Written By:
mickysavage - Date published:
8:43 am, June 14th, 2023 - 96 comments
Categories: Christopher Luxon, climate change, national, same old national, science, transport -
Tags: hypocrisy
Over recent periods National has run a very tightly focused campaign against state support for Tesla owners.
The aim is to minimise the credit that should be given to the Government’s Clean Car Discount Policy. This is a policy designed to make people choose more sustainable models when buying cars.
It has been a runaway success. For the past year to March 2023 there was an increase of 13 percent of the value of imported fuel efficient vehicles compared to the previous year. And electric vehicle imports increased by 127 percent.
The average emissions of vehicles coming into New Zealand have decreased by 14 percent over that period. This is a serious contribution to the country’s climate change goals.
National had lots of fun pointing out that Tesla owners would benefit from the discount as well as Leaf and Prius owners. The goal was to drive down transport emissions, and it appears that this has worked really well. In fact really, really well. But the intent is to use resentment and ridicule to trash the policy.
The farming lobby hate the policy. They are really upset that they have to pay back some of the tax write offs they have when they buy big gas guzzling vehicles that contribute significantly to the destruction of the very environment that their business model depends on. But yeah lets milk that chance to rail against Tesla driving townies.
Not all Teslas qualify. They need to have a sale price of less than $80,000 but never let reality get in the way of good old rabble rousing.
But it seems that there is a problem.
It has been revealed that at the very time National was ridiculing State support for the purchase of Teslas Christopher Luxon planned to have the use of not one but two Tesla’s, the second of which would be paid for by hard working ordinary kiwis.
From Thomas Coughan at the Herald:
National Party leader Christopher Luxon had a fully taxpayer-funded Tesla on order for his use at the same time as he was publicly bashing the Government’s EV policy for subsidising “wealthy Tesla drivers”. The Tesla would have been for Luxon’s use, although he would not have owned it.
The Herald understands Luxon was talked out of ordering the car by horrified staff and at least one senior MP, who believed the purchase would be a massive political risk.
The order was placed last year, shortly before Luxon lashed out at the Government for its clean car discount policy, telling Newshub’s AM Show Labour was taxing people driving utes to help “wealthy Tesla drivers by giving them subsidies”. The Government’s clean car discount, under last year’s settings, took more than $8000 off the price of a Tesla.
The incident highlights four problems for National.
Firstly how out of touch is it to want to own two Teslas, especially when one is being paid for by the taxpayer? And especially especially when day after day you rail against inappropriate and wasteful Government spending.
Secondly how hypocritical is it to publicly rail against Government support to individuals to buy Teslas to get the country’s car fleet emissions down but think that a Tesla for the National Party leader is fine.
Thirdly how bad is Luxon’s political judgment that he would even think of getting a state supplied Tesla let alone actually ordering one.
And fourthly National is clearly leaking again.
There is a pattern developing here. I cannot believe how accident prone Luxon is. And how he cannot see how hypocritical it is to rail against Tesla subsidies and inappropriate and wasteful Government spending but to then order a Government supplied Tesla when he already has one.
The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
What an absolute a-hole he is. Hope against hope he does not come into power.
He's now been reduced to a scooter. At least he won't need a helmet!
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/christopher-luxon-says-he-didn-t-need-taxpayer-funded-tesla-because-he-can-drive-his-scooter-instead.html
Gold, he really is an empty vessel.
Trying..to see his thought process here. If one Tesla good…two must be twice as good? No, as we have seen many times, there is no thought process. An interesting comedic book could be "The collected thoughts of Chris Luxon" : )
Really though, its just the right wing way. Do as I say…..
It will be a thin booklet.
Mr Christopher “Baldrick” Luxon is certainly expert at one thing–repeatedly demonstrating his unsuitability for higher political office.
He is driving a Tesla, yet his exhaust emissions and noise are still far too high. To continue the vehicle analogy, he is in constant reverse, driving back on his many overstatements, and his collision warning is overworked.
Seeing his press stand-up front bench supporters change from Willis, to Uffingden and Collins, then to Goldsmith whilst parked in reverse must mean his caucus understand the danger of being his front seat passenger.
All very amusing but behind it all is sloppy thinking, basic unawareness and a disconnect with ordinary citizens who are not global-wandering, multinational business-oriented, wealthy individuals but instead who want to live in a decent, fair and inclusive society.
I don’t want him driving my bus.
Agreed mac, as you say, it is the "disconnect with ordinary citizens" that will trip him up in the election campaign no matter how much they try to coach him.
Sanc has it right below-Nicola and Bish to win in 2026, gawd 'elp us.
Mac1, Luxon is a great example of "Do as I say and not as I do".
Twice now he has refused to explain, with a curt "I am not discussing that" (Tesla personal subsidy issue).
Last time it was "I have decided not to share the Report" (Uffindell inquiry into assault run by National).
Reflect on that. He demands transparency from Labour, but prefers to deflect and refuse to give information pertinent to public interest when it could be a problem.
That is high handed imo.
Been trying to imagine how his minders will be brainstorming how to frame the thing creatively…
"Well, look, obviously he has to use his Tesla to appear racy & trendy at any business meeting he attends. But he could use the taxpayer-funded one as a shopping trolley."
National actually don't like EVs anyway.
You can't make a hellish noise, puff out black smoke, intimidate other car drivers with your vehicle's size or be an effective attention seeker in an EV.
That’s why they like Ford Rangers.
I’m an old petrol head at heart, but have had an EV for a year, they are great. The ute crowd will catch on eventually, there are some very grunty models emerging in the US.
So many Rangers and Raptors with one person in them–Black, Silver, Grey, Anthracite, White, Black & White all with tinted glass. One person said to me why didn’t you wave? I said they all look the same to me.
The feeling of driving past gas stations and helping with emissions–priceless.
I could burn off a Ford Ranger at the lights. Can't intimidate me or envelop me in black smoke when all you can see is my low-emission backside and some dust.
Leaking again? Looks like my theory about Nicola and the Bish favouring a narrow loss so they can get into the driving seat and head back to the centre is firming up.
The big question is though – would the Evangelical Taliban take it, or split to form their own fundy party?
National have a problem as a Centre-Right party in defending their right wing against a determined ACT inroad there and then as you say having to head back to the centre where elections are won and lost.
I was looking at the 1993-96 election results earlier today and it was clear why we had to drop FPP and go to MMP. Also, it showed the political defections that occurred with 9 National and 4 Labour MPs defecting.
In 1996, four National MPs went to United with 2 Labour. 2 National MPs with 1 Labour went to NZF, and other former National MPs went to other minor parties. ACT had been formed in 1993 by former MPs from both parties.
In 2023 and following, I believe there is a distinct possibility that more fundamental religious National MPs will go into a religious Right party along with the likes of Tamaki who already occupy that spectrum. This becomes more likely should the party threshold be reduced from 5%.
National historically was a merger of an urban, liberal party and a rural, conservative party in the Thirties. Then, interestingly, many small farmers voted for Labour. Will that old divide reappear as we mature into MMP politics after 27 years of it?
With this new voter identification that the US is experiencing with 40% not considering themselves part of the Left/Right division, what might happen here? Is the rise of the religious and more extreme Right along with the more apparent and vocal loony fringers evident post Covid and other events going to affect how our MPs align, whether voted for or self-selected as we have seen with three recent defections?
O tempora! O mores!
Poor Mickey.
He has spent such a lot of time composing this missive only to have his efforts blown out of the water in a couple of minutes on morning report. Luxon is finally learning how to treat these non-news stories.
In his comments he didn't try and justify anything he may, or may not, have done about getting a taxpayer funded vehicle. He pointed out how well looked after he, and all the Government Ministers are with their travel provisions. Then he said that the rest of the time he can simply use his own car. Then he suggested that he could, in the last resort use a scooter. He didn't need to be provided with another expensive vehicle at taxpayer expense.
I spoke to a friend about this earlier this morning. She is, or at least has been, a Labour voter. Her reaction was along the lines of "good on him" for not taking advantage of a perk. She then said she couldn't see why all the Cabinet members were given a free car for anyone in their families use. At their salaries she thought they could provide their own private vehicles.
Perhaps you could explain to her why they should get these perks of Office. The taxpayer doesn't get such expensive things. Why does a Minister of the Crown? Let them buy their own cars, with their own money.
Ah, the old line, "I have always voted Labour, but now this!"
No. I really don't think she will switch her vote for any reason. She did make the remark though.
Solid response
When this first became a “story” I thought the headline should read “Luxon doesn’t buy car”
Tomorrow I suspect the lovies at Stuff and Newshub will moisten their excitement with the follow up “Luxon didn’t have a jam sandwich for lunch”
Riveting. Can’t wait.
Let us know if you have read anything on Stuff about Luxon’s Teslagate.
Riveting. Can’t wait.
Sigh.
It's not the perks.
It's slagging off Tesla owners as rich out-of-touch pricks while simultaneously owning a Tesla and ordering another taxpayer-funded Tesla.
Except he didn’t order another Tesla. He turned it down.
The Herald report seems to prove you wrong about that:
Normally if someone has something on order, it's because they ordered it. Are you suggesting this normal behaviour doesn't apply to Luxon??
The Herald got it wrong. The car was offered to Luxon and he turned it down.
Well, that's your opinion. You cited no evidence that it is correct. Maybe, in the unlikely event of some Labour MP being sufficiently on the ball, a suitable question will be asked in the next session of parliament.
"Was a taxpayer-funded Tesla ordered for the Leader of the Opposition?"
Supplementary question, if yes: "Who placed the order?" If the dodgy dude dodges it, some fine-tuning of the line of inquiry may be required…
I would expect this question, if someone tried to ask it, would be rejected by the Speaker on the grounds that the Minister, whoever it was, had no responsibility for the matter.
I meant questions directed at Luxon himself. If a staffer ordered it for him, any enterprising Labour MP ought to be able to clarify that, huh?
If the staffer did it, I presume it was on the basis of entitlement. National and Labour have carefully colluded in preserving that 19th century culture of entitlement all the way through the 20th century and up until now because they both belief in it, right? Both parties in total solidarity on this point since they were founded.
Mickey plays the trivia violin to serenade that section of the readers who are keen to ignore this tradition of substance. Imagine if Labour really were the progressive party they pretend to be; focus would then switch toward eliminating antique privileges. Hypocrisy in both parties…
Questioning Luxon about the matter would appear to be out of order.
You got me curious as I hadn't been thinking about asking him for an answer. However, looking at the discussion in this document
https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/parliamentary-practice-in-new-zealand/chapter-39-questions/
in the bit on questions to Other Members it says "Apart from any to the Speaker, they must relate exclusively to proceedings in the House of which the member has charge" and "The Standing Orders do not, therefore, give members a general opportunity to cross-question each other over statements made outside the House on policy or procedural matters".
Getting a car for the Leader of the Opposition would seem to be out of the realm of possible questions. I'm not an expert, or even vaguely knowledgeable on this though. There might be a way.
Thanks, worth a try I reckon, even on that uncertain basis.
It’s not my opinion. It’s what Luxon said happened. If you have proof he’s lying, cough it up.
Here's how Newshub reported it:
Like any other good little consumer, he chose the freebie. Freedom of choice is so wonderful, right? Almost everyone succumbs to the lure. I'm not blaming him for that.
Look, if you want to get the guy off the apparent moral hook, fine. Just believe that both the Herald & Newshub are lying. Go for it!
Yes yes, I know how a journalist is spinning it.
Well done, Liberty, don't you be taken in, as one right whinger told me, by "lying facts!"
Are you a fan of trump there.. liberty belle..?
You seem to have that same ability to wave away facts…a trait redolent in trumpeters…
But anyway…i's just that lying media again…eh…?
Those paid agents of the great left-wing conspiracy…eh..?
Heh…!… trumpeters both there and here….are funny..!..eh..?
More laughs than a barrel of monkeys…
Do you own a maga bill-lid…?
If you don't…do you lust after one..?
What ‘facts’? Plenty of reskins by journalists.
There ya go…!
That's pure trumping…right there…
And the trump fanboy/girl question..?..you forgot to confirm that..
Multiple news sources now have described Luxton as ordering the vehicle when the opportunity to do so was put in front of him:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/christopher-luxon-says-he-didn-t-need-taxpayer-funded-tesla-because-he-can-drive-his-scooter-instead.html
You mean two news sources, neither of which provides any substantiation,
They are much more substantive than your claim for which you have zero evidence.
Luxon admits the course of events, just lies about who prompted the cancelling.
It’s no big deal, people have company cars and I wouldn’t expect politicians at a particular level not to have them.
A Model 3 would presumably have attracted the rebate he was criticising, and that’s where his political inexperience showed.
It’s not at all substantive, just a couple of journalists ‘reackons’.
And Chris Luxton's.
You 'reackon'? Will another Nat spokesman extricate Luxon from his trivial mess, or will Luxoff do the transubstantiation himself?
Watch the AM show from today, Drowsy. It’s yesterdays news🙂
The subject of this post is "You can never have too many Teslas".
Your comment @2:51 pm seemed off topic – perhaps you think Minister Tinetti is a 'bad girl'?
And it’s gone – on/off seems to be catching
“Your comment @2:51 pm seemed off topic – perhaps you think Minister Tinetti is a 'bad girl'?
And it’s gone.”
Yes I thought the same after posting it, so deleted it. Minister Tinetti’s misdemeanours don’t need any further attention.
[Who do you think you are: Judge Dredd? Besides the obvious off-topic diversion under the Post you commented, it also shows & confirms again that your intention here is to draw attention to alleged misdemeanours by Labour Ministers and other political opponents. Unfortunately for you, I can still read your comment in the back-end in the Trash folder; it was up long enough for Drowsy M. Kram to respond to it before you trashed it and wasted his time. Wasting precious time of other good people here is your MO. How many warnings do you need before the bell tolls for you? – Incognito]
Mod note
Luxon admitted it as Muttonbird's quote shows. You are suffering a bad case of denialism LibertyBelle.
Quote Luxons actual words, not a journalists reackons..
The reporter did quote Luxon's words.
He did both, according to the report. He ordered it, the order had gone through, and then he cancelled it.
You're attempting to claim that someone said to him "wanna Tesla?" and he said "nah".
He ordered it, the order went through, and then someone in the National party spotted the obvious hypocrisy and convinced him to cancel the order.
And even if you ignore all of that, he was still slagging off Tesla owners while owning his own Tesla.
‘According to the report’. Which was wrong. Politicians don’t order cars for themselves.
Oy. I'm going to patiently explain this one more time. Then I'm giving up.
I don't have a problem with Luxon personally owning a Tesla.
I don't have a problem with Luxon ordering, cancelling, or even getting a second Tesla from the taxpayer. Or having a staff member order it for him.
What I have a problem with is: doing any of those things while slagging off Tesla owners for partisan political purposes.
It's not a story about perks.
It's a story about hypocrisy. And that story would still be a story even if there wasn't any ordering or cancelling of Teslas, because he already owned a Tesla while slagging off Tesla owners.
Clear?
You really need another thing to be true. He would have to have claimed the rebate when he bought his own Tesla.
He wasn't slagging off Tesla owners. He was claiming that the taxpayer shouldn't be providing people who could afford a Tesla with a taxpayer funded rebate.
If he bought his own car, and did not claim the rebate then he is not a hypocrite.
Fair point, but it's a bit more complex than that. It would have been difficult to avoid claiming the rebate if he bought it while it was in force, because car companies basically claimed it for you, you'd have to specifically say you didn't want it.
If he bought it when it wasn't in force, it's a debatable situation, because we'll never know whether he would have claimed a rebate if one was available.
I wish that Honda and Toyota had done that. When I bought cars from them that qualified for the rebate I had to do it myself.
I suspect his own Tesla would have been over the $80k limit and wouldn't have qualified anyway.
For me the main point is that the guy just can't think ahead. People I've talked to at AirNZ said the same thing. The commonly cited example is giving up a landing spot at Heathrow, which is an incredibly short-sighted decision that made AirNZ's books look slightly better but effectively severed a link with a major trading partner for all time (we'll never get the landing spot back).
Knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing, can't think ahead, makes up policy on the hoof and throws colleagues under the bus.
Now that critique may have merit. Which would simply place Luxon in the same category as a number of others of our political masters.
“Luxon misspoke” – how likely is that? NAct would scrap the ute tax – would they continue and/or enhance EV incentives? 4 months to go.
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/clean-car-programme/clean-car-discount/clean-car-discount-1-july-2023-changes/
If this is true Alwyn (Tesla over $80k limit), and I think you may be partially right because Tesla do have their smallest model, the Model 3, starting at $66k, then why was Luxon saying the clean car discount being used by rich people to buy Teslas?
Luxon own-goal no.7438…..I'm starting to lose count…..glad he isn't in Burnley's defence.
Burnley? How are they doing now?
@Bearded Git.
I believe that there is one model of Tesla that is under the $80k limit and therefore the rebate is applicable. It is the most basic Model 3, the Standard range version.
https://www.aa.co.nz/cars/buying-a-car/car-buying-guide/new-cars/new-car-prices/tesla/
All their other models are well above the $80k maximum price at which the rebate cuts out..
Mind you, I wouldn't personally buy any of them. I prefer, and have, hybrids. The Honda Jazz E:Hev Luxe has averaged 3.8 litres/100 Km around hilly Wellington from new. The Camry Hybrid gets about 5.4 litre/100 km which is pretty good for a big car.
When did he slag off Tesla owners? His criticism was of the government scheme funding wealthy people’s vehicle choices.
"- National leader Chris Luxon last year ordered a taxpayer-funded Tesla for his personal use
– He already owns a Tesla
– At the same time, he was bashing the Govt's EV policy for subsidising “wealthy Tesla drivers”
https://twitter.com/dahmenaaron/status/1668474083598798849
Re-quoting a journalist. What next? And still no evidence he slagged off Tesla owners.
The reporter quoted Luxon's words. I guess being in wilful denial means you can refuse to see Luxon's blatant hypocrisy and disconnect.
Luxons words didn’t slag off Tesla owners. Which is why you’re avoiding quoting them yourself.
But hey, if you want hypocrisy, try Hopkins opening the “holiday highway” up north.
[You must be mighty proud of yourself successfully diverting from Luxon’s faux pas to Labour’s alleged hypocrisy. Clearly, you’re not getting the traction & result you want, so you resort to diversion troll tactics, and not for the first time. How many warnings do you need before the bell tolls? – Incognito]
Mod note
Not diverting at all. The comment about Hipkins hypocrisy was directly related to Louis claim about Luxons ‘blatant hypocrisy’.
[Actually, you were diverting and now you are wasting Moderator time, as you’ve done so many times before and which I already mentioned in my other Mod note for you under this Post.
So, here goes, again. This Post is about Christopher Luxon and his hypocrisy, as is evident from the main text, the Categories & Tags as meta data for the Post, and the commentary. Denying this is futile.
The thread that you diverted was about Luxon’s hypocrisy. Yet you deny this as well and seem to think, incorrectly of course, that this justifies you diverting to Labour’s alleged hypocrisy aka the best defence is attack.
Throughout this Post you have been denying, deflecting, and diverting, i.e., your MO here on TS.
And time and time again you dig in & double down. It seems obvious that you have no intention at all to change your pattern behaviour here and that you feel entitled to act the way you do. How misguided you are – Incognito]
Mod note
You are in denial and blind to Luxon's hypocrisy.
The Pūhoi to Warkworth motorway, announced by the National govt around 8 years ago, is another roading project completed by this Labour govt.
Hipkins said it was wrong of Labour to call it the ‘holiday highway. ’ He said it was not wrong to criticise all of the road funding for the Roads of National Significance and away from maintenance and local roads. “The reality is we need to do both. We need to invest in new roads but also make sure we are maintaining the existing roads,” Hipkins said"
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/prime-minister-chris-hipkins-to-open-puhoi-to-warkworth-motorway-mocked-by-labour-as-a-highway-holiday/RHDZW3427FHJPDLTJI7LGHACOM/
You’re compromised by bias. Criticising a project and labelling it a ‘holiday highway’, but being happy to enjoy the photo op, is rank hypocrisy.
That's rather hypocritical of you Libertybelle, that's your problem. You ignored the part where the Labour govt completed the project that National had announced 8 years ago and they had every right to enjoy a photo op. Labour did put in the work after all.
“You ignored the part where the Labour govt completed the project that National had announced 8 years ago …”
The hypocrisy is not in completing it, it’s in celebrating it with a photo op. It’s so obvious.
I think you have lost the plot LibertyBelle. It is not in the least bit hypocritical for the Labour government to celebrate the completion of another large roading project they have worked on. They deserve the photo op.
Glad to see some people write the truth. Why no attack on Jacinda and Hipkins? All the other ministers that have taken up their perk? The hypocracy! LOL
[Please correct your e-mail address in your next comment, thanks – Incognito]
Mod note
Likewise on AM this morning, Luxon was excellent, laughing it off. Labour’s internal polling must be really bad.
Luxon's scooter story was unconvincing.
So which is it? In one interview Luxon said he had a Tesla, a little model 3, in another interview he said that he did have an electric car, a Tesla, and that he loves it, but in another interview, he claimed he doesn't have a Tesla, that it's his wife's car.
https://twitter.com/David_Cormack/status/1669228210855510018
"Mr Luxon said he owned a Tesla a while back. Today, he said, " My wife owns a Tesla, and I'm not prepared to discuss the financial affairs of my wife and family." Oh, deary me. Btw he also won't say if they got the $8,000 refund. Oh, what a tangled web etc etc"
https://twitter.com/jemmasplace/status/1669230178780999680
What does whether he or his wife owns a Tesla have to do with whether he ordered one on the taxpayer??
Luxon initially did order a Tesla paid by the taxpayer until it was pointed out to him that it was a bad look politically.
So you say. And a reporter.
Here’s another report.
https://theplatform.kiwi/opinions/media-ignore-the-real-story-behind-luxon-s-tesla-rejection
Media have quoted Luxon and MS article “Luxon was talked out of ordering the car by horrified staff and at least one senior MP”
The platform? It is an opinion, not a report.
Media have not ‘quoted Luxon’ about ‘ordering’ a Tesla’. If they had, you could quote it, which (again) I note you haven’t. And the journalist who made the claims about Luxon being talked out of something had provided no evidence, just their own reackons. Do you believe everything journalists write?
PS you did pick up the bit where Luxon also turned down the Tesla in 2022?
You are in denial. Luxon didn't deny it, and neither has his staff. "pick up the bit where Luxon also turned down the Tesla " You missed out the part "days" after he ordered it. Luxon said he thought the Tesla might come in handy.
Yes yes yes you believe the journo uncritically. You are still unable to provide a shred of evidence beyond those musings.
You're being hypocritical, LibertyBelle, you believed an opinion piece on The Platform. So now you're even denying that Luxon said a Tesla might come in handy? He said it on the Am show you mentioned @ 10.5. You have ignored all the evidence, even from others as well. As previously stated, Luxon and his staff haven't denied it and you haven't produced any evidence to the contrary.
And you belive the guy who took a chauffeured limo 200 meters??
I saw, quite regularly the then Deputy PM in a Labour led Government take a limo from Parliament to the bottom part of Bolton Street. That would have been less than 200 metres.
Winston?? I'm picking , to pickled and smoked to walk no doubt
Typical bullshit attitude from middleclass lefties, for a public good tax to be fair it must be avoidable.
At this stage it isn't!!
Reasonable people can disagree about making up policy on the fly which could benefit you personally by $6.7 million.
One candidate can say it’s not a conflict of interest. Renters groups say it is, while NRT calls it open corruption. Open corruption. It staggers me that anything else can be attempted to be argued, particularly given the way it reversed established policy.
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/06/naked-corruption.html
But don’t worry good ol Guyon says he’s been more positive in some words he’s used. Guyon hasn’t backed a better candidate since his live in with the Jones boy.
There is a fundamental complacency about swapping into Teslas. Life, for those unblighted by excesses of corruption like the QMS or the decades of slave fishing that largely destroyed our fisheries, will go on unchanged, the subtext is, even while the cyclonic harbingers of true change are nipping at our heels.
A slightly more ascetic turn might not go amiss – e bikes or e scooters replacing where possible the vehicles that an abundance of petrochemicals and a scarcity of consideration for environmental consequences made, albeit temporarily, rational. Are more, and more expensive battery vehicles really more than a temporary, transitional solution? Perhaps not even that.
The benefits are clear, but the caveats will require attention from scientists, engineers, and policymakers. “We are moving headlong into a world of electrified transport, but some of the implications of this move remain unresolved,”
During Key's doubtful reign in NZ politics, a commentator/moderator on the Standard, blip, compiled a very long list of all Key's lies and half truths.
Is it time someone did the same for Luxon's gaffes and walkbacks?