The new Green Ministers and Undersecretary

60 comments on “The new Green Ministers and Undersecretary ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Antoine 1

   28 October 2017 at 7:52 am

   Very good
2. DSpare 2

   28 October 2017 at 9:02 am

   I’m not up with the machinations of the Green’s Wellington negotiators, but why exactly is Marama Davidson excluded from a ministerial position? Deputy Musterer to Hughes is pretty weak (especially considering the imminent female coleader contest). Minister for Women would seem to be a better fit for her than Genter – who seems a better fit with her other two associate ministerships.

   Also, looking at the profiles on the GP website shows that the spokesperson roles have been dumped on the six returning MPs so hopefully Swarbuck and Ghahramen get allocated something soon.
   https://www.greens.org.nz/ourpeople
   • weka 2.1

     28 October 2017 at 9:48 am

     They only had 4 people allowed positions so I guess the question is why did the other MPs get positions over Davidson and Hughes. I don’t know but I would hazard a guess that it’s about seniority in the party and experience with the portfolios on offer. Not that Davidson isn’t experienced but that the other MPs have had more time in parliament. Apart from Shaw, but as co-leader he was always going to get a significant position.

     I also wonder if Davidson will get the female co-leadership next year (members vote) and if it will serve the Greens well to have such an excellent and by then high ranked MP outside of government and thus able to speak more freely. I’m thinking particularly on welfare this will be useful. I don’t think that’s why she isn’t a Minister now (the caucus can’t pre-empt what the members will decide next year), but it’s still an interesting proposition.
     • DSpare 2.1.1

       28 October 2017 at 12:12 pm

       It seems less likely now that Davidson will get the female co-leadership next year, given that their ministerial positions will give Genter and Sage much higher status and visibility. I seem to remember that Delahunty used to be spokesperson for woman’s affairs before her retirement (more willing than some of her then colleagues). But I didn’t think to take a screenshot of the pre-election spokesperson roles last year, and couldn’t find them in a cursory search this morning.

       While Genter certainly has; “seniority in the party”, she doesn’t have as much; “experience with the portfolios on offer” regarding Woman’s Affairs (transport she is solid on, and I seem to recall her going up against Coleman on health a few times after Hague bowed out). I guess it is part of the C&S deal that they only get four ministerial positions, but would have been a better use of the GP expertise to have say; Davidson as Minister for Women (given her background), with Genter as associate Minister for Transport and Health. Plus maybe Hughes as associate Minister for the environment, instead of spreading Sage too thin (though at least her portfolios are more intertwined than Genter’s three – except maybe to women travelling to a hospital?).
       • weka 2.1.1.1

         28 October 2017 at 12:26 pm

         I’m wondering if they negotiated for 3 Ministers and one Undersecretary, and then the various roles were given out based on that. i.e. they could only have 4 MPs involved, despite their being more than 4 roles. I assume that the Minister roles are seen as a priority over the Associate Minister ones?

         So with your suggestions that would mean,

         Shaw
         Davidson
         Hughes
         Genter

         and not Sage or Logie.

         Re the website, try this,

         https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.greens.org.nz/ourpeople

         This one is from April,

         https://web.archive.org/web/20170406132415/https://www.greens.org.nz/ourpeople

         Logie was Spokesperson for Women (under her Social Development portfolio).
       • Carolyn_nth 2.1.1.2

         28 October 2017 at 5:41 pm

         Hah! elect this woman co-leader now! [not a GP member, me].
         • weka 2.1.1.2.1

           28 October 2017 at 5:53 pm

           I’d be happy with Davidson as co-leader, but honestly, I’d like to see the party go through due process, including the various candidates (not limited to MPs) putting up the reasons they would do a good job and then have that discussed and voted on (from memory it’s not a party wide vote but is done via the regions).
           • Zorb6 2.1.1.2.1.1

             28 October 2017 at 8:40 pm

             That’s a rather long sentence there Weka Makes it a lot harder to read .Maybe a more reader friendly format would be better.
             • weka …

               28 October 2017 at 8:54 pm

               Sure.

               I’d be happy with Davidson as co-leader.

               But honestly, I’d like to see the party go through due process.

               This would include the various candidates, who won’t be limited to MPs, putting up the reasons they would do a good job.

               Then the party would discuss and vote on who should be co-leader.

               (from memory it’s not a party wide vote but is done via the regions).
             • cathy …

               29 October 2017 at 11:22 am

               short attention span?
   • Trey 2.2

     28 October 2017 at 5:59 pm

     I was also disappointed that Marama Davidson was overlooked. Firstly because she is friggin awesome and also the most “real” MP the greens have and secondly as a Maori I like to see our people get the recognition they deserve.
     The line up looks very white and very middle class without Maramas presence so what message does that send to Maori who voted Green.
3. cleangreen 3

   28 October 2017 at 9:09 am

   We in HB/Gisborne are expecting the Greens to help ‘facilitate’ the restoration of our damaged Gisborne rail system to be restored and expect Julie Anne Genter will be now meeting with the new Minister of Transport Phil Twyford, along with Shane Jones Minister of Regional Development and most importantly Winston Peters the Deputy PM, and Minister of SOE.

   Why the minister of SOE?
   Because it was the SOE Kiwi rail’s Board and Management that ultimately caused the washout damage to force the closure of our rail in 2012 and Winston is duty bound to sack some of the Kiwirail personnel that damaged our rail.

   It was Kiwi rail that admitted in 2013 before a “Select committee” on Transport that the reduction by Government to fund rail mainainence was partly responsible for the Gisborne rail to be washed out.

   So it was National that was reponsible for the destruction of the one km of rail along the most attractive scenery (beach loop) along any beach in the country that thousands of tourists before this flocked to on rail excusions in large numbers, and national stopped this economic tourism windfall potential in it’s tracks????.

   (See below) Phil Twyford’s press statement after he attended that select committee and witnessed Kiwi rail admit government caused the rail damage.

   ‘The buck stops at Steven Joyces door’ as he was then Minister of Transport and effectively over saw the destruction of a section of our rail asset.

   Let us see a press release from the labour coalition state they are reopenning our rail service again – as northland last night just had their line reopenned too.

   http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1302/S00183/kiwirail-admits-lack-of-maintenance-led-to-wash-out.htm

   Thursday, 14 February 2013, 1:35 pm
   Press Release: New Zealand Labour Party
   Phil Twyford
   Transport Spokesperson
   14 February 2013
   KiwiRail admits lack of maintenance led to wash-out
   KiwiRail has admitted that its failure to maintain old and damaged culverts was behind the wash out that closed the Gisborne-Napier line, while cuts to its maintenance budget are putting the network at further risk, Labour’s Transport spokesperson Phil Twyford says.
   “Across the country KiwiRail missed its target of replacing 71 old culverts last year, and only replaced 49. This is cause for alarm.
   “The Gisborne-Napier wash-out shows what happens when essential maintenance work is not carried out.
   “KiwiRail cut and deferred $200 million of network maintenance last year. At the very time it needs to be upgrading its network and improving efficiency, the Government’s unrealistic ‘Turn Around Plan’ is putting enormous stress on the organisation and forcing it to cut maintenance.
   “KiwiRail has told Parliament’s transport committee it has 12,197 rail line culverts around the country and has done a risk assessment identifying 53 high priority culverts but ‘…in spite of every effort to mitigate risk, some incidents of wash out may still occur…’
   “National’s plan for rail is not workable. KiwiRail has missed its financial targets for two of the last three years. It is being forced to make cuts that are a false economy.
   “At a time when the Government is wasting billions of dollars on its ‘motorways of madness’, it makes no sense to cripple the national rail line.”
   ENDS
4. Patricia Bremner 4

   28 October 2017 at 9:45 am

   Those who hoped for better attitudes to rail must be heartened by the change of government.

   Not everything will start even in the 100 days. But to quote our Rachel “it will happen”
5. Cinny 5

   28 October 2017 at 10:16 am

   So freakin happy about these appointments, this could well be the best, most loved Government NZ has ever had.

   Love the Greens, massive congrats to them all, so very proud to be a Kiwi with such an inspiring team leading our country.
6. Zorb6 6

   28 October 2017 at 12:54 pm

   6 women and 2 men.Not a very good gender balance.,)
   • weka 6.1

     28 October 2017 at 1:34 pm

     Looks balanced to me.
   • tracey 6.2

     28 October 2017 at 1:37 pm

     But, if I recall correctly ( and I apologise if I am confusing you with another poster) you think a man patting a woman on the bum is flirtation from which a woman has no right to take offence….

     That is what equality actually might look like when you give jobs on skill not conscious or unconscious bias
     • Zorb6 6.2.1

       28 October 2017 at 2:50 pm

       The bum patting ‘incident’ was unsubstantiated hearsay.The poster of that commentary cherry picked from an article to mislead.Deliberately it would appear.As to my comment on this thread-am I mistaken in believing Green policy is to have a gender balance?You know like a male and a female co-leader,sort of thing.
       • tracey 6.2.1.1

         28 October 2017 at 4:03 pm

         Perhaps your mistake is in how you are defining equality but feel free to direct me to a quote which suggests the Greens MPS should be 50% male and 50% female? Which is different from having a female and male coleader.

         The comment I meant has nothing to do with whether a woman or man are telling the truth about a green room incident but more about your view on women in relation to how you show them you like them

         “Sometimes things can go too far.The procreation of the human race would be in danger if social intercourse is outlawed as a pre cursor to sexual intercourse.No male could make an approach for fear of being categorised as engaging in inappropriate conduct.’Good morning,you’re looking lovely today’!How dare you,you chauvinistic,sexist ,potential nuisance. “
         • Zorb6 6.2.1.1.1

           28 October 2017 at 4:29 pm

           Here you are… https://www.greens.org.nz/news/press-release/greens-will-ensure-gender-balance-cabinet
           • Sam aka clump 6.2.1.1.1.1

             28 October 2017 at 4:34 pm

             What ever nub. Kennedy and Clendon resigned rember? Blows those calculations out of the water. But who gives a shit. The Greens are in.
           • tracey 6.2.1.1.1.2

             28 October 2017 at 4:38 pm

             Given the context of the article you quoted, how has 2 female Green Cab ministers to 1 male Green Cab Minister impacted the gender balance of the Govt cabinet? Is it more gender balanced now or less?
             • Zorb6 …

               28 October 2017 at 4:41 pm

               I can see no useful purpose will be served by engaging you on this topic.You have a recalcitrant mindset on anything to do with gender.
               • McFlock …

                 28 October 2017 at 5:04 pm

                 lol
                 So that would be a “more balanced”.
               • Tracey …

                 28 October 2017 at 5:27 pm

                 Projecting much?
             • Zorb6 …

               28 October 2017 at 4:44 pm

               Furthermore its 3 to 1.75% women,25% male.Knock yourself out.
               • tracey …

                 28 October 2017 at 5:38 pm

                 I wrote ” text of the article you quoted, how has 2 female Green Cab ministers to 1 male Green Cab Minister ”

                 You say there are 4 Green Cabinet Ministers.

                 There are not. 1 is an under secretary. So I stand by the 2 to 1
                 • Zorb6 …

                   28 October 2017 at 5:43 pm

                   Wrong again I’m sorry-‘The Greens will take the conservation, climate change and women and land information portfolios, and associate roles in finance, environment, transport and health – all outside of Cabinet.’-Outside Cabinet.Good game isn’t it?
                   • weka …

                     28 October 2017 at 5:47 pm

                     Being outside of Cabinet has its advantages.
                   • tracey …

                     28 October 2017 at 5:49 pm

                     You are right they are Ministers not Cabinet Ministers. I was wrong.

                     You are wrong that there are 4 of them though. There are not 3 women ministers and 1 male minister.

                     Now can you explain your reason for finding fault in the 6 to 2 balance and 2 to 1 minister ratio?
                 • Zorb6 …

                   28 October 2017 at 6:06 pm

                   On we go.There are actually 5 ministries.Shaw holds 2 and women hold 3.Everyone wins a prize.I hope you liked the link I provided.You will appreciate the %’s mentioned would appear to over ride any objective opinion of merit.
                   • tracey …

                     28 October 2017 at 6:28 pm

                     There are only 3 Ministers. Period.

                     Can you outline your reasons for concern over the 3 to 1 ( using your definitions) and the 6 to 2? What problem do you e nvisage? How and what is this going to negatively impact?

                     Are you saying that having a minimum quota necessitates utilising people who do not merit the position? An interesting view if you do. My understanding is the Greens seek out, encourage and provide an environment which is something those groups feel comfortable to come forward which is not the same as giving positions to people who do not merit it. In other words quota does not preclude merit. If it does that is on the recruiter not the tecruited
           • weka 6.2.1.1.1.3

             28 October 2017 at 4:59 pm

             I’ll explain if you like. That link says that half of Green cabinet Ministers will be women. This doesn’t mean that half have to be men as well. It means that the Greens recognise that women face structural barriers to being in parliament which results in low numbers of women in cabinets and that it’s good to use remedies to redress that.

             The way the GP do this is when the List is being drawn up, they use the following rules. The members vote in an initial list and the Exec adjust it within limits afterwards. This means that there will roughly be gender equity in the list, but it’s not an enforced 50/50 split (that would be hard to do and work against a number of other factors).

             • Māori: a minimum of 10% of candidates shall be of Māori descent. •Gender:amaximumof60%ofcandidatesshallbemale;amaximum of60%of candidates shall be female.
             • Region: a minimum of 40% of candidates shall be from the North Island; a minimum of 20% of candidates shall be from the South Island.
             • Age: a minimum of 10% of the candidates shall be under 35.

             As you will see this works for men too. Once MPs are elected the GP has a pool of people to work with, in this case 6 women and 2 men.

             Here is the 2017 GP list, so you can see how the gender balance of MPs would fall with more or less MPs, and as has been mentioned if two male MPs hadn’t been taken off the list.

             https://www.greens.org.nz/green-party-aotearoa-new-zealand-list-2017

             At this point, post-election, the Greens can’t adjust for gender, because the voters decided already on which MPs are in.

             In terms of Ministerial positions etc, I think that what the Greens are saying is there will never be less then 50% women, because they recognise that women are blocked from those positions routinely. As some time in the future when we don’t have institutional sexism, such processes probably won’t be necessary, but in the meantime they are.

             As for the rest of the party, it has co-leaders, co-convenors etc who are split female/male e.g. you would never have to female co-leaders.

             Also, you conflate the caucus balance with the cabinet balance.

             edited to add link.
             • Zorb6 …

               28 October 2017 at 5:27 pm

               Thanks. So is the Cabinet balance 3 women 1 male?

               This- ‘I’ll explain if you like. That link says that half of Green cabinet Ministers will be women. This doesn’t mean that half have to be men as well.”

               So does that allow for trans genders or?

               And of course Tracey is clearly wrong here- “That is what equality actually might look like when you give jobs on skill not conscious or unconscious bias”.

               this is imo quite bizarre.

               Actual %’s-
               Māori: a minimum of 10% of candidates shall be of Māori descent.

               Gender: a maximum of 60%ofcandidates shall be male; a maximum of 60% of candidates shall be female.
               • Region: a minimum of 40% of candidates shall be from the North Island; a minimum of 20% of candidates shall be from the South Island.
               • Age: a minimum of 10% of the candidates shall be under 35.

               Btw I actually voted Greens this election.I did not want them to disappear. I hope fervent Green supporters will not turn out to be the most vocal opposition undermining this coalition Govt ,just because they do not agree with some of their initiatives.

               [edited formatting for legibility – weka]
               • tracey …

                 28 October 2017 at 5:33 pm

                 Can you be clearer about what you object to in 6 to 2?
               • weka …

                 28 October 2017 at 5:46 pm

                 Can you please take more care with your formatting? It’s hard to understand what you are saying.

                 “So is the Cabinet balance 3 women 1 male?”

                 Technically the Greens aren’t in Cabinet. But of the positions they were able to negotiate with Labour, there are three Ministers (2 women, 1 man), one Under-secretary (1 woman). There is also the Party Musterer (1 man). That’s three women and two men out of five positions. Looks good to me.

                 No, the policy doesn’t take into account transgender, intersex etc. But given their commitment to fairness I would expect them to deal with that within the existing policy, and/or develop new policy as it becomes necessary.
                 • Zorb6 …

                   28 October 2017 at 6:11 pm

                   My apologies for being hard to understand.English is my first language.I hope you don’t expect contributors to all have your mastery of grammar ,syntax and ‘format’.That would be far too much to expect.Surprised to see the party musterer now makes the cut.After all I was admonished for citing an under secretary!
                   • weka …

                     28 October 2017 at 6:15 pm

                     All good. I think even if you just put more spaces between things it would help e.g. start a new line with a gap in between.

                     If we look at your original comment,

                     “6 women and 2 men.Not a very good gender balance”

                     It’s hard to know what you are getting at. I personally don’t have a problem with either the current gender balance or how the Greens run those processes. If you do, it would be better if you explained what the problem is. e.g. if you think there should be a 50/50 split.
                   • tracey …

                     28 October 2017 at 6:30 pm

                     You werent admonished. I was, and still am, seeking clarity from you about what your objection is, what problems you foresee and how it should be? You are consistently ignoring these requests in favour of the ongoing discussion about 3, 4 or 5.
   • Katipo 6.3

     28 October 2017 at 9:04 pm

     The Green Party is not balanced because it has more women than men, classic!
     Are you The Dark Knight of gender equality ? If you think it’s a negative why single out this rareity ?
     https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/women-mps-in-parliament
7. Angel Fish 7

   28 October 2017 at 2:42 pm

   “The 3000 native species faced with extinction in Aotearoa New Zealand now have a lifeline.”

   Hopefully not through the economically nonviable predator free 2050 project that would see millions of animals being slaughtered using 1080p.
   Hopefully they’ve heard of ecological sanctuaries.
   http://www.sanctuariesnz.org/projects.asp
   • weka 7.1

     28 October 2017 at 3:18 pm

     You want to greensplain to the Green Party about ecological restoration? Or are you just being a dick. It’s hard to tell.
     • Angel Fish 7.1.1

       28 October 2017 at 4:44 pm

       LOL so the green party is beyond criticism now are they? Give me break.
       If the means by which they plan to save those animals involve, Nationals predator free 2050 plan, then it involves mass slaughtering millions of animals using 1080p and they need to be called out on their barbarism.
       Also on an economical front it’s reported to cost a conservative estimate of $25 billion dollars!

       It shouldn’t be difficult to understand these concerns, unless you are playing dumb for some reason.

       And some people aggrandize this as New Zealands apollo mission!
       Ridiculous when you consider that countrys like India have sent Mars Orbitters for the price of $80 million.

       This was going to be a massive sink hole by National had they decided to fully commit to this plan, but now that Labour and Green are in power, they need to be pressured to ensure that they come up with more humane and economically viable plans in it’s place.
       • weka 7.1.1.1

         28 October 2017 at 5:22 pm

         “LOL so the green party is beyond criticism now are they?”

         No, I was just pointing out that your criticism was stupid because of how you framed it as if the Greens didn’t already know about the issues with 1080 and the value of sanctuaries.

         The GP actual policy on predator control, not the one you are making up in your head, is this,

         Pest Management Strategies
         The Green Party vision is for thriving biodiversity, no further extinctions, and restoration of healthy populations, habitats and ecosystems. In order to achieve this, the Green Party seeks to eradicate pest plants and animals that threaten signicant ecological values wherever possible, and to control them where eradication is not possible.

         …

         Use of Poisons in Animal Pest Control

         Currently animal pest control in Aotearoa New Zealand involves the extensive use of poisons in ground and aerial operations because they are generally cost e ective means of controlling animal pest species. Modern technology allows more precise distribution of aerial poison such as 1080 than in the past, and the amount of poison per hectare has been reduced while still maintaining effectiveness.

         However, the use of poisons on a large scale, particularly near people’s homes, poses ecological risks and raises community concerns. The Green Party Environment policy aims to minimise the use of all persistent, environmentally damaging, or non- sustainably produced poisons, especially when using aerial distribution, and we strongly support research and promotion of other pest control methods. 1080 poison is widely used to control pest species as it degrades relatively rapidly and is not bio- accumulative. Nonetheless it is acutely toxic to a number of non-target animals including dogs and native wildlife, is considered inhumane by many, and there may be as yet undiscovered long-term toxicological effects arising from its widespread use.

         The Green Party aspires to see indigenous biodiversity and farm animal health maintained and enhanced, and eradication and control of pest animals achieved with minimal use of poisons, and without the use of genetically modi ed organisms. We recognise that currently it is not feasible to stop all use of poisons for animal pest control without unacceptable adverse impacts on biodiversity and forest health. However, we believe that current and developing integrated ground control methods offer opportunities, and that increased research and development will extend alternatives to aerial 1080 over time that are both affordable and effective.

         https://www.greens.org.nz/page/conservation-policy

         I suggest you go and read the whole policy, because what I quoted is best understood in the context of their overall approach to conservation and the plans they have around that.

         “but now that Labour and Green are in power, they need to be pressured to ensure that they come up with more humane and economically viable plans in it’s place.”

         At the moment you are criticising the Greens who want to do the things you claim you want.

         You’re new around here, but generally there is an expectation that while it’s ok to critique the left wing parties, you need to know what you are talking about.
         • Angel Fish 7.1.1.1.1

           28 October 2017 at 5:28 pm

           I said the following,
           “Hopefully not through the economically nonviable predator free 2050 project…”

           “Hopefully they’ve heard of ecological sanctuaries…”

           But you act like I insulted your religion!

           “We recognise that currently it is not feasible to stop all use of poisons for animal pest control without unacceptable adverse impacts on biodiversity and forest health.”

           This is not acceptable! This does not give the greens a free shot at mass slaughtering animals.
           They should only pursue the solution of ecological sanctuaries and put a stop to all mass eradication efforts.
           • weka 7.1.1.1.1.1

             28 October 2017 at 5:31 pm

             Ok, so I get you’re not interested in either what the GP actual policy is, or a genuine discussion on this.
           • McFlock 7.1.1.1.1.2

             28 October 2017 at 5:32 pm

             No, just the Green party.

             It’s like walking into any NZ university physics department saying “hopefully they’ve heard of Earnest Rutherford”.

             A patronising and stupid way to start a discussion, IMO.
           • weka 7.1.1.1.1.3

             28 October 2017 at 5:37 pm

             “This is not acceptable! This does not give the greens a free shot at mass slaughtering animals.
             They should only pursue the solution of ecological sanctuaries and put a stop to all mass eradication efforts.”

             Are you objecting to the killing of non-native species within sanctuaries?
             • tracey …

               28 October 2017 at 5:44 pm

               I am reading that Angel Fish is objecting to a state system of killing any animals
               • weka …

                 28 October 2017 at 5:46 pm

                 Possibly, and hopefully they will clarify.
           • mauī 7.1.1.1.1.4

             28 October 2017 at 5:55 pm

             Have you done any research on how expensive sanctuaries are to run, and all the free volunteer work involved that subsidises them? Obviously not. If you were after bang for your buck that would be the last option you would be looking at.
             • Angel Fish …

               28 October 2017 at 6:34 pm

               Predator Free 2050 is estimated to cost $25 Billion dollars and potentially impractical! Meaning that even if you put that money into it, results aren’t guaranteed!

               Ecological sanctuaries on the other costs $4-5 Million dollars a piece and gets build within 2-3 years. We also have examples of it’s success as well.
               http://www.sanctuariesnz.org/projects.asp
               Yes they still involve killing animals but in far smaller scales.

               “Former Landcare researcher John Parkes, now a global pest eradication consultant, warns that some of the predator-free visions are hallucinations.

               Based on the cost to rid Rangitoto/Motutapu Islands of mammal pests (not including possums, which had already been eradicated), Parkes estimates the cost of eradicating predators across New Zealand at a conservative $25 billion.”

               http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/capital-life/8461303/Can-New-Zealand-really-be-pest-free

               It can’t be done in otherwords! So settle for a national park, eco sanctuary plan instead. You spare millions of animals from a painful death and you still get to keep native birds alive, albeit not their entire population. We humans are to blame for this. We brought possums here to farm them for their fur and now whine when they dare try and survive. We lost and we’ve no right to take our anger on the Possums, cats, hedge hogs, deer, etc etc.

               Accept the loss, settle for the far less cruel, economically and practically viable sanctuary system, IF AT ALL. Otherwise go down in history as not only a nation that savagely butchers cows, pigs, chickens but also as a nation that engaged in the painful slaughter of millions of other mammals.
               • JC …

                 28 October 2017 at 9:30 pm

                 Before you swim away angel …

                 http://www.pce.parliament.nz/publications/taonga-of-an-island-nation-saving-new-zealands-birds

                 http://www.pce.parliament.nz/publications/evaluating-the-use-of-1080-predators-poisons-and-silent-forests
                 • Angel Fish …

                   29 October 2017 at 2:34 am

                   Do you have a point?
8. mary_a 8

   28 October 2017 at 3:56 pm

   An indication we are heading for a better more progressive NZ. Can’t complain about that. Well done NZ Greens.
9. Stuart Munro 9

   28 October 2017 at 6:03 pm

   Interesting to see Shaw got Statistics – if he can straighten them out we’ll be halfway to improving: measure twice, cut once.
   • JC 9.1

     28 October 2017 at 9:38 pm

     James Shaw was asked why he wanted to be Minister of Statistics.

     “Because it’s the only portfolio that counts…”
     • Stuart Munro 9.1.1

       29 October 2017 at 10:08 am

       He’ll be building a mean Green governing machine.
       • weka 9.1.1.1

         29 October 2017 at 10:37 am

         
10. Mosa 10

    29 October 2017 at 2:46 pm

    To be truly representative it would have been productive to have a Green in cabinet.

    Minister for the environment stands out. Parker is responsible but will be busy enough with his other responsibilities.

    Maybe the next reshuffle will bring James or one of the others in.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS