-
Entrenchment means legislation could only be amended or repealed if a special majority agreed to it in Parliament. Earlier this week, the entrenchment clause in Three Waters was labelled as "constitutionally objectionable" by the Law Society.
The clause would now be removed, House Leader Chris Hipkins confirmed on Sunday.
"It was a mistake to put the entrenchment clause in and the Government will fix the issue as soon as the House resumes on Tuesday," he said in a statement.
Muppets!
-
@taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:
Entrenchment means legislation could only be amended or repealed if a special majority agreed to it in Parliament. Earlier this week, the entrenchment clause in Three Waters was labelled as "constitutionally objectionable" by the Law Society.
The clause would now be removed, House Leader Chris Hipkins confirmed on Sunday.
"It was a mistake to put the entrenchment clause in and the Government will fix the issue as soon as the House resumes on Tuesday," he said in a statement.
Muppets!
The lies are catching up. I don't think these things go unnoticed by the public
-
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
@canefan Only to be replaced by a political infant who goes on Morning Report to talk about his policy of raising the super age and allows himself to get ambushed by a price of bread question.
Neither party is up to the job - unfortunately.
Luxton appears so terribly afraid of making a mistake that he really comes across at best as one of those politicians that speaks a lot but never appears to say anything, at middling as spineless and at worst a combination of the two.
ACT is climbing the ranks simply because Seymour puts up some sort of opposition to Labour, not that ACT and national lack material but it appears only ACT has the guts to do something about it.
And I'm not an ACT voter or Seymour fan, just simply saying how I see it - rightly or wrongly.
-
@Windows97 I was never sold on Luxon and my misgivings are being borne out I think.
Yes he's steadied the ship, but that's more about what went before and the Labour implosion than any qualities Luxon himself brings.
Nat supporters fap about how he is John Key II just because they both have a commercial background, but Key was a political savant and Luxon ...isn't.
Luxon remains Labours one great hope for re-election. He isn't really improving at all. How can he go into an interview not knowing what NZ Super pays. He epitomises the white, privileged male meme and he's leading a caucus that largely reinforces that prejudice.
Cindy v Luxon is a political mis-match
Labour v National - not so much.
Even with the state of the economy and Labour's many and obvious failings I still think the electoon's going to be tight
-
@dogmeat Sadly your 100% correct here, not because I was desperately looking for something to disagree with in your post so I could argue with a complete stranger on the internet, but because I don't think my mental health could stand another 4 years of Cindy.
Between her and Fozzie it's pretty tough going if you're looking to your leaders for inspiration
-
@Windows97 said in NZ Politics:
comes across at best as one of those politicians that speaks a lot but never appears to say anything
isnt that how most politicians speak anyway?
-
@taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:
@Windows97 said in NZ Politics:
comes across at best as one of those politicians that speaks a lot but never appears to say anything
isnt that how most politicians speak anyway?
Your not far wrong...I guess the good ones are those that actually manage to say something
-
@Windows97 sounds like my attempts at 6th form English essays...if I waffle on writing enough about the subject matter, I am bound to hit valid points for marks
-
@taniwharugby I used the same tactic - to moderate effect I must admit
-
@Windows97 Well I got a grade 2 in 6th form English, so I regurgitated info pretty good!
-
-
It was clumsy by Luxton to refer to South Auckland garages like that, but of course stuff have to go and find someone who contradicts his statement
Perhaps tomorrow, in the name of balance, they should post a story about a meth lab in a South Auckland garage?
-
Question for the uninformed please.
Co-Governance. Can anyone explain in grunts of one syllable what exactly is being floated here?
I see mention of it about various Twitter accounts and "news" outlets.
I just don't want to speculate the actual meaning as I'm ignorant of the proposed format.
Thanks in anticipation.
(After that ... Three Waters ... )
-
@booboo My interpretation
Te Tiriti o Waitangi has been interpreted as a partnership between Maori and the Crown to govern all aspects of NZ society. If you read the Treaty that interpretation can't really be debated against. It's just that the Crown immediately reneged.
This is certainly the fundamental basis of Te Pati Maori's understanding. Theirs is an extreme stance and not helpful to most people understanding the subject as they are the bogey men.
National under Key/English and driven by Chris Findlayson introduced the concept of co-governance, particularly when it comes to natural resources. The broad concept is one of partnership and reducing the decision-making role of central government by talking to others with vested interests. You could say in increases democracy.
This doesn't sit comfortably with many people especially when some politicians play the race card by suggesting Maori are going to take our waters/fishing/bush whatever away from us. We have had forms of co-governance over things like the Waikato and Urerewa's for some time and the sky has yet to fall on our heads.
This is an extension of that. In terms of 3 Waters A maori authority would represent the rights of Maori when it comes to waterways.
Ironically my issue with 3 Waters is that it invests too much control with central government. In many ways co-governance would seek to ameliorate this so could be seen as a good thing. When it comes to clean water what is good for Maori is good for non Maori. There is no suggestion that access would be restricted or even that Maori would get a better deal - but those optics suit some agendas.
The principle of co-governance is in the Treaty. Maori have had the shit end of the stick for a long time. This isn't some form of affirmative action. It is giving a vested party some say, but not a majority say.
I think the whole issue has been poorly handled, planned and communicated. I think having it fronted by Nenaia Mahuta was a big mistake. Is it perfect? - definitely not but then I don't like the 3 Waters legislation.
Anyway getting off the subject. That's my take on co-governance. In a generation it will all be a bit meh but it is a political football at the moment. Foreshore and Seabed V2
-
@dogmeat I thought the co-governance talk was down to the fact neither red or blue could gain a majority in the house with blue aligning with yellow and red with green and it would effectively be left to the Maori Party (or I am sure Whinny thinks he has another shot) as kingmaker requiring co-governance?
I wonder if any 3 Waters supporters will be dumb enough to use the flooding as reason 3 waters is good?
-
@taniwharugby Until last month the Maori Party had ruled out working with any other group to form a government so I don't think that is the case.
I think co-governance is a nice simplistic stick to beat Labour with - as in the Maori shouldn't get special treatment and / or they're gonna steal all our stuff.
It's been use as such by David Seymour (a lot) and Chris Luxon (a bit).
There are IMO lots of reasons to oppose 3Waters but those two not so much. Co-governance is akin to having an iwi representative on your local council. Which many also don't like but doesn't really change outcomes much - if at all.
Really, I struggle to see anyone having any issues with the broad concept of Kaitiakitanga. I'd rather have iwi representation ahead of the barking mad, anti-everything wings of Labour and the Greens. Some of whom I have already heard trying to dress up 3 Waters as the answer to the storms we have experienced.
-
I'd prefer we look to the future and look after everyone equitably.
A democratic vote should be equal despite your ancestry/colour of your skin.
Where there are poor outcomes in society (education, crime, health, etc) we should help whoever is effected, be they Pacific Islanders, Asian, Maori or Pakeha.
ACT is right when they say it's a very divisive policy.
-
@Kirwan Of course ACT is right. However co-governance doesn't give anyone an extra vote.
It's akin to giving iwi as shareholders in NZ Inc a couple of seats on the Board. The collective still runs the business. Boards are often made up like this.
It's not a hill I am prepared to die on as I'm genuinely not that fussed either way, but I think there are stronger reasons to oppose Labour's meddling with 3Waters and Te Whatu Ora than co-governance.
If guys like Key, English and Finlayson are in favour and don't see it as a risk to our traditional democratic values then I'm prepared to accept that ACT are simply shit-stirring.
NZ Politics