web analytics

WTAF NZ First?

Written By: - Date published: 6:44 am, February 22nd, 2020 - 148 comments
Categories: climate change, ETS, julie anne genter, law, law and "order", nz first, political parties, uncategorized, winston peters - Tags:

Two recent news items confirm that we are well and truly in election year..

First up there was this news that NZ First had torpedoed the Green Party’s supporting EV policy.  The policy itself is sound.  Anything that moves the country’s fleet from embarrassing gas guzzler to sleek hybrid or even sleeker EV is a good thing.  We are facing a crisis.  Every step that produces less CO2 emissions is a good thing.

I mean do we have to go through this again?  The proof is in.  The polar caps are melting.  Australia has burned recently.  Auckland is tinder dry and people relying on rain are running out of water.

And it is not even as if the policy was overly radical.  The same number of vehicles would enter the fleet, it is just that people would be incentivised to buy more efficient vehicles and disincentivised from buying less efficient vehicles.

And why is this a bad thing?  The preferred vehicles will destroy the environment less quickly, have lower running costs and be slightly slower.  Can someone point out to me the downside?

Of course the policy is not perfect.  We have to aim for the end of petrol driven cars coming into the fleet by 2035, just like Boris Johnson in the United Kingdom has done.  But this was a start.

NZ First clearly thought there was a downside.  It stopped them from seeking support from ultra conservatives if they acted rationally about climate change.  Excuse me while I cry a crocodile tear.

From Thomas Coughlan at Stuff:

The Government’s headline policy to cut the price of electric vehicles by up to $8000 has stalled in first gear after NZ First ministers halted it.

The policy had two parts: a Clean Car Discount, or “feebate” which would subsidise the cost of cleaner vehicles by making polluting vehicles cost more and a Clean Car Standard, which was designed to encourage importers to import cars with better emissions standards.

Green co-leader James Shaw said if NZ First ultimately decided to block the policy, his party would take it to the election.

That now looks likely.

It is understood this measure was weighed up by the NZ First caucus and it decided such a policy needed to go to the electorate.

It is understood this measure was weighed up by the NZ First caucus and it decided such a policy needed to go to the electorate.

“We can confirm NZ First are holding up the rollout of policy that would mean cheaper electric and hybrid cars for New Zealanders,” Shaw said.

There were attacks on the policy suggesting people in rural areas would be hit hardest.  Maybe they should stop buying gas guzzlers. It is their environment too.  And their way of live depends on a sustainable environment existing.

The second example is particularly galling.  As we approach the anniversary of the Christchurch tragedy and as stage 2 of the Government’s proposed law changes makes its way through the house NZ First want to play politics with the bill.

From Collette Devlin at Stuff:

NZ First could potentially hold up new gun laws as it changes tack in supporting gun law reform.

It comes as the gun lobby puts pressure on the party to renege on its commitment to pass the laws, telling supporters NZ First would be “toast” in the election if it supported the new gun law.

The party has so far supported reform but NZ First MP Ron Mark has signalled the party may move away from supporting core aspects of the news laws, saying the caucus had some reservations.

The Arms Legislation Bill, which passed its second reading on Wednesday, includes a firearms registry, harsher penalties and a new warning system to show if a person is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.

The Select Committee process also resulted in a number of changes to the Bill that included: the duration of a firearms licence remaining at 10 years, new restrictions to prohibit carbine conversion kits for pistols, modified language around health considerations and the clarification of privacy issues around access to the register by agencies like NZ Customs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The Select Committee process also resulted in a number of changes to the Bill that included: the duration of a firearms licence remaining at 10 years, new restrictions to prohibit carbine conversion kits for pistols, modified language around health considerations and the clarification of privacy issues around access to the register by agencies like NZ Customs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The Council of Licensed Firearms Owners (these nuts) think that trying to stop the mass murder of innocent muslims by extremists is somehow an attack on their rights, paradoxically rights they never had.  And why don’t they accept that the current rules are hopeless.  There are 51 reasons I can offer why.

NZ First’s language is frustratingly vague.  Do they think there should be a right to bear semi automatic weapons that can kill a large number of people during a very brief time?  Who knows.

The Bill has wide public support.  Only extremes on the right think the proposal is a bad idea.

On these two issues NZ First will suggest that they are acting as a balance between two extremes.  They are not.  They are actively seeking support from the extreme part of the political spectrum so that they can survive.

If you ever need evidence to show why increased support for Labour and for the Greens is vital this should provide plenty.

148 comments on “WTAF NZ First? ”

  1. Ad 1

    I'm looking forward to some politics actually occurring in New Zealand.

    We need some fight out in the open, not the grossly-but-apparent NZF totally cowering the Greens and the Prime Minister simply not having the strength or experience to do anything about it.

    Shaw has done the Greens no favors by being excessively polite, and the only time they get any profile is when NZF has pantsed them again.

    Peters has done NZF no favours by being a curmudgeon without delivering, and being the most egregious sanctimonious hypocrite when it comes to political fundraising.

    There's 7 months to go to the job interview, and this government is struggling to show it has a political pulse.

    • David 1.1

      And the largest party in government are unable to do anything about it. As they say, when you make your bed…

    • weka 1.2

      Didn't Shaw just out NZF as the problem?

    • Macro 1.3

      We need some fight out in the open, not the grossly-but-apparent NZF totally cowering the Greens and the Prime Minister simply not having the strength or experience to do anything about it.

      Shaw has done the Greens no favors by being excessively polite, and the only time they get any profile is when NZF has pantsed them again.

      You think this is the first time in an election year that Winston has done this sort of thing Ad? Maybe you might recall Helen Clark and her determination to do something about NZs spiralling GHG emissions in the early 2000's. She had the support of the Greens in 2007-8 to introduce a Carbon Tax, (the only sensible and proven method in the world economy to actually bring about a reduction in the use of fossil fuels), and it was on the table right up until Winston took it off. The ridiculous and ineffective ETS, was the result. The proposed ETS Bill was first known to the Greens when Jeannette first saw it on Helen's desk! If Helen couldn't manage Winston after 7 – 8 years of Govt, why do you think Jacinda should be able to do it now?

      • Ad 1.3.1

        Clark managed him fine.

        Ardern is at sea.

        • Macro 1.3.1.1

          That is not what I am given to understand from someone who was there at the time. And I present as evidence the ETS.

          Virtually the same issue – and virtually the same result ie inaction in the face of pressure from the rural community.

          • Ad 1.3.1.1.1

            2008 is the last of nine years.

            Entropy kicked in and it went it's natural life.

            This time its first term of a poorly managed low ambition government.

            Not much of a comparison.

  2. Ross 2

    Mickey

    Treasury doesn’t support the feebate scheme so NZF is hardly an extremist on this issue. Again, taxpayers’ money has to be well spent and if the benefits are infinitesimal, as Treasury claim, then the policy should be scrapped.

    “Treasury's opposition came after Transport's own estimate found the feebate scheme would only reduce emissions by about 1.6 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent over two decades. New Zealand's annual gross emissions are around 80 million tonnes.”

    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/01/24/998105/treasury-and-transport-butted-heads-over-feebate-scheme

    An interesting article on Stuff comparing travel by bus versus car.

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/119600554/do-buses-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions

    • Andre 2.1

      That piece by Simon Kemp gets one important point correct – the important metric is the total average passenger.km/litre across the entire bus service. In general, this isn't much better than private passenger car.

      But he total misses a much more important point – city buses are ideal candidates for electrification. Their increased frequency of start-stops and time spent idling is particularly wasteful if fossil-fuelled, but an electric bus can regenerate electricity while stopping and wastes negligible energy when stopped. This is why many cities overseas are going entirely electric for their bus fleets.

      Rubbish trucks, delivery vans, taxis share similar duty-cycles and are also ideal for electrification.

      • Sacha 2.1.1

        Yes, incentives to convert trucks make more sense than cars – and electrifying public transit systems makes even more.

    • mikesh 2.2

      Simon Kemp's conclusions are somewhat beside the point. The point is that increases in public transport usage would lead to emissions reductions. Greater public transport usage is what we are trying to encourage.

  3. Puckish Rogue 3

    To think people on the left laughed at Key and Bridges when they ruled out Winnie…

    • Robert Guyton 3.1

      And fell into opposition – oh, how we laughed!

      • Climaction 3.1.1

        So better to be in power with Winston, however briefly it allows you to be there, than have principals in opposition. Briefly of course thanks to those principles being about not being about Winston.

        good to know that even old greenies like Robert here would sell his planet out for a shot at power.

        • JanM 3.1.1.1

          Principles? National? Are you kidding?

        • Sacha 3.1.1.2

          Climate action can't afford to wait while people sit smugly on the sidelines stroking their principles.

          • Pete George 3.1.1.2.1

            But principles and action should be the best approach.

            If Labour and Greens act more on principles and less on enabling a return of NZ first they have a far better chance of making much better progressing on dealing with climate change.

            • Robert Guyton 3.1.1.2.1.1

              You back the principles held by Labour and by the Greens around climate change, Pete?

              Does that mean you reject those of National and ACT on that issue?

              • Generally yes on both counts. National accepts the something needs to be done but too many of them are lukewarm at best. I don't think a National government would do anywhere enough.

                A return of a NZ First/Labour/Green government would also likely not do enough (unless NZF find some pro-action donors perhaps).

                A Labour/Green government would be the best for climate action.

                I'm not sure that a Labour only government would do enough, it could depend on who becomes the Climate Change Minister. Is there anyone in Labour who looks like they could drive it? Ardern?

                • Robert Guyton

                  Good to hear, Pete. I'd say that no government, whatever its composition, "will do enough" – we will be in reactive mode soon enough; there's no way we can turn the already-incoming tide, imo. Discussions about the importance of electric cars don't excite me at all – it's churn. A Labour-only Government would come nowhere near what's needed. Even a Green-only Government would be constrained into pale action by circumstance. As you can see, I don't look to Central Government for the solution to the challenges of climate change and the rest of the package of ills we humans have developed.

                  • "I don't look to Central Government for the solution to the challenges of climate change and the rest of the package of ills we humans have developed. '

                    Quite a bit (more) has to come from central government. But communities and individuals can and should be doing more on their own.

                    I've just retro double glazed. All houses should be double glazed, especially inn the South Island.

        • Robert Guyton 3.1.1.3

          Hyperbole much, climaction! The to-ing and fro-ing of a coalition government doesn't disturb me much and I'm not swept away by dislike for any particular politician (didn't like Key much though). The Greens have made significant gains, in my opinion, and so have NZ First and Labour. Yes, as you say, it is better to be in power, than in opposition; the people I support hold tightly their principles, even when they are tried by machinations of those whose principles are different; such adherence is vital if you are to be included in any cooperative venture, be it politics or any other group that seeks to achieve something. You are keen to lever supporters apart with your corrosive comments; divide and rule must be one of your guiding principles, I'm guessing, but your efforts are wasted on an old green like me; I've seen it all before and laugh at your over-heated efforts to create discordsmiley

          • Climaction 3.1.1.3.1

            Truth hurts doesn’t it Robert? You hold a pretty lofty opinion of your green credentials, but take your 30 pieces of silver when and abandon the planet when Winston offers

            [lprent: At least he has some principles and things that he is willing to argue. I can see why you object to that.

            It appears to be that you have few morals or principles of your own. Basically you’re just a limp critic who proposes nothing and stands behind nothing. This comes from your hypocritical handle and all the way through your clearly exposed obnoxious carping. It is no wonder that you can’t stand people who don’t spend all of the time who actually think about things and present and do them.

            In essence to me you just look like an lazy ignorant and probably stupid arsehole. Of course that is my opinion – since you like handing them out.

            I’d suggest that you don’t continue on this path, otherwise I’ll make a point of continuing on this one myself… ]

            • Climaction 3.1.1.3.1.1

              opposing this government and it’s tacit support of Winston Peters, and opposing everyone who seems to think Peters is a small price to pay for being in government isn’t the same as supporting national or being right wing. That’s an intellectual jump that Robert has never been able to make.

              my principles are very clear. Use scientific methods to prevent environmental catastrophe. So the canning of an ev subsidy / gas guzzler tax purely to please Winston is the height of stupidity.

              to simply laugh it off as Robert did above as the price to pay for being in government is ludicrous. It goes against Jacindas “climate change is our nuclear free moment” and james Shaw’s zero carbon bill. Both of which needed strong, clever policies like the ev / petrol car rebate feebate.

              there is no magic policy to solve climate change. Just a lot of small sensible policies that make up a societal wide effort to counteract the impact humans have had on the economy. And each one discarded in the pursuit of power makes it a little bit harder for the others to succeed.
              all good though. Government is more important as apparently you can achieve more there.

              • Incognito

                Policies change all the time, by necessity. Some are discarded, some are postponed, and some are improved and then implemented. Nothing is linear in politics and nothing is permanent, not even Laws, and nor should it be. The Green’s policy is not dead, far from it, and it is/will be a cornerstone of their policy platform for them to campaign on.

                The election campaign is an intricate dance involving multiple partners and outcome is which will end up bedding each other. You are looking at the colour of the shoes of one of the dancers and lose oversight of the dance as a whole and as a dynamic interaction. It is a weakness that scientifically inclined thinkers tend to have; I struggle with it too 😉

                • Climaction

                  No, I’m not. I’m struggling with the idea that Winston must be appeased at all costs.

                  how much mana would labour and the greens immediately gain if they went on the attack against NZ1? It would bring disgusted progressives in from the cold as it would demonstrate their willingness to be a force for good in parliament. Not just a force

                  • Incognito

                    You are struggling with the idea that Winston must be appeased at all costs because you are attached to this idea. You haven’t even considered my dance analogy.

                    You seem to suggesting that they go full feral on their current coalition partner, which is a potential and even likely future coalition partner, seven months out from Election Day. I can’t think of a better way to destroy the trust, loyalty, unity, kindness, and inclusivity, for example, which they have painstakingly built over the last two and a half years or so. I can’t think of better gift to National’s spin masters.

                    NZF have set their sights on their political opponents, the Greens have decided to take their policy to the election, and Labour is not getting in the way of either whilst trying to keep the team together.

                    Politics is the art of the possible, which means keeping your options open.

                    • Climaction

                      I’m not attached to any other idea than Winston is a crook and there is more to be gained than work without him than with him.
                      it’s not going feral to go after a coalitions voters nor to neutralise their voters.

                      Yet everything in your second paragraph is appeasing Winston at all costs, as it allows him full freedom of behaviour while allowing the greens and labour to rely on his votes post election, which is only possible if they appease him and tolerate his behaviour.

                      dancing on the head of a pin to justify this position is the real gift to nationals spin masters.
                      please carry on though

                    • Incognito []

                      I know a closed mind when I see one. Stick to your narrative and story about how much of a crook Winston Peters is and everything flows from there and falls into line to suit it.

                      Not getting in the NZF firing line is not appeasing him/them at all costs.

                      You want Labour and the Greens to ‘take a stand’ and go ‘tut-tut, Winston, stop bullying Simon; it is not very kind’. You want them to stop governing this country so they may look good in the eyes of some voters, including you. You want them to put two and half years of hard work on the line because NZF has an axe or two to grind with others.

                      People like you are putty in the hands of spin masters: predictable, instinctive, reflexive, and easily outraged and throwing labels around (e.g. “racism”) despite or perhaps thanks to a thin veneer of rationality and intellect.

                      I have wasted my time trying to discuss with you 🙁

                    • Climaction []

                      nice straw man argument. That I’m somehow out to protect the second rate provincial used car sales man that currently runs the national party.

                      Im actually out to protect labour and the greens falling into the same electoral black hole they found themselves in in 2008. Thanks to Winston. I’m out to protect our environment and I want to our parliament to be corruption free. So many good things from the labour and greens part of this government, ruined by association of nz1

                      im sure it’ll be tthe media, National’s, dark forces, dirty politics, fake news that’s to going to be blamed when national wins this election. When the truth can be laid squarely at the feet of nz1 along with labour and the greens for their acceptance of nz1 behaviour.
                      I want labour and the greens the greens to live up to their promises of a new way of government they promised the electorate in 2017. Seems a long shot now when supporters like you incognito are willing to twist themselves into all kinds of moral contortions to justify retaining the treasury benches

                    • Incognito []

                      You talk yourself into quite a narrative there!

                      Please point out where I made that alleged “straw man argument”.

                      So many good things from the labour and greens part of this government, ruined by association of nz1 [my emphasis]

                      You seem to be prone to being melodramatic. Nothing is/was ruined. Perhaps more could have been done and achieved under the circumstances but I doubt it. You, and others, paint Winston Peters as if he were the one single factor for this Government not enacting on certain promises. That’s your narrative: Winston Peters is the Bogeyman.

                      If we had had a Labour-Green Government, but we do/did not, then these ruined things would have come to fruition and Christmas would have come early. That seems to be your claim and I don’t buy it. It would have been different, for sure, but to blame a single factor for the things that were ruined is ludicrous and wishful thinking (AKA dreaming) by a lazy mind. Playing the blame game is not going to get you anywhere in a hurry.

                      Your last paragraph is a beauty of desperation. I have zero need for “all kinds of moral contortions” because I don’t smoke my own dope and most certainly not yours.

                    • McFlock

                      So if ruling out nz1 is the decider for the 16% undecideds, shouldn't Sustainable NZ be on 16%? They'll go with the nats, and the nats have ruled out NZ1.

                  • McFlock

                    Let's assume there is an election-skewing amount of "disgusted progressives" refusing to vote labgrn because they are too moderate.

                    Your assumption is that the deciding factor for this group of voters is simply that labgrn went with NZ1 to get into government rather than sitting in opposition since 2017.

                    Where the hell were they in 2017 to tip labgrn over into an outright majotiy, then?

                    • Climaction

                      Bring enough of them to sink nz1 below 5% and hey presto. It’s not stealing votes, it’s diluting voter share. So it’s not necessarily a zero sum game when 16% of voters in the last 1ncb poll are undecided

                    • McFlock

                      So subtract from that 16% the voters who would vote nz1 buy are disaffected because they went to labgrn, then the voters who think the NZ1 coalition is the least of the problems with the right wing neolib labgrns (or whatever the more left than left crownd call them), and then ask the remainder where the hell they were in 2017 so labgrn wouldn't have had to deal with nz1 in the first place.

                    • Climaction []

                      Your confused. I don’t care that nz1 drag the government right. I care that the government is unable to enact policies that the whole country, and the climate, would benefit from because of nz1 pandering to their dwindling supporter base. A labour government that cared could have allowed for a tax break on rural drivers and their cars, while still achieving the EV goal in the real problematic areas, the cities. Chocked with traffic and fumes. we need nz1 to govern though.

                    • McFlock

                      The thing is, your "diluting voter share" model relies on people who care so much about the environment that they will let the nats win rather than vote for labgrnnz1 this year.

                      It's a rehash of the "silent majority" and "missing million" hopeful thoughts.

                      You know what will get people voting labgrn? Campaigning for labgrn, not agin anyone else.

                    • Climaction []

                      Just lab greens. That’s the only way to victory this year. Remove nz1 from the picture

                    • Robert Guyton

                      "Remove nz1 from the picture "

                      National Party strategy. Expressed here by "Climaction"

                      It's not hard to join the dots.

                    • Climaction []

                      No reason it can’t be labour green strategy as well Robert.

                    • Incognito []

                      Which party stands to benefit the most from NZF’s demise?

                    • Climaction []

                      National currently as labour and the greens refuse to rule out working with Winston

                    • Incognito []

                      Indeed, National. However, your answer made no sense to me.

                    • Climaction []

                      Currently, the only way NZ1 gets back in is if labour reaches an electorate seat deal with NZ1. Its also the only way labour can maintain the treasury benches. The electorate will spank labour for doing this, so labour needs to rule out working with NZ1 to have any integrity come election time. The middle ground opens up labour greens to attacks along the current attack lines.

                    • Incognito []

                      You’re making even less sense now unless …

        • Robert Guyton 3.1.1.4

          Climaction's user-name must be chosen in an effort to confuse; it purports to be the sort of name a Left winger concerned about taking action on climate change might adopt, but hides the behaviour of someone who likely has no such concerns. Perhaps "clim", refers to "climb" and the action implied is more about climbing the ladder of success, or climbing across the backs of losers, than anything to do with the heating of the atmosphere. I can only speculate, of course, but I've wondered before…

        • barry 3.1.1.5

          If Labour and the Greens want to get anything done they have to work with some other party. That is the hand dealt by the electorate at the last election.

          For all NZ First's blockages the coalition has achieved a lot more that they would have achieved in coalition with National, and absolutely no progress would have been made if they weren't in government at all.

      • Puckish Rogue 3.1.2

        The odds are shortening Robert…tick tock, tick tock

        • Robert Guyton 3.1.2.1

          Your attempts to corrode confidence here are so transparent we could sell them as cling-wrap, Pucky. Speaking of clinging, are you still stuck, like gum on a shoe-sole, to Jude's hem?

    • Cinny 3.2

      Pucky, under MMP can just one party rule?

      • Puckish Rogue 3.2.1

        Yes it can but very difficult to do, even Key couldn't do it.

        But when I say National I mean National/Act because Act is attached to National and has nowhere else to go.

        Like you can say Labour but really it means Labour/Greens for the same reasons even though Clark right royally rodgered the Greens and the Greens just took it like the good, little supplicants they are

      • Pete George 3.2.2

        Based on MMP outcomes so far it seems unlikely, but this year the chances are probably greater than they have ever been, due to the decline in number and size of small parties.

        If NZ First fails to return then it increases the chances of National getting a single party majority (with or without ACT).

        If Greens fail to make the threshold, and don't pull of a surprise electorate victory, then there's quite a high chance that either National or Labour get a single party majority.

        On current polling NZF and Greens are at real risk of dropping out, so the one party MMP government is quite a possibility.

        • Robert Guyton 3.2.2.1

          Both NZ First and The Greens will be returned to parliament and government. If you go all wobbly every time a poll says otherwise, Pete, you'll be jelly right up to the moment the next, same-as-before Government is announced. You are paying too much heed to the Wormtongue-harpings of the likes of Puckish Rogue.

          • Puckish Rogue 3.2.2.1.1

            Might have to change my name to Cassandra…

          • Cinny 3.2.2.1.2

            The Greens will definately get back in, hopefully with the most MP's they have ever had.

            Personally I don't think any new parties will make it into the house and simon's a gone burger.

            If the Greens introduce more MP's into the house than NZF, I believe that would definately make a case for a mandate to subsidise EV's. Watch this space…..

            • Incognito 3.2.2.1.2.1

              A potential problem with new (and small) parties is that they can bleed/ erode votes from existing ones in a way that tilts the ‘balance of power’. If they don’t make it into Parliament, those votes are not really ‘lost’ because there will still be 120 seats to occupy; the largest parties will benefit most AFAIK.

              • Cinny

                Thanks for explaining Incognito, much appreciated, that makes sense.

                Interestingly, maureen pugh has always lost her seat to the Greens after the special votes are counted.&nbsp

                Edit… I’ve a feeling there will be many specials this election due to the referendums.

                • Incognito

                  I’d not call it an explanation as such; it’s just my take on it and I’m happy to be challenged and corrected on these important matters.

                  As far as the referendums go, I don’t know if they’d help or hinder. On the one hand, they may motivate people to think through issues and actually vote as they see the relevance and importance of that action. On the other hand, it complicates things and could potentially distract from the primary General Election; it may turn off/away people from voting altogether.

                  • Cinny

                    🙂 I think with the topics of the referendums it will encourage people who don't usually vote and the youth vote. Least I hope so.

                    Meanwhile on twitter…. simon is claiming this news re the EV subisdy is a win for national, and the comments are gold LMFAO !!!!!! simon is delusional, buggered if I know how he came to that conclusion.

            • Puckish Rogue 3.2.2.1.2.2

              They're currently struggling to keep above 5% but you think they might get to 11%?

      • Chris T 3.2.3

        Realistically no.

        Technically yes

  4. Cricklewood 4

    Even more reason to kick NZ First for touch and campaign as a Lab Green coalition…

    Let's face it a govt with NZ First in it is going to severely constrain NZs ability to make meaningful change to our emissions and prepare our society for that transition.

    The need to make these changes is urgent if the climate crisis is top of the priority list for Lab and the Greens they need to campaign as such.

  5. infused 5

    whats the life time co2 making an ev vs a gas car. genuine question

    • Cricklewood 5.1

      Not sure I think it's murky in that depends on electricity source and where the rare earths for the batteries have been extracted to mention battery disposal/ recycling capability.

      One thing we must do is sort our electricity supply, getting enough extra juice up to Auckland for a few hundred thousand cars example will probably need an infrastructure upgrade. It's actually a massive project and we need to start now.

      • Andre 5.1.1

        End of life recycling appears to be a very small part of lifetime emissions. That's without even considering many batteries that are no longer up to the job for ev use still have long potential lives in stationary storage.

        Batteries generally don't use rare earths, and the quantities used in EV motors are tiny to zero. Cobalt (not a rare earth) in batteries is indeed a concern, but there's a lot of effort to reduce or eliminate it. There's been a lot of recent chatter that maybe Chinese-made Tesla Model 3s will use a completely cobalt-free battery.

        Then beyond that, there's a lot of effort to reduce or eliminate lithium, such as lithium-sulfur or potassium batteries.

    • Andre 5.2

      That question is really about the emissions of the electricity sources used to produce the vehicle and charge the ev.

      If all the electricity used in production and charging comes from the nastiest dirtiest coal sources, then it takes about 10 years of average use for an ev to have lower lifetime emissions than an equivalent dino-juice vehicle. If all the electricity used is zero emissions, then it only takes a few months of average use before an ev has lower lifetime emissions than an equivalent dino-juice vehicle. Given the typical mix of electricity sources in most places, say 2 to 4 years of average use for an ev to have lower lifetime emissions than ICE.

      In the future when industrial processes get serious about eliminating emissions so steel is produced electrolytically or with hydrogen (instead of coal) and aluminium smelting uses inert anodes etc, then EVs will almost certainly be lower lifetime emissions pretty from birth.

      • Sacha 5.2.1

        In either case, production of each vehicle uses way more energy than we think – and tips the balance firmly towards shared public transit as the lowest lifetime impact.

        • Andre 5.2.1.1

          Numbers I've seen are of the order of 2 to 5 tonnes CO2eq to produce a new ICE vehicle. So about the same as produced by one year of driving it.

        • weka 5.2.1.2

          We don't make cars here any more so we don't have to account for the GHGs from manufacture 😉

          (and completely agree about the necessity for PT, it’s urgent)

    • lprent 5.3

      Andre pretty well covers it.

      Build depends on the source of power. However that is effectively the same or significantly less than an equivalent fossil fuel power vehicle. A EV is a much simpler power source and drive chain. I suspect that you'll also find that the vehicles have a much longer life than most fossil fuel cars. Extraction of the lithium is currently only constrained by the few natural deposits. But it is a metal, so that will engineering to find a technique that is cost-effective to extract from seawater or reclaim is easy.

      Operationally running costs comes down to the source of power. In NZ – effectively very limited CO2 emissions. Most of the scare stories come from dumps like aussie when coal powered power stations is the norm.

      End of life etc is way lower than any petrol vehicle. The cars have less metal. Less complex internal systems. Lithium batteries have virtually no cleanup costs and are non-polluting. Lithium is one of the most common materials in the crust and volatiles, intensely soluble, and binds easily. The biggest hassle with supply is that no-one has ever bothered to build a system for extracting it from seawater – so they rely on natural evaporation deposits.

      There are a few heavier compounds used in small quantities. However almost every advance in batteries is reducing that. The cleanup of lead acid battery in conventional vehicles is a far worse problem in emissions and degradation.

      With fossil fuel systems, one of the major cleanup costs is the removing the fuel infrastructure. Lots of dead spots across multiple countries that are sitting around waiting for cleanup.

      In any country that has more than 50% of their power sources from renewables, the whole life costs should be in the maximum order of about half the minimum emission costs for a fossil fuel vehicle. The more renewable power sources in the supply and run chain, the lower the emission costs drop.

      The few studies out there concentrated on worst case supply chains – mostly because they can be traced directly back to fossil fuel lobbies. You're welcome to link some, and I'm sure that we'll help you to find the links of people like Lomborg.

  6. NZ First are in survival mode (which is a big change from three years ago when Peters thought they would beat Labour and lead the Government in numbers and even more than now in influence).

    So every policy decision NZ First will make this side of the election will be to try to get as many votes as they can.

    Extending Peters' political career into it's fifth decade is a much bigger priority to him than climate change or firearms safety. His own interests have always been his biggest priority.

    So Labour and Greens have to make some big decisions on whether they help Peters survive (openly or sneakily), which would substantially limit what policies they can progress next term if they get back into government, or if they act on principle and in the best interests of the country.

    • weka 6.1

      Help Peters how?

      • Pete George 6.1.1

        Say they would consider including NZF in a governing arrangement.

        Assist Shane Jones in trying to win an electorate.

        Failing to show principles on Peters' handling of their foundation and their donations issue, and their use of The BFD to attack and threaten journalists.

        Failing to stand up to Shane Jones.

    • Incognito 6.2

      So Labour and Greens have to make some big decisions on whether they help Peters survive (openly or sneakily), which would substantially limit what policies they can progress next term if they get back into government, or if they act on principle and in the best interests of the country.

      You seem to assume Peters wants and would accept any help (openly or sneakily). I’d say it’d go against his grain.

      Labour and the Greens might consider being in Government with some limitations – there are always many limitations regardless – be in the best interests of the country and aligned with their principles – they have more principles in common than that separates them.

      The binary supposition of power vs. principle is not something I’d have expected from you, Pete.

  7. weka 7

    "It is understood this measure was weighed up by the NZ First caucus and it decided such a policy needed to go to the electorate."

    What does that mean? It's not like we're going to know who voted NZF, or shifted their vote from Greens, because of this one policy. I'm guessing they don't mean a referendum. Peters is so full of shit sometimes.

    • Puckish Rogue 7.1

      Sometimes?

      • weka 7.1.1

        His soul still has that wine box to cling to I guess.

        • Robert Guyton 7.1.1.1

          His decision to align with Labour and The Greens was a wise one.

          • Puckish Rogue 7.1.1.1.1

            Need to stop drinking that parsnip wine there before posting, he ticked off half his voting base and by his actions (sorry by the foundation actions that I'm sure he knew nothing about) he might also bring down the present govt

            Its almost as if going into coalition with Winnie is a bad idea

    • Ross 7.2

      What does that mean?

      Isn’t it obvious? Labour and the Greens run with the policy and, if voters don’t abandon those parties in droves, then the policy can’t be all bad. 🙂

      Winston no doubt thought a capital gains tax would hurt him and his support partners so pulled the plug. I imagine that is his thinking here although Treasury has assisted him. But to be fair to him, a policy that is merely assumed to be cost neutral and with few benefits seems like an easy policy to drop.

      • weka 7.2.1

        people don't generally vote on one policy, for the reason that no party is going to produce policy that any one person always agrees with.

        "needed to go to the electorate" is a nonsense unless it's something like a referendum.

        • Ross 7.2.1.1

          people don't generally vote on one policy, for the reason that no party is going to produce policy that any one person always agrees with.

          Well, Labour dropped the CGT like a hot potato and said it wouldn't revisit the matter. Clearly, it thinks that the issue is toxic. But I agree that it would be difficult to separate the various issues to see which resonates more with voters.

          I suspect that WInston doesn’t want to be seen as Labour’s poodle and will choose certain issues to disagree on, making him appear relevant and strong. Of course, if NZF and Labour agreed on everything, voters might wonder why they need to vote for NZF because they will get exactly the same policies by voting Labour. Winston knows this too.

    • veutoviper 7.3

      "I'm guessing they don't mean a referendum. Peters is so full of shit sometimes."

      weka, you really need to learn a lot more about the other players in the NZ political environment, than just the Greens.

      Since 1993 when New Zealand First was first established, binding referenda (including citizen intiated ones) have been one of NZF's 15 core Fundmental Principles on which all their policies etc are based. https://www.nzfirst.org.nz/about

      This extract from Wikipedia is more explicit on referenda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_First

      The party has long advocated direct democracy in the form of "binding citizen initiated referenda", to create "a democracy that is of the people and for the people", while forcing government "to accept the will of the people".[20]

      The footnote in the quote, although a 2003 NZF Scoop Press Release provides more detail – https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0311/S00254/replacing-political-tyranny-with-direct-democracy.htm

      Here is a short extract –

      Democracy is too important to be left to the politicians.

      We say it is far better to rely on the commonsense of ordinary people to make decisions on the important issues facing New Zealand.

      Why? Because politicians simply cannot be relied on to do the right thing and to act in accordance with the wishes of the majority.

      They have forgotten that they should be the trusted servants of the people.

      They must face the consequences of their memory loss.

      New Zealand First has a solution for this serious affliction in our democracy.

      It is simple but highly effective.

      New Zealand First aims to make Parliament itself a more responsive and accountable institution, and to give real power to the people.

      To achieve this aim, we wil:

      – Introduce binding Citizens Initiated Referenda
      – Reduce the size of Parliament;

      – Reduce the number of MPs in Cabinet to 14;

      CITIZENS INITIATED REFERENDA (DIRECT DEMOCRACY)

      New Zealand First is committed to the introduction of binding citizens initiated referenda or "direct democracy" as it is known overseas.

      Under this system, voters take ultimate responsibility for the health and wellbeing of society.

      A healthy democratic society is not casting two ticks for three years of political tyranny.

      Only the people can create a democracy that is of the people and for the people.

      Under direct democracy the Government is constitutionally bound to accept the will of the people.

      No ifs, no buts, no maybes.

      New Zealand First has long advocated real involvement by citizens in the political process by the judicious use of direct public referenda where:

      – there is neutrality and impartiality in the question;

      – there is fair dissemination of all the facts on both sides of the argument;

      – there is certainty in the poll (i.e. the question can be clearly understood);

      – there is appropriate time for the debate to be conducted;

      – the referendum's objective can be met within the country's fiscal resources. In other words we have to be able to pay for it.

      Lots more in the link, some of it quite funny as it is so dated – but Peters and NZF have never wavered from this principle of direct democracy and referenda.

      Why do you think we are having two referenda on cannabis and choice o life (voluntary euthanasia) at the same time as the general election? This is because NZF made this a condition of their supporting these two pieces of legislation.

      In face if you study some of NZF's principles and in particular this one on direct democracy, their thinking is not much different to some of the other movements we have seen over the last few years, The Occupation and Extinction movements, and even Ihumatoa, spring to mind.

      • veutoviper 7.3.1

        oops – timed out before I could get rid of the extraneous quote mark.

        • weka 7.3.1.1

          Are you saying that NZF want a referendum on this particular policy?

          • veutoviper 7.3.1.1.1

            I have not looked into what has happened on the electric vehicles proposal, but reading both the post above and a very quick look at the Stuff article, that may well be what NZF are proposing in saying that their Caucus thinks that "such a policy needed to go to the electorate."

            As I said, referenda and direct democracy are principles core to the whole NZF approach. A lot of people really have never bothered looking at their principles, policies etc and then wonder why NZF cannot be pidgeon-holed into the usual left/right spectrum or why NZF doesn't act in the way that others expect. Hence for example people not realising what NZF mean when they say something like they think something should be put to the electorate

            From my obserations over the years, their supporters also cannot be easily classifed on criteria such as left/right; working/middle/upper class etc; or be easily broken down into those who wanted them to go with National and those who want them to go with Labour. NZF seemed to reinvent itself in the three years Peters was out of Parliament 2008-2011 and appears to be made up of a broad range of types of people and ages. Oldies do not predominate these days. I have also been told that these days there are a lot of small/own business people. But they have remained pretty firmly based on their original fundamental principles.

            While I have not looked at the electric vehicle proposal/issues, I have looked at the Stuff article and MS' comments on the arms legislation – and quite frankly I am pretty disgusted. Dirty Politics are alive and well.

            I have followed this issue very closely and NZF have been very open and consistent since day one when the Bill was first being drafted that they have some issues with some aspects of the draft Bill and its approach – but they have also worked and continue to work very closely with Labour and in particular the responsible Minister, Nash. Ron Mark was very clear and open on all of this in his speech on Wednesday night but gave no indication that they would not support the legislation in its final form and NZF voted for the Bill at its Second Reading on Wednesday night. But the media contin ue its vendetta vs Peters with it seems a lot of help from some blogs. Not a word in the Stuff article, or in the O,P,that both National and ACT oppose the Arms legislation and will probably filibuster it to the end in its coming Committee stages.

            I am not a member of NZF but I do believe in fairness.

            • weka 7.3.1.1.1.1

              My comments above were about what NZF said, not hypotheticals of what they haven't said. If they're planning a referendum on this one policy then they need to say so. I seriously doubt they are though, and instead think they are just blustering. People don't generally vote on single issues like this one, so there is no way to take it to the electorate via a general election, which I think is what NZF mean.

              I do in fact know about NZF's commitment to referendum, and have read their principles and some of their policies. My point stands. In *this particular case, they look like they're just vote gathering. Which is understandable, but it's still a shit way to do it.

              • Ross

                People don't generally vote on single issues like this one, so there is no way to take it to the electorate via a general election, which I think is what NZF mean.

                You miss the point that Labour and the Greens can go to the electorate on the issue. If they are re-elected, they can then both fight for the policy to be adopted. But given Treasury’s doubts about the effectiveness of the policy, I doubt it’s something that Labour and the Greens would die in a ditch over.

  8. John G 8

    That Stuff article seems a bit skewed to me. A car sitting in rush hour traffic using 6 litres per 100k ? Seriously ? A scooter might do it.

    • Andre 8.1

      A modern little nana's shopping trolley with engine stop-start in what Christchurch deludes itself into thinking is rush hour will do better than 6litres/100km. Something like a Porsche Canine or HSV Codpiece, not so much.

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 8.2

      My little 1.5L Toyota Echo routinely does 5.3L/100km – but I am doing nearly all long rural runs. In town it is more like 7 – 7.5L/100km, which isn't that far off 6L/100km…

  9. millsy 9

    Of course, if National, ACT and the New Conservatives form the next government, there won't be any scheme at all. In fact there will be:

    Huge cuts in benefits

    The banning of trade unions

    Privatisation of health and mass hospital closures

    Selling off of the entire state housing portfolio

    The end of public secular education and the outlawing of the teaching of evolution

    Total ban of abortion in NZ

    Loss of Pharmacy subsidies for birth control

    Privatisation of everything

    Toll roads and congestion charging

    Revocation of any and all clean air and water legislation leading to Farmers basically putting what they like in the rivers

    Opening up of all national parks to mining, and the complete deforestation of the West Coast

    Progroms against LGBT teachers in the education system

    Abolishing of all sick leave and paid holidays

    At will employment

    Abolishing the minimum wage

    A huge increase in immigration leading to mass unmployment among youth as they are croweded out by immigrants

    Sky high tuition fees

    Universities are closed off to 99% of New Zealanders.

    Any more feel free to add.

    We cannot afford to implement this feebate scheme, which will stoke discontent and tip this government out.

    • What chance do you think there is of New Conservatives getting onto Parliament?

      The rest of what you assert is obvious nonsense.

      • millsy 9.1.1

        If it was 1990 and I told you that National would cut benefits, chop SUBSCRIBE NOW Corp mortgages and impose market rents on state housing, plus close scores of hospitals, you would think I was talking nonsense as well.

        Under Simon Bridges, New Zealanders will be left to flounder around on their own among the forces of the market.

        • Puckish Rogue 9.1.1.1

          You're mistaking what you think will happen with what you want to happen, the 80s are over and they're not coming back

          Bridges learnt from Key and will stay center right so you don't have to worry when National gains power in September

    • Puckish Rogue 9.2

      Hugs not drugs Millsy

    • Obtrectator 9.3

      You left out Chimerica being allowed unrestricted opportunities to acquire huge chunks of our country and start fencing it off from all the NZ-borns (apart from those allowed in from time to time to clean their toilets, etc).

      The thought of that might just deter the old gammons who'd otherwise desert NZF for the Nats, but most of them can't think beyond their hip pockets and the proposed tax cuts (drool drool).

    • Chris T 9.4

      Do you mind justifying any of these claims?

      The last nat govt put the benefit up above inflation for the first time in 30 years and that is just a glance at your first point

  10. Sanctuary 10

    Make the election a referendum on gun law reform, Labour would romp home.

  11. [Shrug]. It's election year, NZ First is polling at 3% and the most likely people to take it back past 5% are provincial conservatives. In that context, these moves make perfect sense.

    The question is, what are Labour and the Greens going to do about it? The last two years have made it clear that NZ First will prevent any genuinely progressive moves from a government they're involved in, so it would be better if they weren't involved. Maybe Labour and Green should join the Nats in trying to keep NZF below the threshold. In particular the Greens should respond vigorously to the sabotage of their feebate scheme, in the interests of their own support.

    • weka 11.1

      how do you think the Greens should do that?

      • Psycho Milt 11.1.1

        James Shaw has said "if NZ First ultimately decide to block it this term we will take it to the election." That reflects the avoidance of petty slanging matches that we should expect from the Greens, but I would have expected him to point out the obvious fact that this action from NZ First seriously undermines the government's response to climate change without offering any alternative approach.

        • Puckish Rogue 11.1.1.1

          Not likely that Winnie'll make it back, most of the right-leaning NZFirst voters will go National and the more conservative voters will go Act, I'd also guess most of the left-leaning voters will go Labour

        • weka 11.1.1.2

          I'm a little unclear on when he said that. Was it yesterday or a while back? Stuff article says

          Green co-leader James Shaw said if NZ First ultimately decided to block the policy, his party would take it to the election.

          That now looks likely.

          Sounds like it said it in the past, and now events have made it true. Otoh, if I pull out the Shaw quotes on their own it looks like it just happened.

          It's a poorly written article, most of it about the things previously reported, and a small bit that says 'it is understood', whatever that means. NZF haven't been quoted. Looks like the Greens were notified by NZF (or Labour) and chose to speak out on this rather than letting NZF block it on the quiet like we suspect has been happening with other things.

          That Stuff piece went up 7.25pm on Friday night. It's the only news item I can find on it. I'm guessing we'll hear more from the Greens on this soon.

          I'm assuming that by 'take it to the election' Shaw means they will campaign on it and name NZF as the block. I hope that's what they do. However Shaw did say the govt is still working on the scheme so maybe they're trying to find a compromise.

  12. Graeme 12

    The Feebate is probably a victim of timing. Had Toyota announced a hybrid Hilux the week after then all would have been good, but that's really something that will be about 2025 . Which would have been known when the scheme was announced, so either someone wanted to pick a fight with people who need that sort of vehicle, or they got had on thinking an alternative vehicle was going to be announced.

    So, to recover, break down the Feebate scheme to apply to market segments that have electric / hybrid alternatives but will be extended to other segments as alternatives become available.

  13. SHG 14

    It's an election year. Therefore Winston has to attack the government. That he's part of it is entirely irrelevant. To give himself the best chance of controlling the next one, he has to destroy this one.

  14. Puckish Rogue 15

    Ok so serious hypothetical question here.

    Given that a National/Act victory (thanks to the implosion of Winnie and the Greens struggling to stay above 5%) is looking more possible and since the Greens have shown that they're willing to roll over to placate senior coalition partners does anyone see any possibility of National/Act inviting the Greens into govt even if they don't need their vote.

    I know that immediately there'll be calls along the lines of "National would have to agree to each and everything the Greens want" but the Greens have shown they're willing to swallow dead rats and work with Winnie so is there a chance of this happening

    For example the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary could be back on the cards and National and the Greens have shown they can work together but is this something the membership would not stand for under any circumstances?

    Basically my problem with MMP in NZ at the moment is that is still basically a two party system, National/Act and Labour/Greens and I don’t think thats good for the future of NZ politics so I’d like to see more, not less, cooperation between parties

    • alwyn 15.1

      I can't see that their current supporters would entertain the idea. A lot of their voters, and perhaps members, in the past were there because of their environmental activism. That was back in the days they got double digit percentages of votes.

      A fair number of those people seem to have become disillusioned with the party and I think their primary support now is those who are supporting them in their far-left guise, rather than their previous predominantly environmental persona. That is why they are now way down in their party support, currently well under half of what they were at their peak, and aren't going to stay in Parliament. That's only my view of the matter of course.

      The defense of Meteria Turei's actions seemed to put off a number of my friends who used to vote Green. They said they didn't vote Green at the last election because of it, along with having Clendon and Graham going from the MP ranks.

      However that is only my personal opinion on the subject, and my observation of the quite large number of my friends who were strong Green supporters in the days of Fitzsimmons and Donald. I'm not a member of the Green Party, or of any other party for that matter, so I can't possibly know what they are up to internally. Probably getting ulcers at the prospect they won't be in Parliament.

    • millsy 15.2

      National still insist on having Somalia-style clean water regulations (ie none).

      • Puckish Rogue 15.2.1

        Ok so for example the Greens would have liked to have the Kermadec sanctuary up and running but NZFirst (I'm sure that had nothing to do with Winnies backers) said no and Labour and the Greens agreed to it so what would the Greens agree to give up to get clean river regulations (to their liking) up and running

    • weka 15.3

      are you living in a parallel universe PR, where the normal rules don't apply?

      Green Party position on working with National from a 2015 post. https://thestandard.org.nz/green-politics/

      • Puckish Rogue 15.3.1

        Well theres this:

        'but based on current National Party policy positions and track record it is highly unlikely that we could support a National-led government on confidence and supply.'

        Highly unlikely means theres still a chance (albeit…highly unlikely) plus once you've had a taste of power and getting things done it would be hard to see those things get potentially undone and if National were to give on some things…

        I dunno I guess I'd like to see a break from the two party model and see NZ thrive more as a result and if that means the Greens have to compromise and National has to give up some of its ideology well that can only be a good thing

        • solkta 15.3.1.1

          Yes it is highly unlikely that National would dump most of its key policy positions so as to be worthy of Green support. Not impossible though.

          • Puckish Rogue 15.3.1.1.1

            I would like to see all parties shed their ideological bent and actually think about whats best for NZ, all NZ and I think that keeping the whole left v right, National v Labour is only good for media ratings

            As Weka stated above: "people don't generally vote on one policy, for the reason that no party is going to produce policy that any one person always agrees with."

            National doesn't have all the answers nor do Act, Labour, the Greens so it'd be good for all to see what they could together

        • weka 15.3.1.2

          The 'highly unlikely' phrase caused the Greens some problems and from memory they changed it at a subsequent AGM. They've been consistently saying that they will work with any party on policy, but they will not compromise core values to form government. There is simply no common ground on cores values that would enable the GP to give C/S to Nat. Remember that it's the membership that makes this decision not the MPs, but the MPs don't want it either.

    • pat 15.4

      I'm reminded of what happened to the Maori Party

  15. bwaghorn 16

    Good why should wealthy fuckers get their cars subsidized.

    It's as dumb an idea as putting a purchase tax on new tires utes [Correction entered by Incognito].

    • weka 16.1

      Did you miss the point b? Which is to provide a market incentive for NZ to shift to EVs because of the urgent need to address CC. Rich fuckers are going to buy new cars any way, and this is one tool to make sure they buy an EV instead of a ICE one.

      I mean, I'd be way happier to have a left wing govt that just legislated the transition and fast*, but we don't have that and have to use the tools that the electorate allows. Do you have a better way of transitioning the fleet given that?

      • weka 16.1.1

        it's the low income people that are going to bear the brunt of climate change if we don't act now.

    • Incognito 16.2

      Because EVs are expensive, subsidies are one way of increasing market uptake. It works in Europe so why is it a dumb idea here? It sounds like your reason for opposition against it is that “wealthy fuckers” seem to be given a free ride [pardon the pun].

      • Poission 16.2.1

        The electricity has to come from somewhere,why not transfer the feebate to state housing units and install solar on them for around the same cost.

        This would reduce the costs for low income tenants.Nelson,hawkes bay,gisborne with good sunshine hours. and high transmission costs would be ideal.

      • bwaghorn 16.2.2

        I doubt it will affect the take up of electric cars and car companies will just make more profit has this government learnt nothing from the failure the rental subsidies is

        Add to that car companies are struggling to meet demand all ready people will go petrol if they have to wait months for their new car.

        I see I had a typo about a purchase tax on tyres that was meant to be utes.

        • Incognito 16.2.2.1

          As I said, it seems to be working well in some countries in Europe.

          Not all subsidies are the same; cars and rentals are quite different in terms of social need, outlay, and ROI (return on investment) and are treated differently too by IRD. There are quite a few EVs in the lease fleet AFAIK.

          I’ll fix your typo 😉

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Fast-tracked Northland water project will accelerate economic recovery
    The Government has welcomed the decision to approve a new water storage reservoir in Northland, the first of a number of infrastructure projects earmarked for a speedy consenting process that aims to accelerate New Zealand’s economic recovery from Covid-19.  The Matawii Water Storage Reservoir will provide drinking water for Kaikohe, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Tokelau Language Week reminds us to stay united and strong
    Staying strong in the face of challenges and being true to our heritage and languages are key to preserving our cultural identity and wellbeing, is the focus of the 2020 Tokelau Language Week. Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio, says this year’s theme, ‘Apoapo tau foe, i nā tāfea ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • NZ announces a third P-3 deployment in support of UN sanctions
    The Government has deployed a Royal New Zealand Air Force P-3K2 Orion (P-3) maritime patrol aircraft to support the implementation of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions imposing sanctions against North Korea, announced Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters and Minister of Defence Ron Mark. “New Zealand has long supported ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Pacific trade and development agreement a reality
    Pacific regional trade and development agreement PACER Plus will enter into force in 60 days now that the required eight countries have ratified it. Trade and Export Growth Minister David Parker welcomed the announcement that the Cook Islands is the eighth nation to ratify this landmark agreement. “The agreement represents ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Securing a pipeline of teachers
    The Government is changing its approach to teacher recruitment as COVID-19 travel restrictions continue, by boosting a range of initiatives to get more Kiwis into teaching. “When we came into Government, we were faced with a teacher supply crisis,” Education Minister Chris Hipkins said. “Over the past three years, we ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Border exceptions for a small number of international students with visas
    The Government has established a new category that will allow 250 international PhD and postgraduate students to enter New Zealand and continue their studies, in the latest set of border exceptions. “The health, safety and wellbeing of people in New Zealand remains the Government’s top priority. Tight border restrictions remain ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • First COVID-19 vaccine purchase agreement signed
    The Government has signed an agreement to purchase 1.5 million COVID-19 vaccines – enough for 750,000 people – from Pfizer and BioNTech, subject to the vaccine successfully completing all clinical trials and passing regulatory approvals in New Zealand, say Research, Science and Innovation Minister Megan Woods and Health Minister Chris Hipkins. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • International statement – End-to-end encryption and public safety
    We, the undersigned, support strong encryption, which plays a crucial role in protecting personal data, privacy, intellectual property, trade secrets and cyber security.  It also serves a vital purpose in repressive states to protect journalists, human rights defenders and other vulnerable people, as stated in the 2017 resolution of the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Ministry of Defence Biodefence Assessment released
    The Ministry of Defence has today released a Defence Assessment examining Defence’s role across the spectrum of biological hazards and threats facing New Zealand. Biodefence: Preparing for a New Era of Biological Hazards and Threats looks at how the NZDF supports other agencies’ biodefence activities, and considers the context of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • New Approaches to Economic Challenges: Confronting Planetary Emergencies: OECD 9 October 2020
    New Approaches to Economic Challenges: Confronting Planetary Emergencies: OECD 9 October 2020 Hon David Parker’s response following Thomas Piketty and Esther Duflo. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, wherever in the world you might be. I first acknowledge the excellent thought provoking speeches of Thomas Piketty and Esther ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago