Friday and we’re inching closer to the end of the year. Here’s some of the stories that have caught our attention this week. This post, like all our work, is brought to you by a largely volunteer crew and made possible by generous donations from our readers and ...3 days ago - Beyond Question?
Record Numbers: The Hīkoi mō te Tiriti, which began at the tip of the North, and the tail of the South, on 11 November, culminated outside Parliament on Tuesday, 19 November 2024, in one of the largest demonstrations in New Zealand’s political history.ACCORDING TO TE ARA, the Ministry of Culture ...3 days ago - The Rush To Blame “The Activists”
Activists are such easy scapegoats. The right and center have been conditioned for decades to roll their eyes at all protests. The left are easily aggravated over students leading movements they see as belonging to grownups, who have more important concerns like the economy and whether the trains come on ...3 days ago - Cutting Through An Inundation of Dipshit Racists
Hi,Watching New Zealand from afar offers a strange perspective. It can be a good thing — distance from Aotearoa helped keep me sane while I reported on abuse at New Zealand’s biggest megachurch over the course of a year. It helps fuel my silly podcast. But it can also be ...3 days ago - This is bad news
The speech yesterday by Treasury’s Chief Economic Advisor warning that the books are in worse shape than forecasted looks like it’s part of a softening-up process for either more cuts or a longer wait to get back into surplus. The speech was a highly unusual public preview of Treasury’s Half-Yearly ...3 days ago
- Skeptical Science New Research for Week #47 2024
Open access notables Projected increase in the frequency of extremely active Atlantic hurricane seasons, Lopez et al., Science Advances: Future changes to the year-to-year swings between active and inactive North Atlantic tropical cyclone (TC) seasons have received little attention, yet may have great societal implications in areas prone to hurricane ...3 days ago
- Chicken Kiev
Chatting in the supermarket this morning, I found I needed to lunge for the chicken drumsticks.Coping mechanisms: who hasn’t felt a greater need for them lately?When it all gets too much, I turn to demonstrating handy butchery hacks.It wasn’t that she’d said anything wrong, our friend, not at all. We ...4 days ago - The year is 2024 and it’s 1984
This is written in response to the highly significant open letter from a group of economists that was today addressed to Christopher Luxon. The year is 2024, and it’s 1984. The country is reeling from a record Olympic medal gold haul, while the globe grapples with the choice of the ...4 days ago - The IPCA has failed
Back in 2022, RNZ took an in-depth look at the "Independent" Police Conduct Authority and its handling of killings by police. These are the most serious test of oversight, and you would expect the police's use of lethal force to receive the most severe scrutiny. But despite the police regularly ...4 days ago
- Thursday 21 November 2024
The Hīkoi mō Te Tiriti arrived at Parliament on Tuesday – the size is being debated but estimates range from 42,000 to 100,000. The Prime Minister is defending not attending due to some of the organisers being affiliated with Te Pāti Māori. The national gang patch ban came into force ...4 days ago - ‘These budget cuts are counter-productive and make no sense’
I spoke to former Productivity Chair Nana this morning about the letter he and a group of other economists sent to PM Christopher Luxon to urge the Government to urgently suspend cuts to spending and investment for the sake of the economy, struggling businesses and the wellbeing of vulnerable ...4 days ago
- ACT’s Astroturfing & A Co-ordinated Attack on Te Pati Māori
Unity on the Streets / Unity at the TableAfter the Hīkoi, all three right wing Coalition leaders came together to push the idea that the 42,000 - 50,000 + strong Hikoi was somehow less potent and brave, and more illegitimate than the energy and crowd displayed.Prime Minister Christopher Luxon 20-November: ...4 days ago - Durability of carbon dioxide removal is critical for stabilizing temperatures
This is a re-post from the Climate Brink The world is emitting over 40 gigatons of CO2 per year, contributing to an accelerating warming of the planet. The world needs to cut emissions rapidly to be remotely on track to meet our Paris Agreement goals of limiting warming to well-below 2C, and we ...4 days ago
- Throwback Thursday: Will “Auckland Transport” Survive?
With Auckland Transport’s future up in the air under Mayor Wayne Brown’s proposed CCO reform, we’ve dug way back into the archives, to unearth this post originally published in March 2010. As you’ll see, many of the debates that were being had when AT was first proposed continue to ...4 days ago
- I Love My Leather Jacket
I wear my leather jacket like a great big hugRadiating charm - a living cloak of luckIt's the only concrete link with an absent friendIt's a symbol I can wear 'till we meet againOr it's a weight around my neck while the owner's freeBoth protector and reminder of mortalityIt's a ...4 days ago - Economists call on PM to suspend budget cuts for the sake of the economy
Nicola Willis’ budget cuts are under fire from economists for having no clear rationale and worsening the recession. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāKia ora. Long stories short, here’s my top things to note in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Thursday, November 21: The news at ...4 days ago
- The end of policing by consent
National has appointed a new police commissioner. And he explicitly rejects policing by consent: Asked if he subscribed to policing by consent, he said he did not. “I don’t talk about policing by consent. I talk about trust and confidence, and it is fundamentally important that the police have ...5 days ago
- The Treaty Principles Bill: A Who’s Who
David Horatio Waterbed SeymourFringe politician and dweeb transformed successfully by ThinkTank money into a well-oiled soundbite robot.Currently programmed to say: Equal rights for all New Zealanders Equal rights for all New Zealanders Equal rights for all New Zealanders Was previously programmed to say:I am a proud libertarian andI am a ...5 days ago - Kinleith mill closure shows need for industrial strategy
NZCTU Te Kauae Kaimahi President Richard Wagstaff is calling on the Government to deliver an economic and industrial strategy for regional manufacturing, rather than just expressing sympathy for job losses, following the announced closure of Kinleith mill in Tokoroa. “The closure Kinleith mill in Tokoroa is not just devastating for ...5 days ago
- 27% of kids going hungry, up from 21% in a year
One in four Kiwi children live in households where food runs out often or sometimes. Photo: Getty ImagesKia ora. Long stories short, here’s my top things to note in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Wednesday, November 20: The lead: The official annual Health Survey found sharp ...5 days ago - Transport modelling is an illusion
This guest post by Tim Adriaansen, an advocate for accessibility and sustainable transport, originally published on LinkedIn and cross posted here with permission. People prefer cars, right? Probably not. Here’s why. Granted, most people in English-speaking countries use a car to get around. This simple reality underpins our transport ...5 days ago
- Young Maori take over
Neither Wellington nor Parliament has ever seen anything like it before. The Police said there were more than 40,000 but however many there were, yesterday’s Hikoi to Parliament was a monumental event. It was almost three times the Foreshore and Seabed martch of 2004 and many,many times bigger than ...5 days ago
- Gordon Campbell On The Hikoi Aftermath
The euphoria from yesterday’s hikoi may be transitory, but is no less valuable for that. It is pretty rare for the left to feel itself to be in the overwhelming majority, and speaking as the voice of the people. Lest that momentum be lost, the organisers will no doubt be ...5 days ago - Sabin 33 #3 – Solar panels generate too much waste and will overwhelm landfills
On November 1, 2024 we announced the publication of 33 rebuttals based on the report "Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles" written by Matthew Eisenson, Jacob Elkin, Andy Fitch, Matthew Ard, Kaya Sittinger & Samuel Lavine and published by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia ...6 days ago
- What’s the time Mr Seymour?
Mr David Seymour crawling up to the ceilingThe sun don't shine the sun don't shine the sun don't shine at allMamma Pappa say you should go to school, I don't know what forNow that I've grown up and seen the world and all its liesSong: Southside of Bombay"Ake, ake, ake" ...6 days ago - Submit to defend te Tiriti!
The Justice Committee has called for submissions on National's racist and constitutionally radical Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. Submissions can be made at the link above or by post, and are due by Tuesday, 7 January 2025. But I'd get in quick, in case National grows a spine ...6 days ago
- We need to talk about Kevin
All happy families are alike; each unhappy family has a Drunk Uncle Kevin in there somewhere. If your Kevin is anything like the ones I know, he was getting along happily enough without having to think too much about the Treaty Principles Bill apart from bloody good job, onya guys ...6 days ago - The hikoi
Like everyone else (everyone who wasn't there, anyway), I've spent the morning watching the hikoi march on Parliament. The pictures are astounding: parliament grounds and the surrounding streets are full, and there are still people backed up along Lambton Quay. The police are estimating 35,000 people, and that's a floor ...6 days ago
- Why Govt & NZ Inc should boycott & regulate Facebook
6 days ago - How should we talk about change?
A better world isn’t just possible, it’s desirable. And that’s how we should frame a lot of our conversations around making a greater Auckland. As an example take urban climate action. A climate friendly Auckland: Is free from congestion Enables people to travel how they choose Is filled with ...6 days ago
- AMA + Holiday Webworm Merch!
6 days ago - Discount Code for Webworm Merch!
Hi,So there’s a bunch of new stuff on the Webworm store (www.webworm.store) — just in time for the Holidays. Read more ...6 days ago - Trying to defuse the tension
There were urgent moves yesterday at Parliament to try and defuse the tension building up over ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill. The Bill’s author, ACT leader David Seymour, told reporters that he understood the Justice Select Committee met yesterday to discuss how long it should take to consider submissions on the ...6 days ago
- An Irritable NZ Pawn – David Seymour Admits Treaty Principles Bill will clear the way for deve...
6 days ago - Gordon Campbell On The Hikoi Arrival, And Tyler Childers
Politicians like to bang on all about the need to heal society’s racial/economic divisions, but in their actions they’re more keen on stoking those divisions, with the Treaty Principles Bill being the classic example. The Bill seeks to dilute the Crown’s responsibilities to Māori at the same time as it ...6 days ago
- Socially Backwards and Fiscally Forwards: the False Ideological Divide and the “Conservative” Li...
6 days ago - Kaamos: Accepted
I appreciate that A Phuulish Fellow has been fairly quiet recently. That’s a combination of two things – comparatively little in the way of relevant material to discuss (at least until The War of the Rohirrim comes out next month), and my general work on The Secret Non-Fiction Writing Project. ...7 days ago - Here’s how governments could fix their Paris climate commitment failures
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections Governments around the world face a conundrum. Virtually none are on track to meet their Paris climate commitments. That includes the United States, which committed to cut its emissions at least 50% below 2005 levels by 2030 but is only on track for 32-43% cuts ...7 days ago
- Unstoppable.
7 days ago
- Katherine Trebeck – An Alternative Economic Narrative
The era of neoliberalism has been destructive on so many levels, with a huge growth in wealth and privilege for the one percent. A hollowing out of the state; fraying of the safety net; inadequate government investment in infrastructure; and continued environmental degradation has resulted in damage on a vast ...7 days ago - In a Manner of Speaking
In a manner of speakingI just want to sayThat I could never forget the wayYou told me everythingBy saying nothingOh, give me the wordsGive me the wordsThat tell me nothingOh, give me the wordsGive me the wordsThat tell me everythingSongwriter: Winston TongNext Tuesday, the subscription price for Nick’s Kōrero will ...7 days ago - Monday 18 November 2024
The NZNO have announced a nationwide strike for December over its pay dispute with Health NZ, who have put a 1 per cent cap on pay rises. The Hīkoi mō Te Tiriti and Treaty Principles Bill remain front and centre in the media, with the impacts of the Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke-led ...7 days ago
- Shipley warns Seymour’s bill is ‘inviting civil war’
The divisive Treaty Principles Bill is not just a risk for the National Party, it’s a risk to civil order and unity, warns a National Party grandee. Photo: Getty ImagesKia ora. Long stories short, here’s my top things to note in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on ...7 days ago - A clearer network for the City Rail Link?
This post was originally published on Linked In by Nicolas Reid. It is republished here with permission. Auckland is now just a year or so away from having the keystone of its urban rail network complete. As I wrote about here, the City Rail Link will be a literal game changer for ...7 days ago
- National’s support base is wobbling
If ACT leader David Seymour intended the Treaty Principles Bill to drive a wedge into National’s support base, he may well already be succeeding. By midnight on Thursday after the Maori Party haka in Parliament, National MPs were being deluged with emails and messages from their members calling them out ...1 week ago
- 2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #46
A listing of 33 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, November 10, 2024 thru Sat, November 16, 2024. Story of the week Our Story of the Week is completely "meta" (no, not that Meta). It's about our exploring how ...1 week ago
- Grifter Eftpos Tamaki at it again
..Thanks for reading Frankly Speaking ! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.Self-appointed “Bishop” and proto-fascist, Brian Tamaki was at it again on 16 November, blocking Auckland’s southern motorway, SH1.This time, the target of his ire wasn’t the Civil Unions Act; covid lock-downs; mask mandates; or ...1 week ago - Rip up a bill, lead a haka are words to live by
I cannot stop grabbing people by the lapels, or shoulders, or similar, and raving at them about the tiny miracles in my ears.I can hear again! There could not be a more satisfied customer in all the world.In a noisy cafe I am even catching words that Karren cannot, she ...1 week ago - Unintended Consequences
Take the baitYou pay the priceIt's much too lateFor good adviceYou know and I know that our good things' throughBecause there's consequences for what we doConsequences for me and youWriters: Kevin Robert Hayes, David Nagier, Bonnie Adele Hayes.Fallout from the first readingOne News began last night by saying that tens ...1 week ago - Thank you, driver!
Today, Saturday 16th of November, is Auckland Transport’s Bus Driver Appreciation Day! Saturday 16 November marks the third annual Auckland Transport (AT) ‘Bus Driver Appreciation Day’, and this year we are encouraging all of New Zealand to thank their driver or let the bus go first if you are in ...1 week ago
- Totally Normal: Holiday Edition
Hi,If I was to accurately sum up my mental state over the week, I’d just say that I got a huge fright from my own shadow.I’d nipped out for an 11pm neighborhood stroll, just to calm down after a day of stress and screens. The Cure and Fazerdaze’s new record ...1 week ago - We Are Not Listening
The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...
1 week ago - More lawlessness from National
On Tuesday, sick of government stonewalling, the Waitangi Tribunal issued a rare court order, ordering the Minister of Health to release unredacted documents within 48 hours showing its reasoning for disestablishing Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority. The government's response to the lawful order of a court? Yeah, ...1 week ago
- National’s tyrannical “foreign interference” law
Yesterday, under cover the the biggest political fight of the year, National quietly - covertly, even - introduced anti-foreign interference legislation. The bill is the product of a years-long work-program aimed at countering shit like this and this, and there's unquestionably a need to do something to counter foreign states' ...1 week ago
- The Haka Represents The Best Of Us
A few months ago, I was in an audience watching a Haka-Kapa and as I watched children dance and sing and sway and shout and beat, I couldn’t help but think “The Haka represents the best of us.”Yes, yes - there will be a thousand voices that rush forth to ...1 week ago
- Adding up the climate cost
St Mary’s Bay housing left hanging: Climate risk is systemically underestimated in the climate scenarios used by central banks, and a new report warns 10,000 houses are set to become uninsurable in Aotearoa. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāLong stories short, here’s the top six news items of note in ...1 week ago
- Auckland chafing at Bishop’s housing intensification orders
One of the major problems the Government has in implementing its ‘going for housing growth’ strategy is that it isn’t giving much funding help to councils. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāKia ora. Long stories short, here’s my top things to note in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and ...1 week ago - Friday 15 November 2024
The Treaty Principles Bill continues to dominate political news, with it passing its first reading in the House. Parliament was briefly suspended and Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke suspended for 24 hours after leading a haka that was joined by opposition MPs and the public in the gallery. Willie ...1 week ago
- Weekly Roundup 15-November-2024
Happy Friday, welcome to another round-up of interesting stories about what’s happening in Auckland and other cities. Feel free to add your links in the comments! This post, like all our work, is brought to you by a largely volunteer crew and made possible by generous donations from our readers ...1 week ago
- Are We The Waiting?
And screamingAre we we are, are we we are the waitingAnd screamingAre we we are, are we we are the waitingForget me nots, second thoughts live in isolationHeads or tails and fairy tales in my mindAre we we are, are we we are the waiting unknownThe rage and love, the ...1 week ago - The Hoon around the week to November 15
The podcast above of the weekly ‘Hoon’ webinar for paying subscribers on Thursday night features co-hosts & talking about the week’s news with:The Kākā’s climate correspondent on the latest climate news, including from COP29 this week; on the US Presidential elections, Israel vs Gaza/Iran/Lebanon, Ukraine/Nato vs Russia/North ...1 week ago
- First Tea and Toast, now Milo — why do NZ’s best beverages need so much defending?
Only two months ago, Nicola Willis had to step in to stop Health New Zealand cutting tea and toast for post-birth parents, and now Lester Levy is riding to the rescue with a welcome message for all: our health workers can once again drink Milo, and will no longer need ...1 week ago - Gordon Campbell on the folly of making apologies in a social vacuum.
Day One of the Treaty Principles Bill…and everyone got what they wanted, and did what they liked. Heated words were exchanged. Culturally appropriate acts of outrage were performed. David Seymour got to play the victim card. Willie Jackson got kicked out of class. A comically red-faced Mr Speaker bellowed “Order, ...1 week ago
- Skeptical Science New Research for Week #46 2024
Open access notables Microbial solutions must be deployed against climate catastrophe, Peixoto et al., Nature Communications [comment]: The climate crisis is escalating. A multitude of microbe-based solutions have been proposed, and these technologies hold great promise and could be deployed along with other climate mitigation strategies. However, these solutions have ...1 week ago
- Release: Government should be transparent on live exports
Targeted consultation on reinstating live cattle exports by sea won’t allow the New Zealand public to have their say. ...3 days ago - NZ’s global climate rankings plummet as Govt removes agriculture from ETS
The Government has passed legislation to remove agriculture from the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) while Aotearoa’s reputation on climate action plummets. ...4 days ago - Failed boot camp experiment must end
As legislation to set up boot camps passed its first reading, the Green Party urged the Government to abandon this failed policy experiment for the good of our rangatahi. ...4 days ago
- Gender-affirming care must centre evidence and health needs, not political posturing
The Ministry of Health has today released an evidence brief regarding the use of puberty blockers in gender-affirming healthcare, amid moves by the government to limit access. ...4 days ago
- Release: National doesn’t care about manufacturing
The National Government is walking away from our manufacturing sector with constant reports of closures and job losses. ...4 days ago
- Release: David Parker speech – Piketty, Inequality and Climate Change
David Parker's speech from the University of Auckland's forum on Piketty, Inequality and Climate Change in September 2024. ...4 days ago
- Release: Youth mental wellbeing no longer a priority for Child Poverty Minister
Louise Upston has revealed her diminished vision for vulnerable youth against a backdrop of snubbed advice, scrapped priorities, shifted goal posts and thousands more children projected to fall into poverty. ...4 days ago
- Release: National’s lack of climate action taking NZ backwards
National Government’s backward-looking climate policy has seen New Zealand fall seven places on the Climate Change Performance Index to 41 out of 63 countries measured. ...4 days ago
- Release: Simple reason for drop in emergency housing
When the Government says it has reduced the number of people in emergency housing, what it means is it is stopping people from accessing it in the first place. ...4 days ago
- Govt’s child wellbeing strategy ‘shallow and shameful’
The Government is turning its back on children by not only weakening child poverty reduction targets, but also removing child mental wellbeing as a priority focus in their Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy. ...4 days ago
- Release: A historic win for Samoan communities
Labour warmly welcomes the Restoring Samoan Citizenship Bill as it passes its third reading, before becoming law. ...4 days ago
- Government plan to reinstate live animal exports a “national disgrace”
The Government has taken a giant step backwards by reinstating live animal exports. ...5 days ago
- Pasifika justice as Member’s Bill passes final reading
Teanau Tuiono’s Member’s Bill, the Citizenship (Western Samoa Restoration) Amendment Bill, has passed its third reading and will become law. ...5 days ago
- Release: Minister of Education thinks New Zealand ends at the Bombay Hills
The Minister of Education has shown complete disregard for rural communities and their school bus routes in Question Time today. ...5 days ago
- Economists sound alarm on Government’s slash-and-burn approach
A group of prominent economists has released an open letter to the Government, raising grave concerns about the far-reaching consequences of its fiscal policy. ...5 days ago
- Release: Smoking numbers up under Costello’s watch
National’s repeal of Labour’s smokefree legislation has taken New Zealand further away from achieving a Smokefree 2025 and a smokefree generation. ...5 days ago
- Release: Call for Palestine recognition by NZ, Australian and Canadian MPs
Parliamentarians from Australia, Canada and New Zealand have written an open letter to their respective Prime Ministers calling on them to recognise Palestine. ...5 days ago
- Justice Select Committee opens floor for Treaty Principles submissions
Today, the Justice Select Committee has decided to officially open submissions for the controversial Treaty Principles Bill. ...6 days ago
- Power of the people on full display as hīkoi approaches Parliament
Today, Hīkoi mō te Tiriti arrived in Wellington, with thousands gathering to march in unity against the divisive Treaty Principles Bill. ...6 days ago
- Hypocrisy as Te Whatu Ora contractor bill balloons
Te Whatu Ora’s bill for contracting and consulting staff has ballooned by nearly 20 percent under the National Government, breaking a promise they made during the election campaign to cut contractors. ...7 days ago
- Release: Growing pressure to scrap Section 7AA Repeal Bill
The newly released Section 7AA Repeal Bill's select committee report is further evidence that the Government should scrap it. ...1 week ago
- Government’s move to monetise access to nature a slippery slope
The Green Party is voicing serious concerns over the Government’s proposal to charge for access to public conservation land, released today. ...1 week ago
- Green Party condemns the passage of Treaty Principles Bill
The Green Party condemns the passing of the Treaty Principles Bill at first reading, and is clear that the fight is not over. ...2 weeks ago
- Stand Up for Te Tiriti
Te Tiriti o Waitangi is our country’s founding document. It forms the basis of the relationship between Māori and the Crown – and the Aotearoa New Zealand we live in today. ...2 weeks ago
- Release: Over 15,000 sign Labour’s open letter to Luxon
As the hīkoi to Parliament continues, Labour has sent an open letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in a last-ditch attempt to get him to kill the Treaty Principles Bill. ...2 weeks ago
- Fast Track Bill threatens environment, climate and reputation
The fast-track legislation passing its second reading in Parliament is another step towards environmental ruin. ...2 weeks ago
- Greens join King’s Counsel in calling for Treaty Principles Bill to be abandoned
The Prime Minister must answer the call from a group of senior lawyers of the King’s Counsel to abandon the divisive Treaty Principles Bill. ...2 weeks ago
- Chris Hipkins’ apology statement to state and faith-based care survivors
...2 weeks ago
- Release: Labour formally apologises to state and faith-based care survivors
Labour joins with the Government in unreservedly apologising for the abuse, neglect and trauma including torture in state and faith-based care and for ignoring the voices of survivors for too long. ...2 weeks ago
- Green Party stands in support of survivors of abuse in care
Today, the Green Party stands alongside the survivors of abuse in state care and faith-based care as the Government issues an historic apology. ...2 weeks ago
- Green Party calls for conscience vote on Treaty Principles Bill
The Green Party has written to the Speaker of the House requesting he enable a personal vote on the Treaty Principles Bill. ...2 weeks ago
- Govt move to exclude journalist risks chilling effect
The Green Party is alarmed by the Government’s move to exclude a journalist from covering this week’s apology for the survivors of abuse in state and faith-based care. ...2 weeks ago
- Without action, an apology will be empty air
For tomorrow’s apology to survivors of abuse in state and faith-based care to hold any water, the Government must not pursue the same policies that drove the abuse in the first place. ...2 weeks ago
- Release: Concerns remain over tobacco interference
Concerns about the tobacco industry’s ability to interfere in government policy making remain, despite the inability of the Office of the Auditor-General to investigate the Government’s decision to halve the excise tax on heated tobacco products. ...2 weeks ago
- Urgent wake-up call on climate
The Climate Change Commission’s latest advice indicates Aotearoa needs to be stepping up on climate action. ...2 weeks ago
- Green MP’s Meme-ber’s Bill set to save the world
Break out the punchlines and dust off your meme folder: Green Party MP Kahurangi Carter’s Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill was pulled from the Ballot yesterday. ...2 weeks ago
- Release: Poroporoaki: Ta Robert (Bom) Gillies
Kua hinga te manawa kairākau o Te Rua Tekau Ma Waru Tiwhatiwha te po! Kakarauru i te po! Ka rapuhia kei hea koe kua riro! Haere e te Ika a Whiro ki o tini hoa kua ngaro atu ki te Pō ...2 weeks ago
- Labour, Greens and Te Pāti Māori call on the Prime Minister to block the Treaty Principles Bill
The opposition parties stand united for an Aotearoa that honours Te Tiriti, rather than seeking to rewrite it. Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori are working together against the Government’s divisive Treaty Principles Bill. ...3 weeks ago
- Release: Labour, Greens and Te Pāti Māori call on the Prime Minister to block the Treaty Principle...
The opposition parties stand united for an Aotearoa that honours Te Tiriti, rather than seeking to rewrite it. Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori are working together against the Government’s divisive Treaty Principles Bill. ...3 weeks ago
- NZ must pursue independent foreign policy
The Green Party says the need is greater than ever for Aotearoa New Zealand to pursue an independent foreign policy. ...3 weeks ago
- Child Protection Investigation Unit established
A new Child Protection Investigation Unit is being established to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children in care, Minister for Children Karen Chhour says. “The report released by the Royal Commission into abuse in state care shows us all the risk of not acting immediately when there are serious ...3 days ago - Speech at United States Business Summit 2024
Ka nui te mihi kia koutou. Ka mihi ki te mana whenua ko Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei. Kia ora and good morning everyone. Thank you Fran and Simon for inviting me here today, and importantly your leadership of this forum over several years now. I want to acknowledge David Gehrenbeck, Deputy ...3 days ago
- Record number of submissions received on granny flat proposal
Nearly 2,000 submissions have been received on the Government’s proposals aimed at making it easier to build a granny flat of up to 60 square metres without a resource or building consent, RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop and Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk say. “This is the highest number ...3 days ago
- District Court Judge appointed
Attorney-General Judith Collins today announced the appointment of Rebecca Guthrie as a District Court Judge. Judge Guthrie was admitted to the bar in 1997 following her graduation from the University of Canterbury in 1996 (LLB, BA). She commenced her legal career in Hastings in 1997 before moving to London in ...3 days ago
- Appointments strengthen Predator Free 2050
The latest Predator Free 2050 Board appointments will help to strengthen biodiversity efforts across Aotearoa New Zealand, Conservation Minister Tama Potaka says. Mr Potaka today announced two appointments to the Board of Directors of Predator Free 2050 Limited, a key player in the wider Predator Free 2050 Programme. “The Predator ...3 days ago
- New facility in Christchurch will improve the lives of young New Zealanders
Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey today opened Kahurangi, an innovative and much-needed facility for Canterbury’s Child, Adolescent, and Family Mental Health Services. “The new state of the art outpatient facility opened today will be a gamechanger for the way mental health is delivered for young people in Canterbury,” says Mr ...3 days ago
- Driver safety screens to be installed on Auckland buses
Transport Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed news from the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) that bus driver protection screens will be installed across Auckland’s bus fleet by 2026.“The Government is committed to improving the safety of working environments for bus drivers, and Budget 2024 allocated $15 million of Crown funding over ...3 days ago
- Government action provides Southland farmers more time to meet plan requirements
The Government is taking action to ensure Southland farmers and growers are not affected by unreasonable regional farm plan deadlines, Agriculture Minister Todd McClay, Environment Minister Penny Simmonds and Associate Environment Minister Andrew Hoggard say.“Cabinet has agreed to provide more time for farmers and growers to comply with regional rules ...4 days ago
- Bill reaffirms Government’s commitment to crack down on serious youth offending
The Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Bill had its first reading at Parliament today. The Bill reaffirms the Government’s commitment to crack down on serious youth offending, Minister for Children Karen Chhour says. “In recent years we have seen an unacceptable spike in youth offending. “This Bill makes ...4 days ago
- Critical milestones for earthquake buildings review
Fairer, more sensible rules about managing earthquake risks are a step closer with the passing of legislation and the appointment of an independent chair to provide expert advice, Minister for Building and Construction Chris Penk says. “The Government is committed to reinvigorating our cities and regions to support economic growth, ...4 days ago
- State of the art radiology machine for Auckland
People in Northland and Auckland will benefit from a new machine for cancer treatment installed at the Regional Cancer and Blood Service at Auckland City Hospital. The MV5 linear accelerator, or LINAC machine, officially opened today targets cancer tumours with pinpoint accuracy. Health Minister Dr Shane Reti says this new, ...4 days ago
- Foreign Minister to visit Europe
Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Winston Peters will travel to Europe for high-level talks with France, Germany and the United Kingdom next week. "Since taking office almost a year ago, the Coalition Government has emphasised the importance we place on New Zealand's traditional and likeminded diplomatic and ...4 days ago
- First arrests made under gang patch ban
Police have made their first arrests under the new gang patch legislation, with two gang members arrested, says Police Minister Mark Mitchell. “Just before 11 this morning, Police in Wairoa apprehended a gang member for wearing a patch to the supermarket. He has been arrested and will now face enforcement ...4 days ago
- Better support for victims of sexual violence
The Government is proposing two major changes to name suppression laws that will put the views of victims of sexual violence first, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says. “We are committed to restoring law and order and these two proposed changes will help ensure the victims of crime are put at ...4 days ago
- Government moving forward with Regional Deals
Cabinet has agreed to invite all regions to submit proposals for Regional Deals between central and local government that drive economic growth and deliver the infrastructure our country needs, Local Government Minister Simeon Brown and Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop say. Inviting all regions to propose a Regional Deal that boosts ...4 days ago
- MSA pilot participant update
One of the ten young men selected to participate in the Military-Style Academy Pilot has allegedly reoffended. Children’s Minister Karen Chhour is disappointed but says it would be naïve to think that none of these young men would reoffend. “I’m saddened that this young person has not taken this opportunity ...4 days ago
- Fighting for Kiwis in Trade
Delivered at Auckland Trade and Economic Policy School Good morning and thank you Deputy Vice Chancellor Lithander for your warm welcome and for inviting me to open Auckland Trade and Economic Policy School today. A Special thanks to the University of Auckland, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and ...4 days ago
- Attendance rates increase, again
Associate Education Minister David Seymour says that school attendance is continuing to rise. In Term 3 of 2024 51.3 per cent of students attended school regularly, an increase of 5.3 percentage points from 46 per cent in Term 3 of 2023. “This Government has prioritised student attendance and it is ...4 days ago
- Improving the lives of young New Zealanders
Ensuring New Zealand is the best place in the world for children and young people is the vision at the heart of the Government’s new Child and Youth Strategy, Child Poverty Reduction Minister Louise Upston says. “Childhood represents a huge opportunity to set people on a positive path towards living ...4 days ago
- Government continues work to reinstate livestock exports by sea
The Government is reinstating the trade of livestock exports by sea while ensuring the highest standards of animal welfare, says Associate Minister of Agriculture Andrew Hoggard.“The Government will introduce legislation changes to reinstate the trade, enhance oversight, and strengthen requirements for exporters to identify risks and manage the welfare of ...5 days ago
- Speech to the National Quality Forum 2024
Tēnā koutou katoa – it is a pleasure to be here today. I would like to begin by acknowledging the important leadership role you all play in ensuring a quality health system New Zealanders can trust. There is enormous clinical expertise in this room covering a wide range of disciplines. ...5 days ago
- New Zealand’s COP29 National Statement
Tēnā koutou katoa. Mr President, Excellencies, Delegates. New Zealand, and all nations represented here today, are already dealing with the impacts of climate change. Our households, businesses, and economies are bearing the costs of its effects. The choices we make now will shape the severity of these impacts for generations ...5 days ago
- Latest Quarterly Investment Report released
The Government has released its second Quarterly Investment Report (QIR) which shows substantial work still to be done by agencies to improve investment reporting and meet the Government’s expectations, Infrastructure and Acting Finance Minister Chris Bishop says. “New Zealand has significant infrastructure and investment needs. The Government is determined to get ...5 days ago
- New Zealand supporting loss and damage fund
Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced New Zealand will contribute NZ$10 million to the new Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage while at the annual United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) in Baku, Azerbaijan. “New Zealand is joining the global effort to address the significant challenge of responding to ...5 days ago
- Gang crackdown begins at stroke of midnight
The free ride for gangs is over when the clock strikes midnight tonight, with tough new laws officially coming into effect, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith and Police Minister Mark Mitchell say. “Gang patches will no longer be able to be worn in public. To earn the right to wear a ...5 days ago
- LGFA increases borrowing capacity to support high growth councils
The Government is welcoming the decision by the Local Government Funding Agency to increase access to financing tools for fast growing councils to support greater investment in critical infrastructure, Local Government Minister Simeon Brown says.“Communities across the country are facing an infrastructure deficit and significant population growth is projected in ...5 days ago
- Temporary Traffic Management costs revealed
The Government has revealed that over the past three years, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has spent an eyewatering $786 million of taxpayers’ money on road cones and temporary traffic management (TTM), Transport Minister Simeon Brown says.“When I became Minister, I was surprised to learn that that NZTA did ...5 days ago
- Jurisdiction of Disputes Tribunal to double
Legislation that will double the financial jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal from $30,000 to $60,000 has passed first reading in Parliament today, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith. “We need to improve court timeliness and access to justice so that Kiwis and get on with their lives. Court delays affect everyone, the ...6 days ago
- Protecting New Zealand from foreign interference
Legislation that will specifically criminalise foreign interference and strengthen espionage offences has passed first reading in Parliament today, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says. “It is normal and appropriate for states to interact and work to influence one another. This encourages cooperation and can have mutually beneficial outcomes. “However, the reality ...6 days ago
- Significant milestone for Canterbury Road of National Significance
Transport Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed news that the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) Board has approved funding towards pre-implementation and early works on the State Highway 1 (SH1) Belfast to Pegasus Motorway and Woodend Bypass Road of National Significance (RoNS). “Reaching this significant milestone is a reflection of our Government’s ...6 days ago
- Health survey results to help drive change
Health Minister Dr Shane Reti says findings from the annual Health Survey highlight the need to continue driving better health outcomes for New Zealanders. The New Zealand Health Survey is an annual snapshot of key metrics measured from July 2023 – July 2024. Findings released this morning include: In 2023/24, ...6 days ago
- Final push needed to get to Smokefree 2025
A renewed effort to get people to quit smoking will build on what has worked to date and target the groups who most need support, Associate Health Minister Casey Costello said today. “The latest New Zealand Health Survey results show the daily smoking rate at 6.9 per cent and we ...6 days ago
- New diplomatic appointments
Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has announced four new diplomatic appointments. “Our diplomats play an important role in ensuring New Zealand’s interests are maintained and enhanced across the world,” Mr Peters says. “It is a pleasure to announce the appointment of these senior diplomats from the Ministry of Foreign ...6 days ago
- Next steps for Regulatory Standards Bill
Regulation Minister David Seymour has today announced the next steps in the Government’s plan improve the quality of regulation by opening consultation on a proposed Regulatory Standards Bill. “New Zealand's low wages can be blamed on low productivity, and low productivity can be blamed on poor regulation,” says Mr Seymour. ...6 days ago
- Red Tape Tipline goes live
Minister for Regulation David Seymour has today announced that the Ministry for Regulation’s Red Tape Tipline is now live. “We want to hear about your red tape horror stories. From today, New Zealanders will have a say on how they are regulated through an online portal,” says Mr Seymour. The ...6 days ago
- Youth Parliament 2025 announced
The Minister for Youth Matt Doocey has today announced the eleventh Youth Parliament will be taking place in 2025. “Youth Parliament offers a unique youth development opportunity to young people from across New Zealand to experience the political process and learn about how government works,” says Mr Doocey. “The two-day ...7 days ago
- Police stats show promising change
After nearly a year in Government, Kiwis have seen significant change across law and order with promising early results shown across some Police statistics, says Police Minister Mark Mitchell. “In August 2023, I told New Zealanders that if they had not started to see a change in public safety within ...7 days ago
- Better coordination of anti-scam efforts
With the launch of Fraud Awareness Week, the Government is committing to new coordination efforts across industry and government to combat online scams, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly says. “Online financial scams are a growing problem for New Zealand. New data released today shows that Kiwis lost nearly ...7 days ago
- Minister to consider 7AA select committee report
Minister for Children Karen Chhour will consider the recommendations made by the Social Services and Community Committee in its report back to Parliament on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. “I want to thank the people who made submissions and those who appeared before the committee in ...7 days ago
- Defence Minister to attend ASEAN meeting
Defence Minister Judith Collins will this week attend the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Defence Ministers’ Meeting-Plus in Vientiane, Laos. “We need to take every opportunity to engage with our international partners, given the increasingly unstable geo-political situation,” Ms Collins says. “New Zealand has a long-standing commitment to this ...7 days ago
- Creative sector welcomes draft government strategy, but calls for more funds
Many say NZ is well behind the rest of the world in developing and supporting its creative professionals. ...26 minutes ago - Peters’ push to turn Europe’s eyes south
The Foreign Minister is headed to Europe, where he will deliver the last of seven major speeches of the past year The post Peters’ push to turn Europe’s eyes south appeared first on Newsroom. ...41 minutes ago - Death of a feminist legend
In March, on the twentieth anniversary of the death of a brilliant feminist thinker from Auckland who became a superstar in US academia, Justin Okin wrote a moving tribute to his mother, Susan Moller Okin, on International Women’s Day. “She was arguably the most influential feminist political philosopher of her ...48 minutes ago
- COP29: A bad deal was better than no deal
Analysis: After contentious diplomatic talks like COP29, people like to point to the platitude: A good compromise is one where no one’s happy.When we’re discussing the climate crisis and all of the human suffering that entails, however, shouldn’t we be striving for a deal that works, not just one that ...53 minutes ago
- Defence Force holds flurry of high-tech meetings with Western power trio
The NZDF has been meeting with the US, UK and Australia to discuss advanced technology and spy tech. ...1 hour ago
- Call for urgent government intervention as obesity rates soar
A sugar levy and removing sugary drinks from schools are among the obesity-fighting recommendations from a new report. ...1 hour ago
- The government turns one: PM Christopher Luxon talks coalition dynamics, differences and deals
Analysis - Luxon is loath to spend too much time looking backwards, and invited to share any lessons from his first year as PM, he draws something of a blank. ...1 hour ago
- Climate finance: NZ could face hefty bill as new funding target agreed at COP29
The new target will "set the expectation" that NZ contributes more to help developing nations move away from using fossil fuels. ...2 hours ago
- ‘I need to make you suffer’: My near decade of violent harassment by a man I barely know
Zeni Gibson has been stalked and harassed for nearly nine years by a man she rejected when she was 17. This is her story. As told to Madeleine Holden. Cover Stories are longform journalism supported by Spinoff Members. Support this work here. Spinoff Cover Stories are now available in audio ...2 hours ago - Windbag: If I were mayor for a day…
Wellington editor Joel MacManus pitches his big idea to save the capital: more statues on the waterfront. After The Spinoff’s recent Year in Review live show at the Hannah Playhouse, an audience member asked me an intriguing question: What would you do if you were mayor for a day? I ...2 hours ago
- Zeni’s experience is extreme, but it isn’t rare
Hundreds of thousands of New Zealand women are impacted by stalking and harassment, and collectively they’re being failed by the official response. In August last year, The Spinoff received a polite yet tentative email from a 24-year-old woman named Zeni Gibson. “I am hoping to speak to someone about the ...2 hours ago
- UK to slash climate pollution by 81%. Could NZ do the same?
Analysis: The Government’s decision to slam the brakes on climate policy sets NZ up for an expensive or embarrassing new Paris target The post UK to slash climate pollution by 81%. Could NZ do the same? appeared first on Newsroom. ...2 hours ago
- Opposition parties also failing to address economic orthodoxy
Opinion: Business craves a more certain and supportive fiscal stance The post Opposition parties also failing to address economic orthodoxy appeared first on Newsroom. ...2 hours ago
- Bullish a2 Milk pushes sharemarket to two–year high
A2 Milk’s rally is expected to be followed by a strong F&P Healthcare result and a 50 basis point interest rate cut this week The post Bullish a2 Milk pushes sharemarket to two–year high appeared first on Newsroom. ...2 hours ago
- The death of the local rag
The headlines are being hogged by the TV stars, the daily news reporters being made redundant, and the local programmes going.But at a much more grassroots level, we are also seeing the demise of the local free paper.The ones that aren’t disappearing are shrinking, losing advertising revenue, missing out on ...2 hours ago
- Daily crossword, Monday 25 November
The post Daily crossword, Monday 25 November appeared first on Newsroom. ...2 hours ago
- NZ’s bold investment in geothermal will pay off
Opinion: On November 14 the Government announced that up to $60 million will be ring-fenced from the Regional Infrastructure Fund to explore the potential of supercritical geothermal technology to help secure New Zealand’s future energy needs. The aim of supercritical geothermal technology (SCGT) is to harness extremely high-temperature fluids from ...2 hours ago
- Stuff’s fashion publication opts for independence over closure
Ensemble Magazine’s founders are preparing to take their outlet independent in a turbulent period for New Zealand media The post Stuff’s fashion publication opts for independence over closure appeared first on Newsroom. ...2 hours ago
- Lessons from a damaged island on a potential Treaty referendum
What if a referendum on the Treaty allowed unlimited funding to campaigners from overseas, and no disclosure of who donated? The post Lessons from a damaged island on a potential Treaty referendum appeared first on Newsroom. ...2 hours ago
- Newsroom daily quiz, Monday 25 November
Loading…(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){var ql=document.querySelectorAll('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, Monday 25 November appeared first on Newsroom. ...2 hours ago
- COP29: Carbon credit trading scheme criticised as ‘get out of jail free card’
By Kate Green , RNZ News reporter A new carbon credit trading deal reached in the final hours of COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, has been criticised as a free pass for countries to slack off on efforts to reduce emissions at home. The deal, sealed at the annual UN climate ...6 hours ago - View from The Hill: Albanese government crumples on misinformation bill and gambling advertising
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra “Big Tech” is celebrating one victory over the Albanese government, but is set to lose on another front. Ahead of the final parliamentary sitting week for 2024, the government has not just withdrawn its ...9 hours ago
- ‘I was so scared’: Abused as children, incacerated as adults
Former inmates are speaking out to demand better mental health care for those currently imprisoned. ...9 hours ago
- ‘I was so scared’: Abused as children, incarcerated as adults
Former inmates are speaking out to demand better mental health care for those currently imprisoned. ...9 hours ago
- Remaining members of ‘Bali nine’ set for repatriation, with conditions
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The Albanese government is still discussing the details for the remaining five of the “Bali nine” to be repatriated to Australia, Special Minister of Sate Don Farrell has said. The planned repatriation follows the representations ...10 hours ago
- COP 29: Carbon credit trading scheme critisised as ‘get out of jail free card’
The deal reached in the final hours of COP29 has been criticised as a free pass for countries to slack off on efforts to reduce emissions at home. ...11 hours ago
- COP 29: Carbon credit trading scheme criticised as ‘get out of jail free card’
The deal reached in the final hours of COP29 has been criticised as a free pass for countries to slack off on efforts to reduce emissions at home. ...11 hours ago
- Protest photographer John Miller records Hīkoi mō te Tiriti with his historic lens
RNZ News For almost six decades photographer John Miller (Ngāpuhi) has been a protest photographer in Aotearoa New Zealand. From his first photographs of an anti-Vietnam War protest on Auckland’s Albert Street as a high school student in 1967, to Hīkoi mō te Tiriti last week, Miller has focused much ...12 hours ago
-
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacqueline Peel, Director, Melbourne Climate Futures, The University of Melbourne The petroleum-laden dust has settled on this year’s United Nations climate summit, COP29, held over the past fortnight in Baku, Azerbaijan. Climate scientists, leaders, lobbyists and delegates are heading for home. ...13 hours ago
- All Blacks end of year tour: What we learned
Analysis - There's plenty to talk about including TJ Perenara's statement during the haka, Jamie Wall writes. ...18 hours ago
- ‘To love is to move towards freedom’: Parliament’s newest MP makes their maiden st...
Green MP Benjamin Doyle has joined the 54th Parliament a year into its term. Their maiden statement emphasised the need for radical love. ...22 hours ago
- Live: Minister absent on crucial day as climate talks near collapse
Small island and vulnerable nations walked out of climate finance negotiations on Saturday afternoon in Baku, Azerbaijan, protesting a process they say excluded their participation and views.The COP29 talks are now on the edge of collapse on the crucial issue of a new global finance goal, as the summit has ...24 hours ago
- Hīkoi hats: Why are so many people wearing red berets?
For the march to Parliament, many young wahine donned a red beret. It's a pōtae steeped in history and symbolism. ...1 day ago
- An Ode to .. Erica Stanford
Mean Girl HighSchool swot Jan Tinetti hurries to classAs the bell rings.Slouching against the lockers,Mean Girl Erica lies in waitWith her surly gang of Teen Delinquents.Erica whispers somethingAnd leers horribly at Jan at she scurries past.Jan’s lip trembles,And a hot tear rolls down her face.The Meanies all cackle with gleeAnd ...1 day ago
- Behind the Banner: Inside the hīkoi mō te Tiriti
Over nine days, rangatahi and veterans of past hīkoi walked shoulder-to-shoulder to take their message to Parliament. Ella Stewart and Cole Eastham-Farrelly were there. ...1 day ago - Concern Regarding Inconsistent Designation Of Terrorist Organizations
While it is important to maintain strong alliances, it is equally crucial to uphold our Kiwi values of fairness and justice. New Zealand has always prided itself on its commitment to equality and human rights. ...1 day ago
- New Zealand Government’s Racially Divisive Treaty Principles Bill Passes First Reading
By voting for the bill and allowing it to proceed to the select committee, the coalition parties are enabling ACT—an extremely unpopular party that received just 8.6 percent in the 2023 election—to dominate political discourse, posturing as the party of ...1 day ago
- Fiji’s Immigration Minister steps down temporarily over ‘unauthorised’ passports for cult memb...
RNZ Pacific Fiji’s Home Affairs and Immigration Minister Pio Tikoduadua has ordered an inquiry into the “possible unauthorised issuance of passports” by immigration staff and “offered to step aside temporarily from role”. In a statement on Thursday night, Tikoduadua said the passports in question were issued to the children of ...2 days ago
- A 4.45 billion-year-old crystal from Mars reveals the planet had water from the beginning
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron J. Cavosie, Senior lecturer, School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University JPL-Caltech/NASA Water is ubiquitous on Earth – about 70% of Earth’s surface is covered by the stuff. Water is in the air, on the surface and inside rocks. ...2 days ago
- COP29 summit runs overtime as finance talks falter over ‘insult’
“Is it a joke?”That’s what Bolivian diplomat Diego Balanza said on Wednesday in Baku, Azerbaijan, when asked by a reporter about the possibility of the new global climate finance goal (the NCQG) landing at just US$200 billion a year. Developing countries have been pushing for a number in the trillions, ...2 days ago
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
This is timely, and the right will have to try to convince NZ that overseas money is not affecting our elections and our parliament.
After the revelations of JLR’s tapes they may struggle with that.
Wiping out the one seat rule…. well I think most will hardly disagree with that.
How about the left try to show HOW overseas money is impacting NZ elections and our parliament first before the right has to show how it is not. Are you not aware of the concept of burden of proof?
Ever heard of the $100 000k buys a National MP. Gosman?
And.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/10/17/280568/follow-the-money-and-the-influence
Are you claiming that Trade Unions don’t expect some sort of influence in Labour for their financial support and if they do would that be wrong?
Trade Unions are open, local, Democratic organisations.
Unlike the CCP. Or National, come to that.
However I am happy for trade Union donations to be banned, along with those from business associations, businesses, and big donations from wealthy individuals.
ban all donations, give each party a stipend – government funded – and that is it.
full stop.
btw, donations in forms of goods i.e. printing, tv time, radio time etc etc needs to equally banned.
and if radio TV etc wants to interview politicians they have to interview all of them.
sounds good to me.
Yes political advertising should be Government funded @ an amount given out in proportion of their previous vote along with tv and radio time. Use of digital media can be worked on air times. Removal after their time is up.
There needs to be a cap on other gifts, but no cap on feet on the ground as that is part of people’s democratic right to support their party or candidate.
Any early unofficial campaigning can be complained about to the electoral commission and deductions made from their funding.
Official dates for campaigns should be gazetted 6 months in advance.IMO
How about trade union campaigning and the use of trade union resources?
Yes and using unpaid volunteers to campaign. That should be given a cost and included in any electorate spending in my view. Why should giving of ones time and labour be not included as a donation?
That’s why the left doesn’t care if Union donations get banned, in the overall scheme of things, it’s small beer.
Having Union staff members who aren’t paid by Labour to campaign and promote Labour is where there the true value of the unions are for Labour.
Free labour and free resources, that’s no different to a donation, when National gets back in they should at that and change the rules.
You think National should change the law to prevent people volunteering their time and effort to political campaigns? Seriously?
Volunteering? good one, I’m talking the 9-5 union workers.
Paid by the Union but doing campaign work for the Labour party.
I wish. I dream of the day there are paid union officials working full time on election campaigns. Honest I have not seen one for decades, if ever …
Not prevent people from volunteering just cost up the value of their efforts and include them as part of any effort to restrict campaign donations. It would work like this. A party would have a limit of say 1 million dollars. If they have volunteer time that equates to 400 K then they will only have 600 K left for donations.
Bugger that. Stop activists from working for a better world?
All voluntary work should be allowed. Just because it favours the left …
Maybe it balances out; perhaps the right has an advantage in money terms, the left in volunteers.
If capital is stopped from being used to support political parties why not Labour? Why should we favour one form of human endevour over another?
Arguing, for CGT, now, Gosman?
“Why should we favour one form of human endevour over another?”
What about the cost of all the young nat morons that clutter face book with fucking lies and hatred at election time does that get put on the books
And then there’s the cost of Labour’s electoral bribes, eg WFF and interest free student loans. And the pledge card, were police found a prima facie case for prosecution.
Tax cuts.
Taking less money from people. Hardly a bribe.
What happened when national deliberately overspent on Broadcasting money – $110K or so.
The money allocated was a hard limit and included GST – Joyce was warned by the agency that books ads……. but they got away with it …and didnt pay it back
Borrowing and increasing costs for services, to give more money for National voters. Is not a bribe?
Labour tax rebates for the poor are “bribes”.
National tax cuts for the rich are not bribes.
lol
“What happened when national deliberately overspent on Broadcasting money – $110K or so.“
Very naughty. But not a bribe, more in the pledge card realm, as I differentiated in my comment.
“Labour tax rebates for the poor are “bribes”.
National tax cuts for the rich are not bribes.”
WFF was middle class welfare. And tax cuts benefit all taxpayers, not just the rich. But then you knew that.
No they fucking don’t, not when national do them. But then you knew that, too.
The Greens are going the wrong way about stopping democracy from becoming a failed state.
Here are the tax changes from the 2010 cuts (https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/budget-2010-tax-reductions-detail-123294):
Income up to $14,000 will be taxed at 10.5%, down from 12.5%.
Income from $14,001 to $48,000 drops to 17.5% from 21%
Income from $48,001-$70,000 down to 30% from 33%
Income over $70,000 will be cut to 33% from 38%.
Every tax payer received a tax cut.
A person earning $48,000 per year, received a cut of around $1470 per year.
A person earning $70,000 per year, received a tax cut of around $2,130 per year.
Where do you get the idea only the ‘rich’ received a tax cut?
Because the rich pay a lower proportion of their income on GST than the poor.
A thousand bucks. A family spending $400/w over various counters would lose that in the GST grab-back.
A poor family that didn’t get $1k in tax “cuts” would still get the GST rise.
Peter Dunn thought he could sail through by buddying up with business interests as well.
“Because the rich pay a lower proportion of their income on GST than the poor.”
That is irrelevant to whether or not the ‘poor’ received a tax cut.
“A thousand bucks. A family spending $400/w over various counters would lose that in the GST grab-back.”
No. Assuming the $400 is pre GST (to be generous to you), the extra GST is around $10 per week (@ an increase from 12.5% to 15%). That compares with a net income tax benefit of $1,470 per year.
“A poor family that didn’t get $1k in tax “cuts” would still get the GST rise.”
Define ‘poor’. Or even better, use terms relating to income.
McFlock you have also forgotten about the 2017 tax cuts proposed under National.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11863043
“Workers are the winners in the Government’s election year Budget which delivers more cash in the hand to almost everyone, including $2 billion worth of tax cuts and boosts to Working for Families.”
“The centrepiece of the Budget was the Family Incomes Package’ which included a mix of tax cuts, and increases for many on Working for Families and the Accommodation Supplement – a package which will cost $6.5 billion over the next four years.
It includes a tax cut of about $11 a week for workers on more than $22,000 and $20 for those on more than $52,000 a year.
That was from moving up the bottom two tax rate thresholds – the lowest threshold will lift from $14,000 to $22,000 and the second from $48,000 to $52,000.”
“The tax changes will apply from April next year and leave an estimated $2 billion a year in workers’ pockets once in place.”
Again, a National government proposing tax cuts for low income earners.
Governments already running a stimulus programs because the previous stimulus in primary investments in Public Private Partnerships ended up with MAINZEAL getting the arse. So the government is going after secondary and tertiary investments with direct funding into small and medium sized business through the Champoin For The Regions, Shane Jones Billion dollar regional fund.
Your narritive got stitched up bae.
increasing taxes in one hand and taking away taxes from the other isn’t a tax cut.
All this was gone through at the time. Read some posts on the matter.
As for nat promises, I’ve ten bridges to sell you.
“increasing taxes in one hand and taking away taxes from the other isn’t a tax cut.”
I used your own figures to demonstrate to you how people were better off. You own figures. I also demonstrated how the 2017 tax cuts benefitted low income people, and you can’t argue a GST rise because there wasn’t one. So on both counts you fail. And so your comment at https://thestandard.org.nz/the-greens-electoral-law-reform-petition/#comment-1590299 was complete bs.
Stimulating the economy through tax cuts would be fine if Bill English hadn’t of done it first, borrowed to repair the budget and left $50-$100 billion in government debt. Only in your wildest dreams would a secound bite at the zombie cherry seem, desirable.
yawn.
My mistake. $400pw before any tax is roughly the break-even point between tax “cuts” and the gst rise, so only beneficiaries lose out. And of course the “pay rise” the nats gave them was offset by the fact many lost supplements paid because benefits are unrealistically low, so didn’t actually resulat in much more money being paid to people in need.
But someone on $100k, they got 5% back even if they paid a 2.5% higher gst rate.
National hate poor people.
“$400pw before any tax is roughly the break-even point between tax “cuts” and the gst rise, so only beneficiaries lose out. ”
1. How do you work that out?
2. So what you’re saying is that lower income people DID get an income tax cut. And lower income people DID get a net tax gain, if they earned over $400 per week? And given that in 2017 tax cuts, everyone would have received a net benefit, what you said here https://thestandard.org.nz/the-greens-electoral-law-reform-petition/#comment-1590299 is false.
Why would you focus on picking up about $20 a week in tax cuts when we could put that money into the economy and allow low wage workers a minimum wage rise from about $15.50 in 2017 to about $21 by 2021 which is current policy.
As I implied earlier. You are trying to pick up penny’s. We are picking up dollars.
lol you tories are a goddamn joke. Everyone’s better off if you discount the people who are most in need, and if ten-bridges had kept a promise even those people would have done ok.
After ten years, that’s truly aspirational lol
“Everyone’s better off if you discount the people who are most in need…”
Good try, but you’re still on the hook. You claimed the tax cuts only benefitted the rich. You were wrong.
And you can’t have read this https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11863043.
No I didn’t. I said that the nat tax changes were for the rich. The rich get a massive benefit. The poorest million taxpayers actually lose out.
I didn’t say that only the rich benefitted. Just that the primary motivation was to give more money to the rich.
“No I didn’t. I said that the nat tax changes were for the rich. ”
And you were wrong, unless you think people earning $48,000 are rich. But that isn’t all you said.
@ https://thestandard.org.nz/the-greens-electoral-law-reform-petition/#comment-1590294 I said:
“WFF was middle class welfare. And tax cuts benefit all taxpayers, not just the rich.”
To which you responded:
“No they fucking don’t, not when national do them.”
Caught you.
But they do not benefit all taxpayers, because the cuts happened at the same time as GST rise. You calculate the difference for someone on $14k, and $21k. Then tell me how many taxpayers break even or are worse off (clue: about a million).
The tax changes did, however, provide the vast majority of tax cuts to the overly wealthy. That’s why they were made. They got the benefit of the income tax cut, and that was much larger than their increase in GST.
“But they do not benefit all taxpayers, because the cuts happened at the same time as GST rise.”
1. That’s not what you said. You said they only benefitted the rich.
2. Explain to me how GST is relevant to the 2017 tax cuts (which your link goes to). Proposed by national. For all taxpayers. With NO increase in GST.
“You calculate the difference for someone on $14k, and $21k. ”
Did the read the Herald article? Clue – here is the headline “Budget 2017: Workers the winners, tax cuts”
And the first paragraphs:
“Workers are the winners in the Government’s election year Budget which delivers more cash in the hand to almost everyone, including $2 billion worth of tax cuts and boosts to Working for Families.
The centrepiece of the Budget was the Family Incomes Package’ which included a mix of tax cuts, and increases for many on Working for Families and the Accommodation Supplement – a package which will cost $6.5 billion over the next four years.”
BTW, I asked you how you worked out that “$400pw before any tax is roughly the break-even point between tax “cuts” and the gst rise, so only beneficiaries lose out. ”. Do you have any workings for that?
No, I disagreed with your comment that the “tax cuts benefit all taxpayers, not just the rich”. They did not benefit all taxpayers, because if they had you’d be putting your math skills to work to calculate the income tax and GST effects for someone on less than $20k/yr.
“Proposed”, like national’s proposed bridges. And unicorn farts. People stopped believing those lies.
You are quick to question every one else, Shaddy. Yet light on arguments of your own. What ever your total income is let’s say $72k then your total taxable income is $72k. Only people who really complain about that are people who earn over the top tax rate trying to dodge taxes. It’s becoming a national past time.
“No, I disagreed with your comment that the “tax cuts benefit all taxpayers, not just the rich”.”
And you were wrong. The 2017 tax cuts benefitted all taxpayers.
“ “Proposed”, like national’s proposed bridges. “
Because they weren’t re-elected. But that was national policy. So you got that wrong too.
The free market system has a feedback process that gives incentives for corporations not to fuck-up too much. It’s called going out of business. That incentive holds down corporate greed somewhat. Fact is corporate greed doesn’t hold a candle to government greed! Think state house sell offs, corporations only wish they had that amount of control over the economy to screw there own workers.
You keep saying that, but a million people found they could buy only the same amount or less food at the supermarket. Don’t piss on people and tell them it’s raining.
As for promised tax cuts, we’ll put them by the other nat promises regarding tax, like to not raise GST
“You keep saying that, but a million people found they could buy only the same amount or less food at the supermarket.”
In the four quarters up to September 2017, inflation totalled 1.9%. (https://www.stats.govt.nz/topics/consumers-price-index). Your comment is meaningless.
holy shit, did you slide from the actual tax changes in 2010 budget to the promised tax changes in 2017?
The make believe in 2017 benefitted as many people as their promise to not raise GST in 2008.
The actual tax fiddling the nats did, in reality (not their imagination), fucked poor people and gave cash to the rich.
National hate poor people. And you’re flopping about trying to deny that fact.
“…did you slide from the actual tax changes in 2010 budget to the promised tax changes in 2017?”
So you weren’t reading clearly earlier? You said National’s tax cuts did not benefit all taxpayers. You were wrong.
“The make believe in 2017 benefitted as many people as their promise to not raise GST in 2008.”
Oh but they proved you were wrong though, didn’t they.
“National hate poor people. ”
A truly desperate claim. Particularly given https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11863043.
Repost:
BTW, I asked you how you worked out that “$400pw before any tax is roughly the break-even point between tax “cuts” and the gst rise, so only beneficiaries lose out. ”. Do you have any workings for that?
you have the tax cuts that happened in reality, you posted the link to the rates from 2010. You can work it out yourself.
National promised a brighter future, no increase in GST, ten bridges, and let’s not forget “whatever it takes”. National promises mean shit. The only tax “cuts” they did actually managed to hurt the poor, going by the rates in your link.
Inflation over 1%
Wage inflation under 1%
Could cut all taxes and workers will still be worse off under the previous governments work policies.
“you have the tax cuts that happened in reality, you posted the link to the rates from 2010.”
…and a link to the tax cuts announced in the 2017 budget.
“National promised a brighter future…”
You’re deflecting, so I’ll refocus you. You claimed that tax cuts initiated by National only benefit the rich. That was demonstrably false, as the 2017 tax changes prove.
“The only tax “cuts” they did actually managed to hurt the poor, going by the rates in your link.”
You can’t add up. The 2017 tax cuts benefitted everyone. Going by the rates in my link.
No, I claimed that your assertion tax cuts benefit all people was in fact false. I suspect you’ve done the math on the tax cuts that actually happened, so you know I’m correct in regards to them that happened in 2010, rather than your ethereal promises from 2017.
“Demonstrably”? lol. To demonstrate something, it has to actually happen. And even if the bracket change had occurred, over 350,000 of our poorest taxpayers would still have not received a tax cut because they were already receiving under $14,000p.a.
So even your ghost tax cuts support the proposition that National hate poor people.
“No, I claimed that your assertion tax cuts benefit all people was in fact false.”
@ https://thestandard.org.nz/the-greens-electoral-law-reform-petition/#comment-1590294 I said:
“WFF was middle class welfare. And tax cuts benefit all taxpayers, not just the rich.”
To which you responded:
“No they fucking don’t, not when national do them.”
“I suspect you’ve done the math on the tax cuts that actually happened, so you know I’m correct in regards to them that happened in 2010, rather than your ethereal promises from 2017.”
You made the claim. But you obviously can’t back it up.
“…over 350,000 of our poorest taxpayers would still have not received a tax cut because they were already receiving under $14,000p.a.”
You are totally disconnected from reality. How many of those tax payers are students? How many school kids? How many adults are actually earning $14,000? And what did they gain in the 2017 tax package?
You’re a decent guy Shaddy you just need to go do something else
lol again, you’re trying to pretend “all taxpayers” means “only those taxpayers who aren’t the poorest ones”.
Who cares how many are students or unemployment beneficiaries? They’re still taxpayers. And you know they still get no assistance from the ghost-taxcut, just like they got no protection from the promise to not raise GST.
As for the 2010 data, I’ve had the spreadsheet at home for a couple of days. Easy enough to do. But you were quick to do specific tax calculations when you liked the math, so why so reluctant to be mathturbating now?
“lol again, you’re trying to pretend “all taxpayers” means “only those taxpayers who aren’t the poorest ones”.”
No, I’m pointing out to you that your categorising anyone earning under $14,000 as ‘poor’ is classic leftist fiction.
“And you know they still get no assistance from the ghost-taxcut, just like they got no protection from the promise to not raise GST.”
You’re forgetting the proposed threshold lift from $14,000 to $22,000 for the lowest tax rate. In addition to increases in other benefit rates. And this:
“The biggest boost was for beneficiaries and those on low incomes who get the Families Tax Credit under Working for Families and the Accommodation Supplement – some of whom will get more than $145 a week more. Working for Families family tax credits will rise by $9.25 a week for a first child under 16, and between $17.75 and $26.81 for other children – expected to cost about $318 million a year from 2019. It means families get the same rate for younger children as for those aged 16-18. The Budget also delivers an average boost of $35 a week for 136,000 households getting the Accommodation Supplement. Some will get up to $145 more because areas such as west and south Auckland and Christchurch have been moved into categories which get higher payments because of high rents.”
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11863043
All that from that evil national government.
But the funny thing is you can’t even tell us how many people earning under $14,000 per year are actually ‘poor’, and how many are students from wealthy families working part time.
“As for the 2010 data, I’ve had the spreadsheet at home for a couple of days.”
Is that the same spreadsheet Phil Goff talked about calculating Labour’s proposed CGT? Show me the money, McFlock.
I’m also impressed that you can paste a sentence and it’s denial, and insist that the denial is for the clause that makes a grammatically incoherent paragraph rather than the one that leads naturally to the grammar style in the denial. It’s as bold as it is desperate.
edit – oh, we’re back:
“anyone” is your word. But I don’t believe the statement “noone earning under $14,000 is ‘poor’” to be a realistic claim. Therefore I believe that someone earning under $14,000 is ‘poor’, and they had no benefit from tax cuts.
But then of course, any $14,000 concession on your part makes your words “all taxpayers” a lie. Even with your ghost tax cuts, would anyone on under $14k been better off?
2010 tax con: You’ve got all the pieces, you do the math. Prove me wrong. What level of before-tax income was the point at which people actually paid less in income tax and GST?
And for many beneficiaries, the “increase” in benefit rates simply relabelled “supplementary benefit” to “regular benefit”, with no actual increase in funds. Another nat con.
“Therefore I believe that someone earning under $14,000 is ‘poor’, and they had no benefit from tax cuts.”
Oh really? Do you mean you believe it is possible there is someone earning under $14,000 who is poor, or that anyone earning under $14,000 is poor?
“But then of course, any $14,000 concession on your part makes your words “all taxpayers” a lie. Even with your ghost tax cuts, would anyone on under $14k been better off?”
Well yes. Assuming they are genuinely ‘poor’ (which btw you haven’t defined) and not the children of wealthy parents.
“You’ve got all the pieces, you do the math. Prove me wrong. ”
You made the claim. You may be right. But you don’t seem to be able to support it.
That one. I only need one person, and your wank about “all taxpayers” is wrong.
How? Surely their taxes remain the same?
2010 tax “cuts” that actually happened:
income gst income before tax income after income tax income after GST annual diff
old tax rates 0.125 0.125 13999 12249.125 10717.984375 68.2451250000013
new rates 0.105 0.15 13999 12529.105 10649.73925
looks to me like someone on <$14k was $68 worse off a year after the government gaveth with one hand and tooketh with the other. Wanna keep pretending you haven’t done the math on someone earning $6900 above the $14k threshold?
You’re confusing the 2010 and 2017 tax cuts. Again. There was no GST increase in the 2017 proposals. And read the link. Low income earners with real need were better off. And you still can’t tell us how many people earning under $14,000 are actually poor. Or even define poor. Your arguments are typical left wing bs.
lols
Yes, I’m talking about the tax cuts that actually happened, not a wet dream.
And you still haven’t explained how your wet dream of moving a tax bracket line from $14k up to $22k helps anyone earning $13k. Because you explicitly said “The 2017 tax cuts benefitted all taxpayers.”
“Yes, I’m talking about the tax cuts that actually happened, not a wet dream.“
No, you were talking about nationals tax policies. You claimed they only benefit the rich. In the case of both the 2010 and 2017 policies, you were wrong. Very wrong.
“Because you explicitly said “The 2017 tax cuts benefitted all taxpayers.””
Well here’s the thing. If those taxpayers were struggling, they would be better off by the whole package. So I am correct. If they were children of wealthy families, I erred. But either way your premise about National and the poor is disproven. Funny that.
Stop sliding.
How are the ones on $13k better off under the tax “cut” national promised after failing to deliver for nine years?
It doesn’t matter if they’re kids of rich people or beneficiaries, or someone counted as “employed” even if they only work a few hours a week for fuckall.
I mean, the 2010 cuts already show your “And tax cuts benefit all taxpayers, not just the rich. ” to be untrue because the ones in 2010 didn’t benefit a million taxpayers on under ~$20k. It doesn’t matter if they’s poor or rich and living large on $13k – they’re taxpayers who did not get any benefit from tax cuts that happened around them.
And the accommodation supplement isn’t a tax package, nor is it even an indication that the nats care about poor people. The nats had nine years to address the housing shortage, and did nothing. Throwing the peasants a bone when the election looks dodgy is an old tory trick – if they win, they taketh away some other way, and if they lose their loyal suckkophants will pretend that those promises meant more than the promise to not raise GST.
edit: doesn’t it worry you that you have to bring a promised and slight accommodation supplement increase into a tax discussion, just to pretend that the nats care about poor people?
“It doesn’t matter if they’s poor or rich and living large on $13k – they’re taxpayers who did not get any benefit from tax cuts that happened around them.“
Rubbish. Your argument was that National doesn’t care about the ‘poor’, and only delivered tax cuts for the rich. Are you trying to tell us that everyone earning above $15,000 pa is ‘rich’?
Btw it was you who widened the discussion away from tax cuts by talking about GST. So bringing in the full package is fair game.
To demonstrate that national hate poor people, the first step is to demonstrate that when they actually implemented tax cuts, not all taxpayers benefitted. And GST is relevant to tax changes because of what the “T” stands for.
Did all taxpayers benefit from the 2010 tax “cuts”? It’s an easy, yes or no question.
“…the first step is to demonstrate that when they actually implemented tax cuts, not all taxpayers benefitted.”
No, the first step is to define ‘rich’ or ‘poor’. The next step is to actually understand that tax is paid on income, not wealth. Then you will need to explain how people earning over $14,000 are rich. Then you’d be getting somewhere.
“And GST is relevant to tax changes because of what the “T” stands for.”
And if so, then the full package is relevant. Unless you are dishonest.
“Did all taxpayers benefit from the 2010 tax “cuts”? It’s an easy, yes or no question.”
I don’t know. But I didn’t claim they did. I said they received a tax cut. Here, read it again https://thestandard.org.nz/the-greens-electoral-law-reform-petition/#comment-1590312. And if you read the article I referenced there, you will see how that budget helped low income earners and hit the ‘rich’ in a number of different ways. You claims about national are bs.
BTW – the 2010 budget was critical in drawing NZ out of the GFC, and a recession that in part was due to Michael Cullen’s failure to move earlier. You know, the M. Cullen now being paid $1,000 a day to defend a tax he didn’t have the courage to implement when he was MoF.
cf:
the full tax package is relevant to tax changes, yes.
““Did all taxpayers benefit from the 2010 tax “cuts”? It’s an easy, yes or no question.”
I don’t know. But I didn’t claim they did
cf:
Every tax payer received a tax cut.”
Yes, I was correct. Every tax payer DID receive a tax cut. But your question included the words ‘benefit from’. From past experience I know you are slippery, and so I chose to respond to you with precision. But all tax payers received a tax cut. As I said.
“the full tax package is relevant to tax changes, yes.”
Indeed. And the full package gave considerable assistance to low income people. The full National Party package. The same national party you say hate poor people. Even though you won’t define ‘poor’.
Except the million or so taxpayers who ended up paying more tax.
And benefits aren’t part of a tax package.
“Except the million or so taxpayers who ended up paying more tax.”
No, not a single one. The tax cuts were tax CUTS.
And remember you claimed National only cut taxes for ‘the rich’. Which is a term you can’t even define. But based on your comments, and the data from the 2017 cuts, must be anyone earning over $14,000 per year.
You said all taxpayers benefit from tax cuts. I showed you some of the math. People don’t benefit from tax cuts if they end up paying more tax after those “cuts”.
A million taxpayers on under $21k ended up paying more tax in 2010. They did not benefit from those tax cuts. Most of them would have been poor by any normal interpretation of the word.
“You said all taxpayers benefit from tax cuts.”
That’s correct, in fact I’ll even provide the link https://thestandard.org.nz/the-greens-electoral-law-reform-petition/#comment-1590294. You will notice I said ‘tax cuts’, not ‘the tax cuts’. I was referring to the benefit all tax payers get from tax cuts. In 2010, all income earners received a tax cut on that income. Benefit 1. Then all income e arners benfitted more broadly from the positive impact on the economy that that round of cuts achieved. Benefit 2.
“I showed you some of the math. People don’t benefit from tax cuts if they end up paying more tax after those “cuts”.”
No-one did. Everyone earning income received a cut. Do the math.
“A million taxpayers on under $21k ended up paying more tax in 2010.”
No, they didn’t. Here are the rates https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/budget-2010-tax-reductions-detail-123294. That article also detailed the ‘sting’ in the budget for high income earners, making a lie of your claims that National hate the poor.
(Are you confusing 2010 and 2017?).
Now when are you going to define ‘poor’ and ‘rich’?
Except the million who somehow ended up paying more tax. As per the math that you have failed to find fault in.
lol bullshit. The same bullshit that has fucked the poor for thirty years or more, a religious catechism used to make poor people say “thankyou sir, may I please have another” as the rich beat them with a stick.
You’ve had more than enough time to do the math yourself. You either can’t or you won’t because you don’t like the answer.
I think we’re done here.
“Except the million who somehow ended up paying more tax.”
No-one can have ended up paying more tax when all rates dropped. It’s simple maths.
“lol bullshit. The same bullshit that has fucked the poor for thirty years or more…”
You mean the ‘poor’ you can’t even define? How the hell do you know anything about this group if you can’t even define them?
“You’ve had more than enough time to do the math yourself.”
And I have. It is not possible for anyone to pay more tax if all of the rates drop. It really isn’t difficult.
In 2010, one of the rates went up – GST.
In the 2017 wet dream, the <$14k rate would have stayed the same if the promise had been kept.
You are such a fucking liar.
“In 2010, one of the rates went up – GST.”
GST? The discussion was about income tax. So if you bring in an unrelated tax, then you have to bring in all the other benefit changes. Oh and the extra penalties imposed on higher income earners and your elusive ‘rich’ people. Catch up.
“In the 2017 wet dream, the <$14k rate would have stayed the same if the promise had been kept."
So? You're confusing two different time periods, and two different sets of tax changes. But what you can't deny is that you claimed only the rich benefited. Which is a lie, unless you are arguing that people earning $14,001 are 'rich'. But as you refuse to define 'rich', maybe are that deluded.
I said they’re “for the rich”.
There is nothing for the poor. Fuckall for the badly off. A bit for the middle class. Lots for the rich. Plenty for the rich.
That’s where National’s priorities are: they hate poor people, but love the rich. Everything they do is for the rich. Any bones they throw to others is just to stay in power, and they throw as little as possible. Unless it’s to the rich.
But anyway, tax cuts involve all taxes, but not benefits. Because benefits aren’t taxes. That’s why they’re called “benefits” rather than “taxes”. To cut taxes, someone needs to pay less in tax after the cuts than they did before. And you know poor people paid more in 2010, and those are the only “cuts” that actually happened.
“I said they’re “for the rich”.”
And if your were implying exclusivity, you were wrong. They were for all tax payers (2010) and for a great many lower income taxpayers (2017).
“But anyway, tax cuts involve all taxes, but not benefits.”
Rubbish. The conversation started here https://thestandard.org.nz/the-greens-electoral-law-reform-petition/#comment-1590219, and was specifically about income tax. If you introduce something else (like GST), expect to be called to be consistent.
“And you know poor people paid more in 2010, and those are the only “cuts” that actually happened.”
How the hell would you know? You can’t even define what ‘poor’ even is!
There are two possible reasons that you need someone to supply a definition for such a simple word:
You really are that unfamiliar with such a basic human concept, in which case a definition will not help you understand it; or
You know several definitions of “poor” or “poverty” that relate to income, but some of them support my claim and you are hoping that I will choose one that you can quibble and parse into nonsensicality. In which case you are discussing the topic in bad faith.
But then a tory would never discuss poverty in bad faith, so you must just be a bot that doesn’t understand words common to most speakers of English.
It’s not complicated. You have used the terms ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ repeatedly. Your position across this discussion is that the highest polling party over the last 4 elections hates the poor, and favours the rich. You have used these terms deliberately, and I’m curious to know if you have the slightest idea what the hell you’re talking about.
“You know several definitions of “poor” or “poverty” that relate to income, “
And there is a good example of why I’m asking. Because income can actually be totally unrelated to whether or not one is ‘poor’ or ‘rich’.
That the New Zealand Health System now has more in common with third world diseases during the wonderful years of National Party polling is reason enough to disgrace the lot of them.
If I didn’t know what I was talking about, you’d have corrected my math.
Parse whatever definition you want. The fact is that people under $21k lost out in 2010, and those in under $14k got not even the promise of a tax cut in 2017. Many of those people were “poor” by at least one of the many definitions you have to hand. Those taxpayers got no benefit from those tax “cuts” – unless you count the promise of trickle-down resulting from nat promises. You can’t eat nat promises.
Oh, and the tax argument started with KJT saying “tax cuts”. “specifically about income tax” is just you making shit up again.
“The fact is that people under $21k lost out in 2010…”
Fact 1: you haven’t provided a shred of evidence to support that.
Fact 2: all taxpayers received a tax cut from the 2010 package.
“…and those in under $14k got not even the promise of a tax cut in 2017”
Fact 3: But everyone earning over $14,000 DID.
So your definition of ‘rich’ is someone earning $14,001?
Define ‘rich’. Define ‘poor’. Go on. Because then we can line those definitions up against your claim that National hate the poor.
Fact1: I showed you the exact working for how to do the math. The math you so obviously don’t like the answer to.
Fact 2: yes, some taxpayers ended up paying more tax after the 2010 tax “cuts”, as my math demonstrates.
How do you expect to debate fuzzy concepts like “rich” and “poor” if you don’t even handle basic math?
“Fact1: I showed you the exact working for how to do the math. The math you so obviously don’t like the answer to.”
Oh so you showed me ‘how to do the math’? So you aren’t actually able to demonstrate anything to prove your own claim?
“Fact 2: yes, some taxpayers ended up paying more tax after the 2010 tax “cuts”, as my math demonstrates.”
What maths?
“How do you expect to debate fuzzy concepts like “rich” and “poor” if you don’t even handle basic math?”
I’m not suggesting we debate them. I’m suggesting you have the courage to actually define words you throw around so freely. I know why you won’t, but it would be fun to see you try.
“what math”
lol
poor bugger. Did your designer program you to wipe your memory evey 24hrs to stop you running the world?
Read the fucking thread
Yeah I didn’t think you had anything.
Here, I’ll help you out. In 2015, Treasury performed a major piece of work on the 2010 tax changes. It is publicly available at
https://treasury.govt.nz/publications/wp/labour-supply-new-zealand-and-2010-tax-and-transfer-changes-wp-15-13-html.
Here are some findings from that report:
“The reforms are found to be approximately distribution neutral, in terms of the Gini inequality measure of after-tax income per adult equivalent person.”
Wow, there goes your ‘National hate the poor’ mantra.
“It is estimated that the policy changes produced a small increase in average hours of work supplied, and a small increase in participation rates. The largest increases were found for sole parents.”
Interesting. More work available, and an increase in participation rates for single parents. Wow National must really hate on those poor people.
“An analysis of the inequality of income per adult equivalent person (after allowing for income tax and benefit payments) found that the personal tax changes were approximately distribution neutral in their overall effect.”
Oh dear.
So the inequality stuff is irrelevant: you said “all taxpayers”, not an aggregate calculation. Individuals. But you raise it because you don’t like the actual math.
As for the trickledown stuff, it doesn’t guarantee that every taxpayer benefitted from that, does it.
If I were wrong, you’d simply calculate the savingings taxpayers on $20k made from the 2010 tax “cuts”, including the GSTax change that offset any benefit for the poor (who national hate).
You wouldn’t need to dig up margin-of-error wishful thinking in aggregate terms. You’d simply be able to point to every individual taxpayer receiving a direct benefit from the cuts.
“So the inequality stuff is irrelevant:“
At 0.002, yeah pretty much. Nationals 2010 tax package was a huge success. It put money in people’s pockets, created more working hours for low income families, and cut their taxes. Most of all, it was part of getting the country free of the impacts of the GFC.
You’ll still say National hate the poor, but now we have evidence you’re spouting bs.
It put more money into the pockets of the already rich than it did for any poor people, and unless you can demonstrate that every single person who earned under $20k ended up in a higher-paying job, they still didn’t benefit “all taxpayers”.
Because people on under $20k got an overall tax hike. Because national hate poor people.
“Because people on under $20k got an overall tax hike.”
Nope. But you know what they say about repeating a lie…
“Because national hate poor people.”
Ah, the ‘poor’. That group of people you still can’t or won’t define.
I showed you the numbers for <$14k. That's enough to nuke your "all taxpayers" bs. But even you used to be able to calculate the difference in income tax and gst for someone on $20k. You take their losses up to $14k (which I handily already gave you), then calculate the losses they made on the $6k they earned in the $14k-$21k bracket, and that gives you how much those taxpayers lost from the tax "cuts".
It really is amusing how you grow more stupid in order to avoid being wrong. I mean, you entered a debate on the nuances of taxation apparently knowing everything, but now you can't handle basic math or words that are in common usage around the country. It's like you periodically slaughter a few million brain cells when the cognitive dissonance starts breaking down.
You showed nothing. You’re pulling figures out of your arse and think they trump detailed treasury analysis. And you think anyone earning $14,001 is rich.
And yet if they’d actually received any benefit from the tax “cuts”, you’d have corrected the numbers I showed you rather than relying on a vague hope that aggregate improvement means improvement for every individual. You know, “all taxpayers”.
Hell, forget “corrected” the numbers, you’d have done your own homework and be crowing that a taxpayer on $13,999 received $X/year more in the pocket after all tax changes were taken into account. But they didn’t. They lost $68.25 per year as a result of the 2010 tax changes. Some of those people might have gotten employment out of the alleged trickledown, but not all of them. Not with trickledown that weak. So not all taxpayers were better off, however you cut it.
“And yet if they’d actually received any benefit from the tax “cuts”, you’d have corrected the numbers I showed you…”
What numbers? You haven’t quoted anything of any detail. I’ve given you a link to a comprehensive study performed for Treasury 5 years after the package was implemented. That study includes the full impact of the package, and makes a lie of your assertion that National hate poor people. Which, BTW, you still haven’t had the courage to define.
What numbers? Read the thread: hint about five days ago.
Or look for “68” in the page.
Bit late now, either way.
And I don’t feel the need to prescriptively define a term that is one of the more basic words in the english language.
Bullshit. Given the choice The National party of New Zealand will “incentivize” the workforce by fear and brute force; outright slavery if they can. They’ll completely ignore the environment and cheerfully reduce everything around them to a cesspool of poison. And they don’t want the law to apply to them at all. Nor are they farsighted enough to care about prosperity; they will cheerfully create massive poverty & joblessness, and remain completely unwilling to admit that such poverty affects their profits in any way. Only the rich “job creators” matter, workers and customers are vermin and cattle who exist to be exploited or shoved aside; or killed, when ever they can get away with it.
We know, because that’s exactly what they do and have always done when they can.
“What numbers? Read the thread: hint about five days ago.”
You haven’t provided anything beyond raw %’s. The Treasury paper makes it very clear that the package invested significantly in helping low income families. And the fact that you refuse to define ‘poor’ is telling, considering you have been using the term for most of this conversation.
If by “%” you mean “#”, they are all clearly labelled and you can point out which ones are incorrect.
As you would have immediately done if the # were wrong. And you wouldn’t have to pretend that some trickledown bullshit somehow offsets a financial loss of $68.25 a year for every single income earner on $14k.
But please, continue being incapable of doing simple math or understanding basic english. It is most amusing.
Nothing you posted provides the full picture. The Treasury analysis did. You got it wrong. And you still won’t define ‘poor’.
No, just the bits of the picture where some taxpayers lost out on the tax changes.
No, it provided means and other aggregates. Nowhere does it say that every individual benefitted from the tax changes.
It does say that GST was part of those changes, so it contradicts you on that point. Thanks.
But rather than pretending that every beneficiary got an extra 20minutes work (rather than some getting jobs and others paying the extra tax without any extra income), just work out the tax paid by <$14k earners. It's really easy, and if they got a tax cut (including GST, as per your treasury link) then everyone on more than that also got a tax cut and we can settle it right here. Do the math, show me where I forgot to carry the 1 or whatever, and I'd have to admit that all taxpayers did indeed benefit from the 2010 changes.
It's easy math.
“No, just the bits of the picture where some taxpayers lost out on the tax changes.”
No, you never demonstrated that. You gave some mathematical calculations that failed to account for the wider implications of the package. Which the Treasury analysis did.
“It does say that GST was part of those changes, so it contradicts you on that point.”
No, it actually makes my point. If you bring in the impacts of GST, you have to allow for the increases in transfer payments to people. The Treasury work is being consistent, you aren’t.
“… just work out the tax paid by <$14k earners. It's really easy, and if they got a tax cut (including GST, as per your treasury link) then everyone on more than that also got a tax cut and we can settle it right here.”
You’re confused. The tax cuts that benefitted all tax payers were the 2017 cuts. The 2010 package was distribution neutral. Which proves your comments about national ‘hating poor people’ are bs.
BTW – define ‘poor’. Go on. You can do it.
But you said, well before 2010 or 2017 came into the picture, that “tax cuts benefit all taxpayers,”. Not “the 2017 tax cuts benefitted all taxpayers, but the 2010 tax cuts were neutral”.
So now you’re sliding to “not all tax cuts benefit all taxpayers, some tax cuts are merely neutral” (which raises the question “why bother?”).
And if you can’t do a simple tax calculation, how do you do your own taxes? Or are you one of those people who just hopes the IRD has calculated everything correctly and hasn’t missed anything?
“…that “tax cuts benefit all taxpayers,””
Yes ‘tax cuts’, not ‘the’ tax cuts. We’ve already been here @ https://thestandard.org.nz/the-greens-electoral-law-reform-petition/#comment-1592143. No wonder you’re confused if you can’t follow the conversation.
Now, McFlock, define ‘poor’.
So tax cuts might benefit all taxpayers, but the 2010 one didn’t and the 2017 ones didn’t happen.
And the only way the 2017 promised bracket-shift would benefit someone under $14k is if they got a job or pay rise resulting from the trickle-down effect, and some of them would not..
So, to be clear, “tax cuts benefit all taxpayers” did not apply to either of the “cuts” actioned or promised by the nats.
By the way, when you said “In 2010, all income earners received a tax cut on that income”, how do you know that if you can’t work out how much they got? Because income earners on under $14k lost $68 a year.
You really are confused. Let me simplify:
You claimed:
1. National hates the poor (https://thestandard.org.nz/the-greens-electoral-law-reform-petition/#comment-1590483), and
2. tax cuts were only for the rich (https://thestandard.org.nz/the-greens-electoral-law-reform-petition/#comment-1590291).
You can’t or won’t define ‘poor’. Why won’t you?
The 2010 and 2017 tax packages included cuts for low income people. The 2010 package included direct tax cuts for all tax payers, and other payments to compensate for the GST rise (which the Treasury analysis supports). The 2017 package included tax cuts for anyone earning over $14,000 per annum. Both packages included substantial other benefits to low income earners.
On the evidence, both of your statements are false.
Yes, I said National hate poor people. They have a long history of fucking over poor people, from lowering the number of state houses to cutting benefits in 1991.
But you are incorrect when you interpret “National tax cuts for the rich” as “2. tax cuts were only for the rich”. The people who benefitted most from the tax cuts in 2010 were the ones who received the largest PAYE cut while having the highest proportion of their income go to GST-free investment rather than spending over the counter to pay the higher rate of GST.
the 2010 tax changes benefitted the rich most of all, and I say that this is because the changes were made to benefit those people. Anyone else who gets a cut is incidental. People who lost out were on already low incomes, which goes to support the top paragraph.
Except those were increases to the base rates, not the accommodation supplement. So a beneficiary’s base income goes up, their accommodation costs stay the same, so their accommodation supplement goes down. Total income stays equivalent, and they still pay more GST. Treasury didn’t look at that, did they.
“ They have a long history of fucking over poor people, from lowering the number of state houses to cutting benefits in 1991.”
So the party who introduced the first real increases in benefits in 30 years, who provided a tax switch in 2010 and 2017 to benefit low income families, and who preserved WFF during a GFC, hate the poor’. Wow, I’d hate to think what you say about Labour.
“The people who benefitted most from the tax cuts in 2010…”
You really have no idea, because you want to categorise groups of people based on your own bias. For example, there are people on high incomes who spend a large proportion of that income on GST bearing goods and services. And there are people on low incomes who spend a large proportion of their income on outgoings that do not attract GST (e.g. mortgage payments, rent).
That’s why Treasury analysis trumps your anecdotes.
And you continue to talk about ‘rich’ and ‘poor’, when you still won’t define those groups. And you are using them in a discussion on tax, when you should be discussing incomes.
Yes, they do.
And you still can’t work out basic math.
And yet you can’t define ‘poor’.
I don’t need to define poor if you can’t do math, because without math you can’t know that your explicit statement about ALL taxpayers benefitting from tax cuts (be they in general, tax cuts that actually happened, or even tax cuts that were glints in the eye of nats desperate for re-election) has any truth to it whatsoever. It’s just some lie you parrot.
Whereas I can look at poverty rates in NZ, read about long term problems like hungry kids that at least Labour attempted to solve and then the nats didn’t, the lowering of state house stock over the national term, and basically draw a reasonable conclusion that if you use any normal definition of the word as used in common parlance and the patois of the street, the nats hate poor people.
Your ‘math’ is simply inadequate. And the reason is, at least in part, because you refuse to define what you mean by ‘poor’. You are trying to argue a political party ‘hates’ a group of people you can’t (or won’t) define. And because you can’t (or won’t) define the group, you can’t even substantiate your claim that Labour treat this group any better. Your whole position is subjective nonsense.
Pfft, I say fobar to the special people with special langauge and big long words that only the special seem to understand in property speculating heaven where all the fucken unicorns live.
In the real world there has to be a destitute payment which provides enough sustenance for a labourers diet, transport, housing, power and water. But then you have to wrap around that payment the health and education system because a destitute payment isn’t enough to cover the cost of getting sick or they may want retraining for new industries or local jobs. Every resident that gains entry in or has been living in New Zealand no mater where they come from or who they are, are entitled to this payment as part of the government right to rule. Poverty is not a feature of advanced economies.
“And your demand for a single definition presumes that everyone in that party also has the same definition of “poor”.”
1. It is YOU who is claiming this particular group of people ‘hate’ the poor, yet you can’t or won’t define ‘poor’. If you assert they hate the ‘poor’, surely you understand what YOU mean by ‘poor’?
2. To shift the responsibility for that definition to the group you claim hate the other group you can’t define is, well, hilarious. Perhaps you could provide a single example of how that group defines ‘poor’.
3. So you are claiming this political party ‘hates’ a group of people who you cannot define, and who you have not defined how they define.
You position is subjective nonsense.
Oh, any normal definition would be largely fine.
But I literally just made the point that there is no single definition. Venn diagrams, remember? One nat might hate people who commit crimes in which the materially-deprived poor are over-represented in offending. Another might hate beneficiaries who get money in order to offset their income poverty. Another might just not like people who maybe can’t afford the best soaps or dental treatments, or hate beggars or the homeless. No single precise definition can explain the motivations for a collective impulse, but any definition would be correct to a variable level of accuracy. But as John Oliver put it, the poverty line is a bit like the age of sexual consent: if you really feel the need to parse exactly where it is, chances are that you’re considering something very, very wrong whatever the answer is.
There we have it. Your inability to deal with the diversity and lack of precision in humans. Which is quite funny given that you can’t even do the math to figure out if your claim about all taxpayers benefitting from tax cuts is correct.
Can’t do math, doesn’t understand people or a range of perspectives: no wonder you’re such shit at these discussions.
“But I literally just made the point that there is no single definition. ”
Which means you can take your pick. But you won’t. And the reason is nothing to do with Venn diagrams. You have made an accusation you cannot support. All you have is subjective nonsense.
On occasion people have asked me why I waste my time with idiots like you. This is why.
Because your inability to grasp the concept made me work hard to express it more simply. And the concept is this: sometimes, using words of greater precision makes the statement less correct.
Poor people are people living in poverty, whatever that might mean to individual nats. Anything more precise, like “people with less than 50% of the median household income after housing costs”, would be accurate for some nats (the “they need to work harder and stop doing drugs” crowd) but not others. “People living on the streets” might be despised by the upper middle class shop manager who wants bylaws to move those poor out of sight, but maybe not other nats.
Any individual precise definition of “poverty” is inadequate to describe the collective definitions assumed by individuals within the group that consistently mistreats poor people. I don’t choose one. I choose all the mainstream definitions of poverty.
And in that response we see why I have persevered with you in this conversation.
Your claim was that National hates poor people. You’ve said it repeatedly. And yet your answers show you not only will not provide a definition of ‘poor’ that can be assessed, but you also acknowledge that the National Party, which is an organisation of thousands of people, does not have a single definition of poor for you to define.
So this is what you are claiming:
1. An organisation of thousands of people ‘hates’ a group of people (the ‘poor’) you can’t define.
2. The people within the organisation itself don’t have a single, coherent definition of ‘poor’.
3. Individuals within this group define ‘poor’ in varying ways, which you appear to have deduced by mental telepathy.
You’re off the reservation big time.
1. An organisation of thousands of people ‘hates’ a group of people (the ‘poor’)
1b. “Poor” can be defined any number of ways. I have referred to several throughout the thread. But any single precise definition is insufficient, because “poor” in the common parlance is broad and variable depending on specific context. It is a known range of definitions, but any specific definition omits some instances that are included in other precise definitions of “poverty”. However, most people can handle fuzzy, relative terms like “poor”, “old”, “young”, “short”, or “tall”.
No, but they know what they hate.
Does it really require telepathy to conclude that individuals within a group of people will have subtly different understandings of what a relative and, as you say, subjective term means?
You do blow a lot of hot air for someone who can’t even work out their own tax liability.
“However, most people can handle fuzzy, relative terms like “poor”, “old”, “young”, “short”, or “tall”.”
No. Not when you accuse a collective group of individuals with potentially diverse opinions and personalities of ‘hate’. You have admitted that individuals within that collective may have different definitions of ‘poor’, but even those you can’t be certain of. Bold claims like yours demand greater precision.
“Does it really require telepathy to conclude that individuals within a group of people will have subtly different understandings of what a relative and, as you say, subjective term means?”
I said your argument is subjective nonsense. There are objective measures of ‘poor’, as you well know. You just don’t have the courage of your convictions.
There are largely arbitrary definitions of “poverty” based around quantitative indicators. They are useful for some aspects of policy planning and evaluation.
But the term itself is both subjective and relative. Like many aspects of humanity. You might as well ask for an objective and precise definition of “hate”. Or even a definition of “left” as opposed to “right”.
“But the term itself is both subjective and relative”.
It doesn’t have to be. You are making it so to suit your own inability to justify your claim.
“Or even a definition of “left” as opposed to “right”.”
If I said the ‘left’ hate the rich, I would expect to be able to classify or define what I mean by ‘left’ and ‘rich’. I’m holding you to the same standard.
If you said the left hate the rich, your biggest problem would be defining “the left”. Because the ones who really hate the rich seem to usually hate the moderate “left” even more.
Whereas nats are a pretty well-defined set, no? Either voters, party members, or caucus.
To say Maoist communists or Stalinists hate the rich would usually be pretty accurate. Democratic socialists, probably not so much. Social democrats? Nah. Social creditors are too fixated on arguing about A plus B to think too much about it either way.
But everyone would have a fair, if not precise, idea of what you meant by “rich”.
“Whereas nats are a pretty well-defined set, no? Either voters, party members, or caucus.”
Even by your own classes of ‘nats’, there is considerable diversity. I’m not and never have been a member of the National Party, but I know a lot of people who are, including people who either have very little money themselves, or who display considerable care for those with less. Amongst the wider group of ‘nat’ voters, there would be huge diversity. Just look at the numbers who voted for National between 2008 and 2017. You can’t possibly argue they all ‘hate the poor’.
“But everyone would have a fair, if not precise, idea of what you meant by “rich”.”
If anyone accused ‘the rich’ of hating ‘the poor’, I would expect that person to at least clarify what they mean by those terms. Particularly if I suspected they included me in one of those categories.
Nope. But I can say that the collective direction of the organisation that they choose to support is one of hating the poor.
For normal people, the terms are already clear enough to understand the sentence.
Let’s agree to disagree. In the context of what has happened today in Christchurch, I’ve suddenly lost my appetite for this discussion. My apologies for cutting out.
All donations other than a modest membership fee (e.g. $50 p.a.) should be banned. Of course when people donate serious dosh to political parties, they are expecting to influence policy and outcomes – and that should not be for sale.
In terms of burdens of proof – perhaps try thinking. How often to people send serious money in a certain direction, without expecting something back?
I don’t think that’s required at all Gosman.
Rather, the onus lies with you to explain what legitimate interest of NZ citizens is served by subjecting our parliament to the corrupting influence of foreign money.
no it isn’t. You’re the ones wanting to change the laws. Show what the actual risk is around this and then we can discuss it. It is not for others to show why we shouldn’t change the law otherwise we should accept the need to change the law.
No, you have to establish how it benefits us.
Laws do not exhaustively cover every possibility.
Historically we’ve had relatively few foreign donations, that’s changing.
There is no democratic benefit, therefore it is an impropriety.
We understand the far right only survives through impropriety – but that in itself represents a democratic failure – parties as useless as ACT must be allowed to die if they cannot find sufficient popular support, not be propped up like Guaido by foreign interests. NZ government must represent local interests – no one else ever will.
No, you want to change the law, you have to make the case why the law change is needed. The default position should not be that you think the law needs changing now tell us why we shouldn’t do so.
You’re trying very hard to sell your fallacy, and failing utterly of course.
Democratic governments are driven by principle. They don’t consist merely of a collection of laws for scoundrels like you to game. The foundational principle of democracy is that of one person, one vote. Where in that equation is your sleazy foreign funder, Gosman?
Lacking that metric entirely you of course will not be persuaded by an argument founded in ethos, so we will do what democracies do: employ democratic decision making, and let the people of NZ or their delegated MPs decide.
If you make corrupt foreign funding a central plank of your policy, you’ll lose votes faster than Simon Bridges.
Gosman is correct. If you are arguing in support of a law change, you need to provide evidence that your claims are correct.
“We understand the far right only survives through impropriety”
Really? So was the Labour government ‘hard right’ when it spent huge sums of taxpayers money on straight out election bribes like WFF and interest free student loans? Or the highly dodgy pledge card? Labour governments use the resources of the state to remain in power, with some good old fashioned union muscle thrown in.
Tax cuts are not “election bribes” of course.
Tax cuts are giving people their money BACK. Labour’s bribes involved taking more tax money and giving it to a target demographic.
You mean it is wrong to give families with kids some of their hard earned but paid in tax dollars back?
It wasn’t hard working families with kids, who got the, net, tax cuts.
“It wasn’t hard working families with kids, who got the, net, tax cuts.”
Yes, it is.
https://thestandard.org.nz/the-greens-electoral-law-reform-petition/#comment-1590351
https://thestandard.org.nz/the-greens-electoral-law-reform-petition/#comment-1590355
Both under a National Government too. Who’d a thought!
Tax cuts. Twice as much for the well off. Percentage cuts of course.
Then increased costs for the rest. GST, Doctors visits, Prescription charges, petrol taxes and about 16 other taxes, from, Mr, “No more taxes”. Plus all the services downgraded or removed, which now have to be paid for by the users.
Add all that up.
National. Give with one hand, take, from the lower incomes, with the other.
“Give with one hand, take, from the lower incomes, with the other.”
Your making shit up again. The 2017 proposed cuts had no GST increase. And the 2010 cuts were accompanied by a GST increase for everyone. This ‘only the poor got hit’ mantra is total crap.
How about 3 strikes shadders?
A sound policy. What is your point?
Sound policy?
https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/02/prison-california-three-stirkes.html
“Sound policy?”
Yes, indeed.
Gosman is rarely correct.
So, you too despise our political norms, and seek to privilege money above the civic franchise? You despicable rogue. How dare you!
No, I simply ask you to support your own contentions. It would seem you can’t.
@ Shadrach
It is for Gosman to explain how the corrupt funding of the far right is compatible with the democratic franchise.
If you have an argument that supports it, by all means let us see it – but seeking to offload the burden of proof is simply not persuasive.
You’ll have to do much better than that.
“It is for Gosman to explain how the corrupt funding of the far right is compatible with the democratic franchise.”
The discussion is about foreign donations. You need to make your own case, starting with proving that only the ‘far right’ receive foreign donations. I look forward to you even identifying much of a ‘far right’ in NZ.
@ Shadrach,
Here’s the thing – you don’t get to define this debate.
I defined it in terms of democracy.
Your only argument seems to be “You can’t prove a thing, copper!” (I paraphrase)
You shouldn’t imagine it looks any better on you than it does on Bart Simpson.
“Here’s the thing – you don’t get to define this debate.”
I’m not attempting to. I’m simply calling you out for making a claim and then expecting everyone else to refute it. That’s not how intelligent debate happens. Your claim, your responsibility. Own it.
@ Shadrach – nonsense.
I’m not making a claim – I’m stating a fact – that foreign donations have no place in a democratic polity. Domestic ones can cause trouble enough.
Gosman – patron saint of sleaze that he is, desired that I prove negative influence. You’ll notice that he submitted no evidence of their benignity – and neither have you. Gosman’s demands for proof are invariably in bad faith – he never accepts them, nor does he ever produce any evidence of his own.
If you’d like to argue the merits of foreign political donations, produce a credible source or study demonstrating their benignity, and I will match it with counterexamples. They may prove to be thin on the ground however – most countries do not allow direct foreign political donations.
“I’m not making a claim – I’m stating a fact – that foreign donations have no place in a democratic polity.“
1. That is not a fact, that is your opinion.
2. You are arguing for a change in the status quote. You beat the responsibility to put up a case. Gosman has no responsibility to counter an opinion you have not supported.
No, Shadrach, it’s not my opinion.
Have you studied democracy? You’ll not find foreign political donations mentioned as one of its elements. Not in the consensus democracies of band cultures, not in classical or Athenian democracy, and not in the Calvinist model that became English and subsequently European parliamentary democracy, nor yet in the New World model created by the intellectual heirs of Hutcheson.
Foreign political donations are not part of democracy – it’s not opinion, my little cabbage, it’s fact.
I am not arguing for a change in the status quote (sic), but to correct an error that has allowed a corrupt influence to endanger our dearly won system of government. Democracy is one person one vote, not one dollar one vote – money simply has no rights within the system. Never has had and never will. If a little sewage seeped between the cracks of the failing Key Kleptocracy it does not become a binding precedent that all hospital walls must henceforth be filled with shit – we clean them out and make sure it doesn’t happen again, and so it is with corrupt foreign moneys.
so roads of national significance arent bribes
ive lived in provincial city where they were proposed before the election- nice plans too…and after the election were withdarwn.
remember the ‘Bridges of Northland County’ 10 bridges as bribes, they werent even on the local roads committees list …but a by -election was coming up.
last election national went around offering roads, schools hospitals, ( a roundabout on the Hutt Rd even…)some have been promised over the the previous 2 elections.
No RON’s benefit all users of those roads, in fact they even benefit non-users. WFF and particularly interest free student loans were cynical election bribes. Oh and so was Labour’s ‘Fees Free’ policy.
“It was promulgated by Labour before the last election, and it follows Helen Clark and Labour’s earlier interest-free student loans pre-election “bribe” in 2005. Labour leader Jacinda Ardern spent time at university campuses, including Otago, in the weeks before polling day, and Labour was keen to mobilise young students who often do not vote.
The policy resonated with students, and no doubt many parents. It is an expensive policy that won votes, and in that sense was an election bribe.”
https://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/editorial/free-fees-failed-election-bribe
Labour appear to be able to waste tax-payers money with the best of them.
I suggest you don’t astroturf the same or similar comment over and over again. Learn to argue. Leave the parrots in parliamentary question time.
Or I can demonstrate what I feel about trolls.
The actual risk is that parties sell list places to donors, raising questions about whether those MPs represent NZers or the donors when running our country. especially when those donors might be another country – should we accept a risk that our government is run by someone with the interests of another country at heart?
No. And that is a fair comment. However not all money coming in from overseas will necessarily have strings attached. And some local donations may have just that.
The thing about local donations is that they simply lead into the debate about whether money is “free speech” accessible to all, or simply provides an unfair advantage to the wealthy. And then do corporate bodies and unions act as opaque shields for donors’ identities, or are their motives and conflicts obvious.
Those debates about how our democracy operates.
But overseas donations, even the ones without obvious strings attached, will influence the recipients. And those recipients should be representing the NZ electorate, not overseas nationals or nations.
That is a far more obvious discussion. Surely our elected officials should not have a conflict of interest about whether they serve NZ or a foreign nation? They need to be citizens to serve, but who pays their campaigning expenses?
Good points, although are you not assuming local interests are benign or beneficial, and overseas ones not so?
At least local interests are the interests of some people in the electorate – even if some of those interests might be parasitic and debilitating.
Overseas interests might be positive for NZ (theoretically), but the point about democracy is that we decide and debate our own interests in determining the leadership of the country. Overseas money, especially with hidden motives, should not participate in that process. It’s like buying a new outfit because the someone says it looks flattering on you, and that person is secretly an employee of the store. They might be telling the truth, but would you rely on that?
Fair comments.
why should anybody have to prove how overseas money is impacting NEW ZEALAND elections. it should be evident to any thinking LOYAL kiwi, that we dont need outside interference in our elections. havent you been paying attention gosboy, to the outside interference in the last u.s. and u.k. elections.? how about you prove that overseas money is good for our electoral system? awaiting that proof…………
Er, how exactly overseas money not impacting NZ elections?
You know?
Please tell. You must be well informed to ask such a question.
Burden of proof is a courtroom requirement.
You really are an irrelevant nuisance. Come back after you have grown up.
Patricia
You are confusing money from new immigrants with overseas money.
Some new immigrant groups take a much more active role in politics (and have done so for around 20 years) than was once the case. Any MP in Auckland from whatever party will be well aware of this. There is an expectation of attendance at national days and cultural events, and anyone who lives in Auckland will be well aware of MP’s from all parties being on the stage and being introduced and expected to say something in the appropriate language. There is very little overt lobbying but there is certainly an expectation the MP’s will be aware of the concerns of the community. You are expected to do your “homework”, to show that you are culturally aware.
All parties have had big donations from these groups. But it comes from people who are either citizens or permanent residents.
Obviously some people who immigrate to NZ are wealthy, so in that sense maybe the money had an overseas origin. However in my experience most of the new immigrants invest much of their wealth in NZ, commercial buildings, import companies, etc.
Exactly. Also a desire for community groups to get better representation in parliament should be a good thing surely? Labour does it all the time in relation to highlighting their “diversity”.
One party in particular has been heavily favoured by large donations from Chinese donors, and based on recent evidence has been taking steps to salami slice a very large $100k donation down below the amount that identifies it to the public ( but no the party) who the donor(s) are.
That same party jacked up the threshold from $20k to $30k which requires immediate disclosure .
What party ?
All parties have had big donations from these groups. But it comes from people who are either citizens or permanent residents.
It always does, even if the people are acting on behalf of foreign governments – because politicians genereally don’t like being investigated and charged with offences, but do like big donations. Money always finds a way to get where it’s going.
What is your evidence that this is occurring. You can’t just allege it, there should be at least some evidence.
United Front isnt a chinese government group operating in NZ then ?
If I had evidence, it would be with the Police. It is of course possible that Anne-Marie Brady is completely wrong about the Chinese government running a “United Front” operation that uses local Chinese ex-pats in various countries to try and influence political parties. But the court of my personal opinion operates on balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, and the probability of politicians having far too much integrity to accept such donations doesn’t strike me as particularly high.
It seems that some Chinese emigres are buying influence and positions in the National party. While this will ultimately improve that party by diluting recurring recessive traits, the immediate interests it serves are not local.
“Patricia you are confusing money from new immigrants with overseas money”
No I am not.
If immigrants come here with the idea “Big” money buys influence they should be educated about our system as part of their induction.
You are wrapping money and influence in the benign cloak of culture and diversity.
What you are talking about is giving these rich immigrants more access to and influence over parliamentarians.
Your whole explanation shows awareness of the intent to influence, and that if some of these new citizens have a loyalty to an overseas Government, we have a hard time sorting local and overseas money.
Which is my point, poor immigrants should have an equal voice, but by your explanation you clearly show the wealthy groups can organise functions at which they politicise their wishes and gain access to lobby.
Please do not “mansplain” to me again Wayne, even in a kindly manner, thank you.
How much donation to National, will my New Zealand citizenship cost, when National is back in?
(Asking for a friend)
Pretty savage takedown of Ghahraman on Morning report today o0n this topic.
Electoral law reform needs cross party support. It shouldn’t be pushed by a single political party via a law change such as this. If you want to avoid a brutal and nasty debate then seek consensus on this topic. The Greens have opened a Pandora’s box following this approach.
“Electoral law reform needs cross party support. It shouldn’t be pushed by a single political party via a law change such as this.”
Thats an odd take on it….shouldnt electoral law reform need public support?…after all Parliament is the peoples representative body,not the MPs plaything.
Electoral law reform needs cross party support. It shouldn’t be pushed by a single political party via a law change such as this.
Political parties act out of self-interest on this subject. What it actually needs is for politicians to respect the recommendations of two different commissions which found that the threshold should be 4%, both of which commissions’ findings were subject to referenda. We have a 5% threshold due to self-interested actions of the two major parties and that should be overturned.
Why don’t we simply respect the decisions of the Independent Group who set up the rules in the first place?
Why should we change them just to save the bums on the seats from the Green and New Zealand First Parties?
For the simple reason that Judith Collins overruled the recommendations of that group to secure an advantage for her party. Reinstating the groups recommendation kills two birds with one stone, removing Judith’s gerrymander and enacting the recommendation.
I am talking about the Royal Commission that worked very hard from 1984 until 1986.
Given that Judith Collins didn’t enter Parliament until 2002 she is unlikely to have anything to do with the Royal Commission Report.
The most you can say is that she declined to make any changes to the Royal Commission recommendations.
That seems a perfectly reasonable decision. A Royal Commission is generally considered to be a more thorough result than an ad hoc group like the Electoral Commission.
Ps. You clearly have no idea what a “Gerrymander” is.
I used the term loosely, but it covers her failure to enact the 2012 recommendation of the Electoral Commission (to reduce thresholds to 4%), to secure an electoral advantage.
The royal commission that recommended a 4% threshold. I agree. Let’s implement more of their recommendations.
Well there go the Maori seats I suppose.
Do you think the Labour Party would vote for that recommendation from the Royal Commission?
And there would be no Citizen initiated referenda.
I’ll tell you what. I will support the cut to 4% if you argue for getting rid of the Maori seats.
A summary of the Recommendation, from Wikipedia, is
“Recommendations
1. The Commission unanimously recommended the adoption of mixed member proportional, with a threshold of 4% and that a referendum be held before or at the 1987 election.
2. They also recommended that the Māori seats be abolished, with Māori parties instead receiving representation if they did not pass the threshold.
3. That the number of MPs raise to 120 (although they considered 140 would be ideal, they realised that it would receive too much public backlash).
4. The term of Parliament be raised to four years.
5. The Commission recommended that citizens initiated referendums not be implemented. However, they were in 1993.”
There was a referendum that rejected the 4 year term in 1990 so I guess we could ignore that one
Lprent has gone very quiet.
You suggested that we should implement more of the Royal Commission recommendations.
Are you still trying to come up with a reason why we should not scrap the Maori seats, as they recommended?
He does have a day job.
Don’t be a stupid fuckwit.
I work during the day. I usually comment at lunchtime, morning or late at night after I cook and feed my partner and the cat. If I do start commenting during the day, I’m either on holiday, blocked on the code, or decide that I have to start dealing with stupid fuckwits as a moderator.
In that case the delay is obviously not because you were trying to avoid the question. I apologize for that assumption.
Now however you may have time to respond.
Are you in favour of their recommendation to abolish the Maori seats?
By about 2050 the Māori population is projected to double from about 700k to 1.5 million people. At which point Māori will become the swing vote. Thus it is impossible for a small majority to pull Māori to the side of voting against there self interest.
Under certain condition it is possible for Māori to vote to dismantle the Māori seats, for instance because the Māori language may have been normalised across the country. What ever that may mean will take longer than 30 years to repair. It took several generations to dismantle the Māori language so it’s my guess it will take several generations to repair. If your still interested in dismantling the Māori seats by then then fill your boots.
That is probably a question that you should address to the iwi, hapu and maori themselves. There is already a natural system for abolishing the seats. Māori simply don’t have to enroll for the seats. And I think that majority still don’t (otherwise we’d be looking at something like 15+ maori seats rather than 7).
I can’t see that it makes any particular distortions to proportionality except by the 1 seat threshold issue – and I’d abolish that first as it is a clear distortion.
However, your Royal Commission argument is baseless at its core anyway. The grounds the Royal Commission gave as justification for abolishing the Maori seats was quite specific.
In that they are quite correct. The proportionality, if implemented the way that the Royal Commission recommended, would have had few disadvantages for Māori.
However the way that never happened. The Bolger changes to MMP did a deliberate tradeoffs.
That kicked the threshold up higher than was functional for our democracy. Should have been 3% or 4% – just enough to prevent the nutter fringe skew that you see in places like Israel.
It provided the escape loophole for winning single electorates that leads to dysfunctional puppet parties.
It removed the ongoing proportionality between list and electorate seats that is steadily reducing the proportionality.
From memory the trade off on Māori seats was a direct consequence of the tradeoff of the size of South Island seats. Which are over represented.
And about 15 other things – all of which entrenched the existing party systems and made it hard to get other useful working parties into parliament.
We don’t want a hellhole system like the one that is crippling the Israelis and driving them to their atrocity systems and acting like concentration guards on extermination camps. But we do need one that allows new functional parties to form and grow.
FFS have you actually read the recommendations or do you simply like looking like a ignorant fool? Try reading them.
And even so, I’d still give the option to Māori for disestablishment.
My families have been around NZ since the 1860s and earlier and we have a pretty clear vision of exactly how recent immigration over the last 100+ years has discriminated against Māori and my cousins.
Most of it directed by parliament and most of that from arseholes like the National party and it predecessors.
I simply don’t think that parliament has the moral authority to make those kinds of decisions. They are still morally stained by the guilt of their predecessors decisions. I’m not even sure that they have the legal right – certainly it’d be challengeable.
If they try to make those decisions, then I think that is when I’d start getting deeply interested in politics – doing Utu work. Probably via the court system and targeted at the individuals and organisations responsible.
Personally I’d say that when our prison population of Māori drops to just double their percentage of the population, then parliament may legitimately start getting involved in such decisions. That will take a while. In the meantime parliament should stay away from that kind of repeated abuse and leave the slow reform work started in the 1980s to keep doing what is required.
A rant Trump would be proud of.
Hey dead fish: I don’t think that he’d be nearly as coherent, and he’d have lied throughout most of his one.
But hey if that was all you took from it, then I suspect that you’re probably as ignorant and stupid as he is.
Careful now, with your dicky ticker you’ll be back up at the cardiology ward if you don’t minimise your stress.
Yep. you are definitely quite stupid and quite ignorant.
FYI: it was a MI. You should learn to understand the topics that you blather on about – displaying your basic ignorance.
Sure it nearly killed me, but was stented early enough to reduce heart muscle damage to a pretty minimal level and didn’t cause any apparent brain damage. Apparently these were unusual after a 100% blockage in a heart artery. I still program, and learn new languages regularly. Kotlin on android is the current project I’m working on – I figure that is somewhere between my 90th and 95th language that I have learnt since I started programming.
Not a severe issue provided I keep take the meds to prevent further damage.
The main effect is that at present I find climbing 5 flights of stairs at least 3 times a day (at home and currently at work until the lift is fixed) to be an pain in the legs and makes me puff a bit – after I have been riding a bike for 3.3km. But hey, I’m nearly 60. I’d have still had sore legs and panted a bit when I was 40.
It certainly doesn’t cause me problems with dealing with dimwitted dickheads like you.
Actually the biggest change suggested was the overseas donations issue.
The Maori seats should be decided by Maori.
The logic behind any threshold eludes me. What is the problem it is trying to solve?
Fragmented government. Do some reading.
Yes, with no minimum size you can get a surprising number of rats and mice.
I just had a look at Italy.
They appear to have 6 major parties, who got at least 4% of the National vote, and something like 30 others who seem to have seats in the Parliament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Italy#Major_parties
With very low thresholds that sort of thing is just about inevitable.
Greece appears to have 8 major parties and about 10 which appear to have one member each. At least that is how I read the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Greece#Parties_during_the_Third_Hellenic_Republic_(1974%E2%80%93present)
Greece has an interesting twist to the system. There are 300 members of whom 250 are elected by a proportional system. Then there are 50 more seats that go to the largest party.
Weep your hearts out National supporters. If that existed here the National Party could govern alone.
NZ is not Italy and does not look like turning in to Italy anytime soon.
@Gosman.
You might be surprised how many more parties we would have. Looking at the first 3 MMP elections, 1996, 1999 and 2002 we had 6, 7, and 7 parties in the House.
With no minimum percentage, and assuming the same number of votes for each party we would have had 8, 10 and 11 parties.
That is in my view a minimum. We would probably have had 1 or 2 more. The reason I say that is that once a party gets a single MP they are likely to persist. They will have, at the next election a very generous taxpayer subsidy to campaign. Just the unlimited travel for MPs is worth a lot and of course they will have somebody paid by the taxpayer who can spend nearly all their time campaigning.
A Party that drops out is however gone for good. All with the exception of Winston, who was reincarnated in 2011 after being dumped in 2008.
Someone must have driven the stake in at the wrong angle
Not necessarily a disadvantage.
More diversity of ideas can be a plus.
If the system has the right cat-herding arrangements in place. Ours uses parties and agreements between them. Hard enough negotiating with only a few others.
Gosman: Can I suggest that you look at the Royal Commission’s logic. Or the 2012 review.
Then, perhaps, it’d be worth talking to you rather having you being a stupid parrot with your one line. Describe why you found their logic absurd rather than playing with your dick here.
So far I haven’t seen you display any signs of intelligence or understanding on the issues of MMP – try doing some study.
The fact the first royal commission is 30 years out of date is why we needed a new review, to update our processes to the modern world.
Personally I think all thresholds need to be removed, and then all silly buggers are stopped…
Anyway with a 4% threshold, more likely to get a parliament with so called blue-greens, act, conservatives (new or otherwise) and a new new act party, so wins for the right if they realise it and not play games with the fact that the Greens are the ones that brought it up…
It is hardly surprising that the Green Party, after looking at their polling numbers, are thinking about their situation very hard.
Samuel Johnson summed up their situation beautifully.
“Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”
The same may be said of the Gnats, who know very well that fairly counted the majority of NZ voters will seldom or never vote for their self-serving ineptitude.
It was the 2012 ‘ MMP working group’ that was set up by national that collins as justice minster overuled…
Gosman
There is consensus. You seem to be confusing consensus with unanimity where everyone agrees. Alas everyone agreeing in politics is a rare thing. The majority of political parties support the 2012 review.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consensus
“The loss of the potential for puppet parties will hurt the right but they adversely affect proportionality.”
Ummm… that is not correct.
I thought you would be overjoyed.
ACT may be in with a chance.
Though I think we will have to reduce the threshold to about 0.8.
I am OK with that. If the loony tunes in ACT, can get their vote to point 0.8, they should have representation in Parliament, in proportion to their vote. Free speech and all that.
Tell me how having smaller parties winning electoral seats adversely impacts proportionality
Mickey has already shown how that works.
Where? All I see is that if a party wins an electorate seat and does not get more than 0.7% of the vote then that causes dis-proportionality. This is hardly massive. I think you might have ACT in the Parliament and United Future in the last one which falls in to this category. So that is 1 seat out of 120 that doesn’t possibly reflect the total among the entire electorate. Yet the Threshold impacts many more seats than this. There would have been close to 5% (if not more) votes for parties that did not get in to Parliament at the last election. Denying them a seat and reallocate the vote among other parties impacts proportionality far more.
Yes, it does. I think we agree on that.
Its not dis proportionality- its coat tails , they get extra MPs without getting to 5%.
Overhang is when more electorate MPS are won than the party vote would allow. last time was MP in 2008 with 2 overhangs , they had 5 electorate seats, then one overhang in 2010 and then 1 coat tail in 2014.
ACT had 4 coat tails in 2008
What is wrong with coat tailing?
It violates the most fundamental democratic principle of one person, one vote. Consequently, it skews fair representation and proportionality in Parliament. This is made worse when the threshold is set absurdly high at 5%, which happens to be exactly six times the proportional threshold with 120 seats. If the number of seats increase then this ratio goes up even further, e.g. to 7-fold with 140 seats.
ACT got 13,075 (0.50%) of the party votes and one seat. All other parties that didn’t make it into Parliament got a combined 121,413 votes, i.e. 4.68%.
Please tell me that you at least can see the problem here.
https://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2017/
What’s right with it gozzeroni?
Yes it is. Back in 2014 UF received 5,286 votes and one seat. Overall each party required 20,217 votes per list seat.
UF received less party votes than the Conservatives, Internet Mana and ALCP but still received a seat.
It is not a major issue though. It impacts proportionality less than having a threshold does. For example TOP received over 2% of the vote yet received zero MP’s. They would have had 3 or 4 MP’s. The only party which may have negatively impacted proportionality is ACT with 1 MP on about 0.5% of the vote. That is hardly a massive breach of proportionality.
If your main concern is the proportionality then promote the ditching of the threshold. Then you don’t need to worry about electorate deals at all.
I agree, the threshold should be ditched.
The reasoning behind the threshold, was avoiding fruitcakes and maintaining stability.
Hasn’t worked anyway.
It’s actually had the perverse effect of making NZ more like an FPP system and has reduced diversity of opinion in parliament.
Yes I agree – either ditch the threshold or reduce it by 2 or 3 clicks. This will go a long way to improving proportionality in parliament.
Why this desire about keeping the threshold like we are somehow protecting ourselves from unleashing some terrible disaster? The threshold makes no sense in the NZ political context.
Btw there is already a high bar for any political party to satisfy before even getting anywhere near trying to get elected. They need to get 500 paid up members. This isn’t easy to do.
In principle, I agree with you, but I do have one concern. If a lower threshold resulted in a proliferation of minor parties with 1-2 seats, that could have the effect of making forming a government more difficult, and may give disproportionate power to parties and individuals with only very low levels of support.
As I stated to you it is quite difficult in the NZ political context to get 500 voters willing to join a political party to enable them to be registered and get the chance to even get 1 or 2 % of the vote. If you disagree with me just look at how United Future was at risk of being de-registered a few years back.
If we take the last few elections if we had ditched the threshold entirely then there would only have been been 3 or 4 additional parties in parliament. I can think of Internet/Mana, TOP, the Conservatives, and possibly Legalise Cannabis party. I don’t think NZ politics would be harmed with having those parties in parliament.
Elections have very little to do with democracy. It’s all the stuff done in between to create a democratic culture that’s important. Some lessons can be learnt by the way Tamati Coffe roled Te Ururoa in Waiariki. Te Ururoa thought he could buddy up to corporate interests. Tamati taught him the error of his way.
Good points, but my concern remains that one or more of those could end up determining the government. It’s bad enough when it’s a 7% party.
There is nothing good or bad about electoral laws designed to increase representation.
The only way you could have prevented United Future getting a seat in the House would be to have told the people of Ohariu that you are going to ignore their choice of MP and that they weren’t going to be allowed to have an electorate MP to represent them.
Would you really do that?
mickysavage
A false argument from you (again).
As you well know, UF had one seat because Peter Dunne won an electorate. That is the only seat that UF had.
Are you seriously suggesting that a person not be able to win a seat if they beat all the other contenders in that seat? Presumably not.
Yours is an argument for no threshold, well, a threshold of one. So that if a party gets 20,000 votes they will get a seat. It would probably result in a quite few one seat parties, who would have a disproportionate leverage in parliament. Look at Aussie for an example of that. Which is why there is a decent threshold.
Mind you a couple of one seat parties (from electorates) can have a lot of leverage.
Exactly, having the threshold has not stopped crazy people from getting in… I mean we have had ACT, NZF, UF and National…so how much worse could it be?
Much, much, much worse than that.
We ended up with a bunch of crazies from the Watermelon party.
Screeeeeeeeeeam!
A party that got 10,000 votes would get a single MP.
You need about a further 20,000 for each additional seat.
Have a look at how the allocation method works.
A false argument from you (again).
As you well know, UF had one seat because Peter Dunne won an electorate. That is the only seat that UF had.
Disingenuous of you Wayne. See link:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11299883
And we all know what happened.
Gosh this upset Gosman real badly today didn’t it?
Why do you assume I am upset?
This is in fact a juicy topic that I will enjoy exploring. I am in fact the opposite of upset.
I agree. A good solid political topic that deserves a first class debate.
The opposite of upset?
Set up?
‘yeah right’ we are not fooled by big money interests.
I agree with the ‘greens’ on this one.
Well founded that Koch Bros and their elitists carbal are always buying country’s policies.
Big money is corruption in politics, – so go for it greens.
The Koch brothers did not support Trump yet he won.
False equivalency.
Why is it false equivalency?
The proposition was big money effects politics.
What the Koch brothers did or didn’t do. Doesn’t prove anything one way or the other.
I suspect with the US super Pac’s, no one except the Koch’s, know the full extent of their donations.
The trouble is people like you think that because there is big money in politics then it must logically follow that it has a huge influence or even a significant adverse impact. That is not necessarily the case.
Then when it’s influence is removed then there will be no impact?
If it’s of no consequence why do they donate then? If it has no value why would a business or industry group bother spending their money on something that changes nothing?
Of course it has an impact. The question is whether it has an undue influence or negative impact. I have yet to see a serious case made for this. The default assumption seems to be ” Big money in politics is bad m’kay”.
Why should it have any impact? The point is people don’t want the to take the risk. The default assumption is that the only influences on politicians should be the voices of their voters.
Just because you’ve not seen a case of negative impact we shouldn’t take the precaution of protecting democracy?
There are multiple ways of influencing politics unduly. If you want to eliminate these then you should look to ban such things as petitions and protests as well. Keep politics pure and simple. Only individual voters get to influence the politicians. No special interest groups or movements allowed.
Well those things aren’t undue though are they?
Protest is a right, not at all undue.
Petitions are also part of normal political life, not undue.
Both of these things are in public, and their point is to be obvious.
Donations to politicians are not always publicly acknowledged and nor is the reason for them publicly stated.
So what you call ‘undue’ are the most public, and democratic parts of our political process; yet you think that opaque payments to politicians by unknown groups isn’t?
Your issue then is not with donations but with transparency. That is fine. I will support efforts to get more transparency in reporting on political donations.
I think we should ban donations and publicly fund elections. Thus precluding the need for transparency in donations.
Then also stop people volunteering for political parties and create a department where public servants will be allocated to each party based on the same formula for funding them. Labour and National will obviously get the most help in this regard. It is only “fair” after all.
Why? Volunteering your time is democratic, we theoretically all have equal amounts of it, therefore it’s not an ‘undue’ influence. Only the outsized influence of large donations are ‘undue’ as we don’t all have millions at our disposal. Volunteering for a party you believe in is the point of party membership.
Your argument is illogical, but that’s not new
A little silly Gossy!! It depends what the giver wants. If it is control of the Pacific… well it could be crucial xx
There is ample evidence of adverse effects.
We have been showing them on here for years.
Chinese Millionaires don’t donate 100k, because they are keen on supporting “Democracy.
Neither do US ones.
The Koch brothers did not support Trump yet he won.
To clarify the logical fallacy involved here, consider this example:
A: “Driving when drunk is dangerous.”
B: “Rubbish, I drove drunk the other night and nothing happened.”
No, what the logical fallacy really is
A: “There is lot’s of big money in politics”
B: “Therefore big money negatively impacts politics”
Of course you misstated it:
A: “There’s lots of big money in US democracy.”
B: “Therefore big money negatively impacts US democracy.”
It’s inarguable. Politics exists with or without monied involvement, democracy is imperiled by it.
Of course it is arguable. I have been arguing it right here.
And failing, because the matter of the argument lies in ethos, a concept that is utterly foreign to you.
Bribery is not an issue for Gosman – it’s merely another business transaction to him.
Stuart is right Gos, you are too busy here trying to disprove what you contend is a fallacy by using another fallacy. This is circular – you can prove if you like that the world is flat using such a method, and many do of course.
The weight of argument however is always the ethos when it relates to human interactions. This is why I often call you out as a smart arse – intent only in demonstrating your abilities in the art of the circular reference – I know it well – my late grandfather-in-law used to do the same thing,
However, you are not objective about what side of a debate you take, and thus you are indeed influenced by the ethos, as you more often than not defend unethical positions.
Here for example, relying on a logical fallacy, you attempt to defend big business bribes on a parliamentary process that is ethically charged with assessing the best course of action to benefit the collective of all New Zealanders.
Stuart Your deductive arguement is invalid purely on construction by begging the question by your premis assuming the truth of your conclusion
Bewildered, as usual you don’t know wtf you are talking about.
I’m addressing the issue at the heart of the Green decision to act against the corrupting influence of foreign monies.
Gosman is misrepresenting it because, as usual, he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
And you, in your backward fashion, are trying to troll me because I’ve wiped the floor with him.
Grow up.
If you think you have an argument to make in support of foreign funds enhancing or not harming democratic representation, by all means wheel it out. I’m sure we could all use the laugh.
No, what the logical fallacy really is
A: “There is lot’s of big money in politics”
B: “Therefore big money negatively impacts politics”
Yep, that one’s a non sequitur. However, this version isn’t:
A: “Political parties are highly dependent on donations.”
B: “Therefore, people or organisations with a lot of money to donate have leverage over politicians.”
Yours is more of an inductive arguement that can’t be valid or not valid just weak or strong based on evidence of which you provide little, thus to Gosman point I would suggest weak until proven otherwise from a nz context
A: “There is lots more big money in politics”
B: Politics has got dirtier.
C: “Therefore big money has negatively impacted politics
How bout that El Gozzerino?
It’s not even that. It’s more like this:
A: Driving when drunk is dangerous.
B: No it isn’t. There was a car crash last night, but that drunkard over there wasn’t even in the car!
Trump won; – ???
Doesn’t look that way to me!!!
The Washington swamp is still well alive and the ‘Koch and elitists back that as well as their queen Hillary Clinton remember, – the one that destroyed the 30 000 emails on her phone?
Not inquisitive? as to how she got away from being investigated by the washington swamp?
Power is what they back.
Get over it cg FFS!
Hillary is not queen of the so-called ‘Washington swamp’, and the emails were irrelevant but used successfully to attack her during the campaign. Compared to the mountain of unethical and illegal stuff that is currently levelled at Trump, Hillary’s supposed misdemeanours are miniscule.
Why are you not inquisitive about how Trump has so far gotten away with all that he has done up to now?
You’ve got to wonder why she walked into that mess and then fought so hard to avoid walking back out of it fordy. Seeing as how it made her look like a devious conniving little shit and all. Maybe she just had an elevated sense of her own rightness, in no way fed by her fawning admirers.
“Did not support Trump” or any candidate publicly The Koch network is so complicated and long winded it would be naive to say they didn’t support any one candidate or party..they simply suport themselves.
“Asked during the 2016 campaign how he would vote, Charles Koch demurred, “If I had to vote for cancer or a heart attack, why would I vote for either?”.
Trump is itching to invade Venezuela and will quite possibly get the Koch brothers investments back…so maybe things will come up roses for the Kochs anyway.
Meantime…
“The Kochs’ policy objectives that have been realized since Trump took office are legion: enactment of the $1.5 trillion tax cut; the opening of public lands to mining; the appointment of men and women with industry ties to key regulatory posts; weakened enforcement of worker safety rules; the proposed elimination or rollback of numerous environmental regulations; the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, along with the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, and the appointment of judges favored by the Kochs to all levels of the federal bench.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/opinion/trump-koch-brothers-alliance.html
In my view the minimum party vote threshold should be the percentage that equals a single seat.
Why not? Coalitions are what adults do (sorry National).
True.
Completely agree. the only reason we have a threshold is because that is what the Germans had in their system which we seemed to have imported lock stock and barrel. Our political climate and history is very different to Germany’s. There is far less tradition of extremism in NZ Politics.
Agree. The threshold in Germany was to keep the neo Nazi’s out.
My view is that it is better to keep them in plain sight, if they do gain sufficient following.
Unlikely in New Zealand.
So if we are in agreement why is there not a move to ditch the threshold completely? It would largely solve the issue of proportionality and decrease the likelihood of electoral deals. It seems like a no-brainer to me.
Totally.
I’ve asked Golriz. May get a reply if she is not too busy.
I suspect because. one. It would be attacked as self serving, if it comes from the Greens.
Two. That big a change probably requires a referendum. Whereas 4% was recommended by the electoral commission.
ANY change to the electoral system should either have to be voted on via a referendum and/or get broad cross party support. If she is serious about this she should campaign to get cross party support for ditching the threshold.
There has been a lot of changes to the electoral system without referenda.
However I agree any big changes should be subject to referendum.
In fact we should have Swiss style binding referendums.
No doubt National will call that “Democracy under attack”, also.
Swiss style binding referendums flies in the face of a Representative democracy.
They still have are representative democracy though, the people just have more voice.
This is a bad thing in your opinion?
Effectively the people, act like an upper house.
This is a bad thing in your opinion?
It certainly is in mine. Swiss law was changed to enfranchise women in 1971. See if you can figure out why it didn’t happen before then…
@Milt
Yes, it was:
So some localities used their direct democracy to institute full enfranchisement earlier than the state as a whole.
I’m not sure this late adoption on a federal level can be put down to the difference between representative and direct democracy.
A lot of southern European states were amongst the last to enact full enfranchisement.
Because a majority, of voters, in their conservative society, were opposed.
In New Zealand the public supported votes for women, and it was Parliament which held it up.
It is irrelevant now, because we already have a universal franchise, except for prisoners, whose voting rights were removed by about 60 people in Parliament,
Just because we, personally don’t like a democratic decision, is not an argument against democracy.
In fact you can see parallels with the opposition to the Chartists.
“Ordinary people cannot be trusted with power”.
I’m not sure this late adoption on a federal level can be put down to the difference between representative and direct democracy.
You may not be, but I’m drawing a direct link between male voters being the ones polled in referenda on the subject, and women not getting the vote until 1971. NZ women were lucky we had representative democracy rather than binding referenda. The majority of eligible voters is not always right.
Two more examples while I’m at it.
1. Suppose National had put the disenfranchisement of prison inmates to a binding referendum, rather than just passing a law. Most people don’t like prison inmates, so it would certainly have passed. As it stands, the current or any future government can re-enfranchise prisoners, but a referendum would ensured prison inmates were permanently disenfranchised.
2. The very subject under discussion: the 5% threshold. Most people support the two main parties, so are dismissive of smaller parties and don’t care that people on the fringes of politics have their votes discarded and effectively redistributed to the major parties at every election. Tyranny of the majority is very much A Thing.
@ Milt
Yes I can see there is an issue there, but to counter; There was a a referendum on asset sales which the majority rejected, but was ignored by our ‘representatives’. So it cuts both ways. I’m not advocating for a complete direct democracy, but the one of the problems of democracy in general is the Tyranny of the Majority.
At present we have a “Tyranny of a minority”.
About 60 odd people who are stupid enough to want to be MP’s.
How is that better?
And, binding referenda do get reversed, more often than some of Parliaments stupidity, in fact.
California’s reversal of tax cuts, for example.
“not be, but I’m drawing a direct link between male voters being the ones polled in referenda on the subject, and women not getting the vote until 1971. NZ women were lucky we had representative democracy rather than binding referenda. The majority of eligible voters is not always right.”
New Zealand males were behind the women’s franchise, it was Parliament that dragged the chain.
So. In our case, with binding referenda, they would likely have got the vote, earlier.
Your arguments against binding referenda were also used against universal franchise.
What they basically amount too, is, “We cannot give a vote to the peasants, they may not vote the same way is us.
Interesting hearing the same excuses trotted out by the Aristocracy, against the Chartists in the TV, series, Victoria.
The excuses why people should not be allowed to decide their own destiny are as self serving now, as they were, then.
They seem to manage it fine.
However, “”Representative Democracy” is long gone, when parties sign the TPPA and rush through asset sales, to give but two examples, against overwhelming public opposition.
“rush through asset sales”.
What on earth are you talking about?
It can’t possibly be the selling of parts of the Power Companies. After all National announced their proposal during their 2008 – 2011 term. They said that they would do it only if they won the 2011 election. Well they won and they finally sold the minority shareholding a couple of years later.
The Greens are trying to push through a change to the Electoral Act in order to try and save their seats in Parliament. They are absolutely petrified that they will be booted out at the next election and they will do almost anything to save their jobs.
Oh. Yes. The idea you have a mandate for a particular policy. Because it was “your turn” to win an election.
That is not “Democracy”.
It is rotating dictatorship.
If Labour was to win the next election do you think that they will have a mandate to implement a CGT?
I would say yes, given it was something that they had spelled out clearly before the election. If however they drop it, or water it down dramatically prior to the election I would say they had no right to go the full monty afterward.
Not if they cannot persuade a majority, in a fair debate, that it is a good idea.
However we do need to make sure that everyone is informed.
Not propagandized.
If you don’t like it, you can get petition numbers for a binding referendum against it. If we adopted the Swiss model.
Take away the party loyalist effect, where some will vote for any policy their party supports, and just vote on policies.
How did you manage to contact her?
I have tried to contact a number of Green MPs on a number of occasions but they never reply. Far to busy going on overseas jaunts I suppose.
The also claim to have representatives who act as “shadow” representatives for electorates but they don’t have any electorate offices and they don’t publish who the “representatives” are.
Same as always. Facebook, email, or website.
However how and who to contact are on the Green party website.
Much easier to talk to than most of the labour or National MP’s.
“Far to busy going on overseas jaunts I suppose”
Couldn’t contact The Greens, Alwyn?
Perhaps they saw you coming.
Probably they did. I didn’t come bearing pots of gold or chanting “How great thou art” while bowing down to Marama so they wouldn’t be very keen to see me.
I have observed that the more rabid Green enthusiasts seem to be only willing to talk to their own kind.
You are an exception. You are willing to discuss, even if not terribly logically, your views.
By the way if big money donations are corrupting I trust you will have a word with the Green Party hierarchy.
The biggest, and it was by far the biggest, donation received by any New Zealand Political Party in 2018 was one of $350,000 to — THE GREEN PARTY.
At least it was the biggest I found in a fairly cursory look. I think it is accurate though.
I will have that word, Alwyn. I understand the donation was received upon the passing-away of the donor so if somehow she’s presently pressuring The Greens to do something undemocratic, we need to sort this spooky stuff out right away!
I was aware where it came from Robert.
The Green Party should really take the concept of control the grave seriously though Robert. The concept of Gaia as being a living being seems to be quite common among Green supporters isn’t it.
You know the idea. If I release to much CO2 then Gaia will be hurt. That Gaia is a living being who cares about what we do.
Well I’m afraid I regard that as being in the same category of spookiness. Anyone who can adopt the idea of Gaia existing can equally accept the idea of life after death and Ghosts haunting us.
On a similar tack did you happen to hear one of the “three minute” talks on RNZ last Sunday (I think).
This proposed the Kauri die back was happening because the trees were sentient beings who were unhappy because the knew, somehow, that there brethren had been cut down. The die back was simply their grieving.
Something like that anyway. He seemed to think that if we apologized to the trees everything would get better. It was something along those lines anyway. I found listening to his tripe for even 3 minutes was to long and went off and did something useful.
A Green Party friend of mind assured me later that it all made sense and apologies should be made.
Alwyn – I sometimes enjoy your comments, but in this instance, your views are not terribly logical; in fact, reading the bilious things, I found myself transported back to my childhood and the stomach-turning experience of being in the kitchen whilst my father cooked tripe and onions.
Prolly just blocked your number wally.
Will the reduction of the MMP threshold to 4% adversely affect our democratic system?
I imagine the main reason the Nats and their media acolytes are getting their knickers in a twist is because their strategy is to kick both NZ First and the Greens out of the equation and replace them with this new fake blue/green party.
Can’t help being amused by the difference in reaction. When the Nats were faced with the question of changing the threshold there was none of the hollering. Sure Collins put her foot down but nobody screamed “corruption” at the Nats for considering it.
And while on the subject of the Greens:
What’s with this campaign against Golriz Ghahraman? Is it because she comes from a Muslim back-ground?
I imagine the main reason the Nats and their media acolytes are getting their knickers in a twist is because their strategy is to kick both NZ First and the Greens out of the equation and replace them with this new fake blue/green party.
I believe so too. Hooton’s fury at this is surprising, until you take into account what a big stick it would put in the spokes of National’s political strategy.
well you go look at the No Mates Party and its members and it makes sense why they would attack a highly educated young women, who has a career out of politics waiting for her – one that is not a ‘given cushy job’ aka donor welfare, young and thus at the beginning of her career in parliament and party (!!), and you can see why the No Mates Party is spitting nails. The best they have to show is Judith Oravida, Paula Benefits, Nick No houses Smith, Simon NO Bridges, Amy Irigiation Adams and the likes.
Its sad to be a Party without Friends, Talent, and Youth.
Thank you Sabine, for the reminder of the white coats less the logos NATZ, of the company they represent
Anything that would harm national will be rejected by those who support them, so national have to put up a front to oppose change here.
To have new minimum party vote threshold will allow ‘diversity’ and national always loved speaking about ‘diversity’ when they held the reigns right?
One rule for everyone not just for the rich.
Ditch the threshold and eliminate the argument.
The campaign against Ghahraman is not because she is a Muslim but because she is massively sanctimonious.
Bull.
It is because she is a intelligent, articulate and effective young woman.
Whose experiences have left her with a great deal of compassion.
The unethical and selfish don’t like having their faults highlighted.
Yeah because the right wing hates highly intelligent, articulate, and effective young women and have never promoted any such person to positions of authority. /sarc
“Never a truer word, been spoken in jest”.
The last one was Marilyn Waring.
As for sanctimonious. Never heard Paula Bennett, on welfare recipients?
Marilyn. A good National Party MP, while it lasted.
You certainly wouldn’t have had someone like that chosen as a Labour Party candidate at the time she came to the fore. For the first 2 of her 3 terms she got on very well with Rob. He wasn’t prejudiced against people of her views until very late in his time in power.
Did the lefties not learn anything from the last time you tried to make unilateral changes to electoral law? Any move to do so without getting broad consensus from across the spectrum enables the other side to attack you in the most nasty and brutal manner and paint you as enemies of democracy. This is why it should be avoided unless there is a really strong case for doing so. I see no strong case being made yet.
I can see a strong case for ditching the threshold, and getting rid of undue influence.
4% not so much.
However proposals for electoral change has always come from one party.
The public are usually for anything, which reduces the overall power of politicians and undue influence.
The people weren’t impressed with the last effort in this area. The Government lost the next election partially as a result.
Nothing to do with unending propaganda and deliberate manipulation. Eh?
“Labour tried that. The reaction from the right makes their reaction to the CGT, look mild. “Democracy under attack” headlines, for example. The NACT’s went totally ballistic over the chance that they couldn’t buy elections, and politicians.”
“Democracy under attack” FFS.
Even if your narrative was correct (which it isn’t) why give ammunition to your opponents to run “unending propaganda and deliberate manipulation”?
The only way to do that is never do anything, the right dislike.
“enables the other side to attack you in the most nasty and brutal manner and paint you as enemies of democracy”.
You got it.
Because the National side are into lying, cheating and manipulating their way into power, helped by their millions in electoral bribes/sorry, funding from millionaires who care about democracy.
Yeah, whatever…
Unilateral changes that apparently require a 75% super-majority or a referendum?
You mean these previous changes to electoral law were ok, but from now on it requires a super majority
Electoral (Administration) Amendment Act 2010
Electoral (Administration) Amendment Act 2011
Electoral Amendment Act 2009
Electoral Amendment Act 2010
Electoral Amendment Act 2013
Electoral Amendment Act 2014
Electoral Amendment Act 2017
Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010
Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Act 2010
Which party changed the Election law virtually every year from 2009-2017
How many of these changes were controversial?
So, we’ve now shifted to changes to electoral law only needing clear public support or cross-party agreement if right-wingers find them controversial. What demonstrated public demand or cross-party support was there for disenfranchising prisoners, for instance?
I stated that changes in the electoral law need cross party support and/or to be backed by a referendum. Do you have evidence these law changes did not have cross party support?
The Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 was highly controversial (because it breaches NZ’s Bill of Rights Act) and only two parties voted for it: National and ACT.
This certainly was
Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Act 2010
So its OK if some of nationals law changes arent controversial, that overcomes the controversial ones?
This shoots your down your fake consensus position…. its about National getting what it wants.
They want to skip the boundaries change too- as they would be disadvantaged by it and would mostly affect rural and provincial MPs…someone would miss out in musical chairs.
Wheres the groundswell/consensus for that change. ( electorate seats have a 5% variation in numbers so dont require super accurate census numbers)
116 MP’s voted for the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Act 2010 on it’s third reading. The only people who didn’t were Act and 5 NZ First MP’s. Please tell me why this change did not have broad cross party support?
…and here goes the Gosman passive aggressive troll technique of asking a seemingly simple question while making a statement that he doesn’t have to defend. Nobody knows the answer to this without having to do the investigative work. It seems like an innocent question and Gos can reserve the possibility that he knows the answer when he obviously doesn’t.
If Duke or anyone else makes the effort to find out, and say they show that a number of these amendments were indeed controversial, Gos will then trot out his logical fallacy routine to circularise the argument.
yep …its called the gosman gallop here .. after the other false premise, the gish gallop.
Cheers Duke – the gosman gallop – excellent.
I don’t understand why anyone engages with Gosman. It never once improves a thread.
“the other side to attack you in the most nasty and brutal manner”
Doesn’t sound very “good faithy”, does it.
If the overhang provision is abolished, what happens in the case of, say, the 2008 election where the Maori Party won 5 electorates but only 2.39% of the party vote (3 seats worth) and there was an overhang of 2 seats? Does the number of seats to be allocated by the Sainte-Lague process get reduced to 118?
For my two cents worth, I’d prefer to see the overhang kept, but the holders of overhang seats made ineligible for confidence and supply votes.
I’m also a big fan of reducing the threshold to 0.83% – if a party wins one seat’s worth of the nationwide vote, then dammit it deserves to have its voice in Parliament.
Yes so why not get a groundswell of support for this then?
Umm there was? The 2012 review included public consultation and its recommendations include what the public asked for… just because National stomped all over democracy (under attack!) doesn’t mean it wasn’t there
There was a groundswell of support for reducing the threshold to 0.8.3% in 2012??? I must have missed that.
No .
It cant affect seats which are electorates( overhangs) , only list Mps who arrive via someone else winning a seat.
So the 2014 election had MP with one electorate seat and 1 coat tail seat as they were below 5%. The coattail MP wouldnt be selected in the distribution process
I shoulda reread the Electoral Commission final report before commenting.
p 21 of https://www.elections.org.nz/sites/default/files/bulk-upload/documents/Final_Report_2012_Review_of_MMP.pdf
sorry , I thought you meant ‘overhang MPs’ missout , but it seems that list mps would miss out to maintain parliament at 120.
Coat tail MPS are easy to remove, the party wouldnt be included in the distribution.
I believe that the intent was to deprive some other party, possibly on the other side of the house of some of their members. Yes, if I am right the 119 and 120 members would have missed out.
In this case the Green Party and the National Party would have each lost a member.
Hardly seems fair does it?
Not directly connected to this post but still relevant.
Duncan Garner interviews Vernon Tava:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/03/vernon-tava-s-plan-to-always-be-in-government.html
The give away imo is his intention to always… go with the party which gets the most votes.
Either he is ignorant or deceitful.
MMP is about the division between Left and Right – not so much about individual parties. Currently the Right only has one viable party to vote for and that is National with a tiny boutique party on the side. Therefore National gets virtually all of the Right vote. The Left has two viable parties plus a centre party currently veering in their direction. Therefore the Left vote is divided up between them with a majority favouring Labour. So, based on current political party realities which don’t look like changing any time soon:
This “Teal Party” will always go with National.
Anne,
Not a reasonable conclusion. From what I can see, his party could go both ways. If there were two green parties in parliament and they held the balance of power, there would be a real debate within them as to which way they would go.
At the moment, the one green party is welded to Labour, in part because there is only one green party, which is very clearly a left party. Having said that, Vernon Tava has a huge hill to climb to get to 5%, or even 4%.
Wayne. “Go with the party that gets the most votes”.
In his own words.
Currently that is Labour if the opinion polls translate at the next election
One Green party, one pretend Green party, and Labour.
Could be interesting.
yes . As someone says the ‘sticker’ says ‘sustainable greens’ but underneath that sticker is the older one that says ‘Green Tories’
“Green Tories”
The result of an off batch of G&T’s?
The mind boggles. 😯
If the polls translate at the next election. I imagine that would pose quite a dilemma for Vernon Tava and friends.
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/100-SEEDS-Chinese-Heriloom-Water-Melon-Blue-inside-Green-outside-very-Sweet-Juicy-Watermelon-Seeds-fruit/32710105195.html
The Chinese heirloom watermelon party. Won’t get above the threshold. Also will get more National votes than Green.
National may have just shot themselves in the foot.
Heh. Had a look at the listing.
“Sorry, this item is no longer available.”
Very apt.
there would be a real debate within them as to which way they would go.
Ummmm, nope. There would be a big discussion in the Greens as to whether they could support a government led by the pollution party but that would come back with a big not on your nelly as it always does. The Tava party then would have to decide if they really were centrist and could thus support a Labour led government, or just the nat stooge that they so obviously are.
I’ve a feeling Vernon Tava’s principles are elastic enough to accommodate pretty much any kind of coalition, as long as some kind of bauble falls his way – for all that associate minister for brown kvetching seems about his speed.
Vernon Tava couldn’t get enough Greens to support him as co-leader, so how can anyone expect him to succeed at his own party? National donors can only help so much without bleeding their own votes which are already looking shaky against Labour.
I think he’s both ignorant and deceitful. MMP negotiations have nothing to do with going with the party with the most votes, and IF he’s ever in a position to negotiate, I guarantee he won’t give up his voters’ power by saying “welp, that party has the most votes, no negotiations needed folks!”
He’s a slimy little touchy man.
Re: the threshold: it was part of the independent recommendation, and will apply to all parties if implemented. Might benefit Greens, might not. The original recommendation was 3% and Bradbury is rather hysterically saying it ought to be even lower to be fair if the Greens rilly cared about fairness, but do you think the public would approve of really low thresholds, given how they grizzle about the party power in the Coalition even with 5%?
Re: donations – Just like for advertising – if money didn’t make a difference, why does so much money get donated? Are all these givers just thinking ‘How can I spend my riches and make no difference at all…?’ Why have any rules or even solicit donations if money donated is meaningless?
“The National Party received almost $4.6 million in donations in the lead up to the last election – three times more money than it was allowed to spend in the campaign.”
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/103655890/the-national-party-was-donated-three-times-more-money-than-labour-last-year–but-labour-won
(criminally misleading tagline, btw – National bought more votes but Labour won the MMP negotiations with other parties)
‘The “demand” to buy political influence has also risen. With the increase in worldwide inequality and kleptocracy, there are more rich people for whom buying influence is the norm. Specifically in New Zealand, there has been an influx of wealthy expatriates from China, where buying influence is an accepted practice. They often retain close links to the Chinese Communist Party, which runs an authoritarian, anti-democratic and oppressive regime. It is thus not surprising that issues of donations and foreign influence are increasingly entering into domestic political debates.’
And of course, there’s Peter Thiel, whose citizenship should by all rights be revoked.
https://theconversation.com/new-zealand-politics-foreign-donations-and-political-influence-105489
Which review said 3% ? . the 2012 one said 4%.
I checked the 1986 Royal Commission , it too said 4% with some dispensation for maori.
Apologies for quoting Hooton, but that’s where I got the figure from – first suggesting possibly 3% in section 1.28 then adjusting to 4% for the actual recommendation. It’s deep in the thread and I’m not sure I can make a better link.
I’m not arguing for 3%.
https://twitter.com/MatthewHootonNZ/status/1102305733515841536
Arguing to reduce the threshold even further is mostly a cover for those hoping MMP will fail under the weight of the tiny fringe voices with nothing to lose.
This petition seems identical to a petition by Action Station from November 2018. What’s the connection?
I was at a water protest and there were quite a few of the Rod Donald leftwing type NZ characters there, speaking and what not.
So a question is, how is Marama’s mandated reform of Green party internal functioning coming along?
Changes to electoral law should not be made without the overwhelming support of all parties in parliament.
I’m surprised !
Surely The Green Party requires heaps of donated cash to get the messages out about climate change, melting pole caps, drowning Indians in there delta area, Pacific Islands disappearing, Oil and Gas closure = the list goes on.
Otherwise nobody will know the future grandchildren will have drowned or choked on jet fuel nasty gases etc that the Party leaders spayed over the world the last couple of years.
5% is a tough hurdle to clear for fabricated political movements.
Anarchist media is one thing, but an anarchist representative system also, no thanks.
2.5% threshold.
We would all get involved at that level, “extremists” (whoever they are) would be a bit isolated and the rest of us could get along arguing and bitching at each other as usual.
Rule the Standard!
lprent 5/3 8.41am
Thanks Lynn I thought that was a very good explanation of your thoughts about possible changes to electoral law. It seems that a cautious downward threshhold to 4% would be a help to better government.
I didn’t like the personal jabs that were malicious from Stunned Mullet. I dislike the poisonous tone that these RW commenters bring. The one thing they provide perhaps is a sort of inoculation keeping our immune system going that protects against the greater level of shittiness from the stinging Gnats out there in our lovely country.
‘to overturn the prisoner voting ban to give everyone the right to vote’
No no no no no no no, a thousands times no, a pox on the houses of anyone that even votes for this
But seriously this is an absolute, unequivocal no, this is a very bad idea.
Why?
Most democracies give convicted criminals the same voting rights as other citizens.
Because people that break the law and are convicted to a custodial sentence should have no say in how laws are made, the actions they’ve taken means they’ve forfeited some of their rights and one of those is the right to vote.
Once they’ve served their time and been deemed to have all their rights returned to them then yes they can vote but not before
The big part of my problem with this idea is that it’s against our Bill of Rights.
Also we over-incarcerate poor and brown people, so why only custodial sentences? Why not anyone convicted of a serious crime? People convicted of financial crimes are often not incarcerated but people in possession of cannabis often are. What about this discrepancy?
Good point, anyone on home d also loses the right to vote (if they already have it) until their sentence is served
My personal preference would be to restore the right of (most) prisoners to vote in NZ general elections.
It’s not an appropriate punishment in a democracy, and particularly for those serving shorter sentences. It works against future reintegration into society. At the very least voting rights should be restored for prisoners who are serving custodial sentences of <3 years duration.
I see no sense in the current situation in which the voting rights of those serving shortish (< 3 year) prison sentences are determined solely by the date of their incarceration.
For example, if I’d been imprisoned in January 2015 for a period of 1 year, then I could have voted in the 2017 general election. If, however, I’d been imprisoned for the same period in January 2017, I couldn’t have voted in the 2017 general election.
I tend to view it as the National party being scared shitless of Maori voters.
As an explanation it makes more sense than your rationalization.
Do most of us know how recently short-term prisoners lost their vote? 2010! Gee, who was in power then? And as mentioned, the conflict with our Bill of Rights and our cute habit of overattention to the brown folks?
‘The 2010 Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act removed the right to vote from all serving prisoners in New Zealand. Prior to this, a ban on prisoner voting applied only to incarcerated people serving a sentence of three or more years. At the time, the removal of all prisoners’ access to the ballot was, in the opinion of then Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, “unjustifiably inconsistent with the electoral rights affirmed by s 12 of the Bill of Rights Act.”
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/03/opinion-why-prisoners-should-have-the-right-to-vote.html?ref=ves-nextauto