The Official Aotearoa Politics Thread

Where goats go to escape
User avatar
Guy Smiley
Posts: 6018
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:52 pm

Enzedder wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:58 am
Gumboot wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:10 am The preliminary referendum results have just been announced. YES to EOLC 65.2% - 33.8%. NO to Cannabis 53.1% - 46.1%.

There are still about 480,000 special votes to be counted and the official results will be confirmed next Friday.
As mentioned elsewhere, The gangs are delighted that they still have a monopoly on sales of dope to the youth of NZ. Well done to the uneducated and misinformed idiots who voted for the current broken system to continue.

Lets hope we can somehow review the current outdated laws which are not working.
I think there’s a demonstrated desire for change to be interpreted in the result... special votes may move the result closer of course, but there’s enough in the Yes vote to suggest law reform will be received well and there should be some momentum for that. I’m not disheartened by this... outright legalisation is a big step and perhaps decriminalisation along with a shift towards being a health issue over justice can be achieved. Long term, that could prove a better move.

Gangs can suck a fat one.
Gumboot
Posts: 8028
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:17 am

Labour has ruled out pushing for legalisation or decriminalisation of weed during this term. Chloe is understandably pissed off, but it's smart politics to front foot this decision before rather than after any announcement re a Labour-Greens coalition agreement of some kind.
User avatar
Guy Smiley
Posts: 6018
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:52 pm

Gumboot wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:26 am Labour has ruled out pushing for legalisation or decriminalisation of weed during this term. Chloe is understandably pissed off, but it's smart politics to front foot this decision before rather than after any announcement re a Labour-Greens coalition agreement of some kind.
I saw an article quoting Little saying something along the lines of ‘clear decision by the electorate rejecting etc etc’ which I find interesting given the closeness of the count so far and the number of votes outstanding. To me, his are the words of a denialist suppressing dissent. Perhaps you’re right SAM and this is a political move defining a position, but my own preference and perception is that it’s too early to declare public intention so firmly and I distrust that deeply. It smacks of agenda and not of consultation.
Gumboot
Posts: 8028
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:17 am

Shanky’s mate wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:44 am
Gumboot wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:26 am Labour has ruled out pushing for legalisation or decriminalisation of weed during this term. Chloe is understandably pissed off, but it's smart politics to front foot this decision before rather than after any announcement re a Labour-Greens coalition agreement of some kind.
I saw an article quoting Little saying something along the lines of ‘clear decision by the electorate rejecting etc etc’ which I find interesting given the closeness of the count so far and the number of votes outstanding. To me, his are the words of a denialist suppressing dissent. Perhaps you’re right SAM and this is a political move defining a position, but my own preference and perception is that it’s too early to declare public intention so firmly and I distrust that deeply. It smacks of agenda and not of consultation.
Think you might find their attitude (excuse, if you prefer) is that the referendum itself was the consultation bit - just with the NZ electorate, not with the Greens. It's a purely expedient measure. Labour doesn't want the future distraction of a disgruntled ally over a contentious issue when they feel they have a clear mandate to "crack on" with their agenda.
User avatar
JPNZ
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 12:44 am
Location: Christchurch NZ

Honestly... are there people in New Zealand who think like this? I admire Little’s response.
Attachments
F095A7A7-A901-4E4B-B1A0-8B3CF2D03AE5.jpeg
F095A7A7-A901-4E4B-B1A0-8B3CF2D03AE5.jpeg (193.91 KiB) Viewed 1716 times
Gumboot
Posts: 8028
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:17 am

The Greens have accepted Labour's cooperation agreement and will stay inside the tent.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 3577
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:55 pm
Location: Hamilton NZ

Makes sense for them to be part of it all
Cooperation Agreement between the New Zealand Labour Party and the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand

Preamble

1. The Green Party commits to supporting the Labour Government to provide stable government for the term of the 53rd Parliament. The parties commit to working in the best interests of New Zealand and New Zealanders, working to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and building and maintaining public confidence in the integrity of Parliament and our democracy.

2. This agreement builds on the constructive and enduring working relationship between the two parties. It does this by setting out the arrangements between the parliamentary Labour and Green Parties as they relate to the Ministerial portfolios and areas of policy cooperation set out in this agreement.

Nature of agreement

3. The Green Party agrees to support the Labour Government by not opposing votes on matters of confidence and supply for the full term of this Parliament. In addition, the Green Party will support the Labour Government on procedural motions in the House and at Select Committees on the terms set out in this agreement. This will provide New Zealanders with the certainty of a strong, stable Labour Government with support from the Green Party over the next three years.

4. The Green Party will determine its own position in relation to any policy or legislative matter not covered by the Ministerial portfolios and areas of cooperation set out in this agreement. Differences of position within such portfolios and areas of cooperation will be managed in accordance with this agreement.

5. The Labour Government in turn commits to working constructively with the Green Party to advance the policy goals set out in this agreement, alongside Labour's policy programme.

Ministerial positions

6. The Labour Government's priorities for this term centre on a COVID-19 recovery plan. This includes the implementation of Labour's manifesto promises and five point economic plan, with a focus on investing in our people and preparing for the future.

7. The Green Party's aspirations include enabling a Just Transition to a zero-carbon economy; supporting equity, compassion and inclusive communities; ensuring ecosystems, indigenous species and their habitats thrive; and cultivating a flourishing democracy founded on Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

8. This agreement supports the advancement of these priorities by allocating portfolios and establishing areas of cooperation that are consistent with the direction and goals of the Labour Government, as well as contributing to addressing the Green Party's aspirations.

9. The Green Party will hold the following portfolios outside of Cabinet:

a. Marama Davidson will be appointed to the position of Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence and Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness).

b. Hon James Shaw will be appointed to the position of Minister of Climate Change and Associate Minister for the Environment (Biodiversity).

10. The Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence will be the lead Minister for the whole of government response on family and sexual violence with the mandate to coordinate Budget bids in this area. The Minister will also be a member of the ad hoc Ministerial group on the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy.

11. These Ministerial portfolios also reflect areas where Green Party expertise provides a valuable contribution to the Labour Government.

12. Ministers from the Green Party will attend Cabinet Committees for items relevant to their portfolios and receive Cabinet Papers relevant to their portfolios, as provided for in the Cabinet Manual.

13. In addition, the Labour Party will support the nomination of a Green Party Member of Parliament to be the Chair of a Select Committee, as well as a Green Party Member of Parliament in the role of Deputy Chair of an additional Select Committee.

Areas of cooperation

14. The parties will cooperate on agreed areas where the Labour and Green Parties have common goals:

a. Achieving the purpose and goals of the Zero Carbon Act through decarbonising public transport, decarbonising the public sector, increasing the uptake of zero-emission vehicles, introducing clean car standards, and supporting the use of renewable energy for industrial heat.

b. Protecting our environment and biodiversity through working to achieve the outcomes of Te Mana o te Taiao - Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 2020, protecting Kauri, building on pest management programmes, and taking action to minimise waste and problem plastics.

c. Improving child wellbeing and marginalised communities through action on homelessness, warmer homes, and child and youth mental health.

15. These areas of cooperation reflect common goals between the Labour and Green Parties, and represent areas where the policy and experience of the Green Party provides a positive contribution to the Labour Government.

16. The Labour and Green Parties will work together in good faith and cooperate with each other in respect of executive and Parliamentary activities to advance these shared goals, including any public statements. The Prime Minister's letters of expectations to Ministers will reflect the areas of policy cooperation and consultation processes required.

17. Beyond these stated areas of cooperation, it is also the Government's intention to work with political parties from across Parliament (including the opposition) on issues that affect our democracy, including the Electoral Commission's 2012 recommended changes to MMP, electoral finance law, and the length of the Parliamentary term.

Consultation

18. On the areas of cooperation set out in this agreement, or other matters as agreed, the parties commit to undertaking political consultation between the responsible Minister and the appropriate spokesperson. This process will also apply to Green Party Ministerial portfolio matters.

19. This process, which will be agreed between the parties and set out in a Cabinet Office Circular, will cover:

a. the initial policy development, including access to relevant papers and drafts of legislation,

b. the development of Cabinet Papers,

c. the public communication of the policy to acknowledge the role of the Green Party.

20. The Labour Government will also brief the Green Party on:

a. the broad outline of the legislative programme,

b. broad Budget parameters and process.

21. Outside of the areas specified in this agreement, there will be no requirement for consultation, but this could happen on a case by case basis.

22. Where there has been full participation in the development of a policy initiative and that participation has led to an agreed position, it is expected that both parties to this agreement will publicly support the process and outcome. This does not prevent the parties from noting where the agreed position deviates from their stated policy.

Relationship between the parties

23. The Labour and Green Parties will cooperate with each other with mutual respect on the areas set out in this agreement. Cooperation will include joint announcements relating to areas of policy cooperation.

24. The Leader of the Labour Party and the Green Party Co-leaders will meet every six weeks to monitor progress against the areas of cooperation set out in this agreement. The Chiefs of Staff will meet regularly.

25. The parties agree that any concerns will be raised in confidence as early as possible and in good faith, between the Prime Minister's Office and the Office of the Co-leaders of the Green Party. Matters can be escalated to the Chiefs of Staff, and then Party leaders, as required.

26. The parties may establish a process in order to maintain different public positions on the areas of cooperation. The parties agree that matters of differentiation will be dealt with on a 'no surprises' basis.

27. This agreement will evolve as the term of Government progresses, including through opening up potential additional areas of cooperation. Any additional areas of cooperation will be agreed to between the Party leaders and given effect by a letter from the Prime Minister to the relevant Minister.

Cabinet Manual

28. Green Party Ministers agree to be bound by the Cabinet Manual in the exercise of Ministerial Responsibilities, and in particular, agree to be bound by the provisions in the Cabinet Manual on conduct, public duty, and personal interests of Ministers.

Collective responsibility

29. Ministers from the Green Party agree to be bound by collective responsibility in relation to their Ministerial portfolios. When speaking within portfolio responsibilities, they will speak for the Government representing the Government's position in relation to those responsibilities.

30. In accordance with the Cabinet Manual, Ministers from the Green Party must support and implement Cabinet decisions in their portfolio areas. However, Ministers from the Green Party will not be restricted from noting where that policy may deviate from the Green Party policy on an issue. If this is required, it may be noted in the Cabinet minute that on a key issue, the Green Party position differs from the Cabinet decision.

31. When Ministers from the Green Party are speaking about matters outside of their portfolio responsibilities, they may speak as the Co-leader of the Green Party or as a Member of Parliament.

32. Agree to disagree provisions of the Cabinet Manual will be applied as necessary.

Confidentiality

33. Ministers from the Green Party will be bound by the principle of Cabinet confidentiality, as set out in the Cabinet Manual.

34. Where Cabinet papers or other briefings are provided to the Green Party, or where the Green Party is involved in consultation on legislation, policy or budgetary matters, all such material and discussions shall be confidential unless otherwise agreed.

35. In the event that Government or Cabinet papers are provided to the Green Party for the purposes of political consultation they shall be provided to a designated person with the office of the Green Party, who will take responsibility for ensuring they are treated with the appropriate degree of confidentiality.

36. Once confidential information is in the public domain, both parties are able to make comment on the information, subject to any constraints required by collective responsibility or this agreement.

Management of Parliamentary activities

37. Both parties commit to a 'no surprises' approach for House and Select Committee business. Protocols will be established for managing this.

38. The Leader of the House will keep the Green Party informed about the House programme in advance of each sitting session.

39. Consultation on legislation outside of the scope of this agreement will be conducted on a case by case basis. The Green Party will consider its position on each Bill in good faith and advise the relevant Minister and the Prime Minister's Office.

40. The Labour and Green Parties agree to a 'no surprises' approach to new Members' Bills. However, neither party is under any obligation to support the other party's Members' Bills.

41. The Green Party will support the Government on procedural motions in the House and in Select Committees, subject to consultation being undertaken. This excludes urgency, which will be negotiated on a case by case basis. The Labour Party Whip and Green Party Musterer will establish protocols to ensure these processes work effectively to meet the expectations of both parties.

42. The Green Party undertakes to keep full voting numbers present whenever the House is sitting where the Green Party has committed to support the Labour Government and on matters of confidence and supply. The Green Party also undertakes to keep full voting numbers in Select Committee, unless otherwise agreed.
I drink and I forget things.
Gumboot
Posts: 8028
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:17 am

Jacinda's announcing her new cabinet. Robertson is Deputy PM.
Gumboot
Posts: 8028
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:17 am

Phil Twyford has been dumped from cabinet. :thumbup:
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 3577
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:55 pm
Location: Hamilton NZ

A tiny door has been kept open for him to find a way back in. Not sure why to be honest.

1 Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern
Prime Minister
Minister for National Security and Intelligence
Minister for Child Poverty Reduction
Minister Responsible for Ministerial Services
Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage

2 Hon Grant Robertson
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister of Finance
Minister for Infrastructure
Minister for Racing
Minister for Sport and Recreation

3 Hon Kelvin Davis
Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti
Minister for Children
Minister of Corrections
Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)

4 Hon Dr Megan Woods
Minister of Housing
Minister of Energy and Resources
Minister of Research, Science and Innovation
Associate Minister of Finance

5 Hon Chris Hipkins
Minister for COVID-19 Response
Minister of Education
Minister for the Public Service
Leader of the House

6 Hon Carmel Sepuloni
Minister for Social Development and Employment
Minister for ACC
Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage
Minister for Disability Issues

7 Hon Andrew Little
Minister of Health
Minister Responsible for the GCSB
Minister Responsible for the NZSIS
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations
Minister Responsible for Pike River Re-entry

8 Hon David Parker
Attorney-General
Minister for the Environment
Minister for Oceans and Fisheries
Minister of Revenue
Associate Minister of Finance

9 Hon Nanaia Mahuta
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Minister of Local Government
Associate Minister for Māori Development

10 Hon Poto Williams
Minister for Building and Construction
Minister of Police
Associate Minister for Children
Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)

11 Hon Damien O’Connor
Minister of Agriculture
Minister for Biosecurity
Minister for Land Information
Minister for Rural Communities
Minister for Trade and Export Growth

12 Hon Stuart Nash
Minister for Economic and Regional Development
Minister of Forestry
Minister for Small Business
Minister of Tourism

13 Hon Kris Faafoi
Minister of Justice
Minister for Broadcasting and Media
Minister of Immigration

14 Hon Peeni Henare
Minister of Defence
Minister for Whānau Ora
Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)
Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing)
Associate Minister of Tourism

15 Hon Willie Jackson
Minister for Māori Development
Associate Minister for ACC
Associate Minister of Justice

16 Jan Tinetti
Minister of Internal Affairs
Minister for Women
Associate Minister of Education

17 Michael Wood
Minister of Transport
Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety
Deputy Leader of the House

18 Kiri Allan
Minister of Conservation
Minister for Emergency Management
Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage
Associate Minister for the Environment

19 Hon Dr David Clark
Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs
Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications
Minister for State Owned Enterprises
Minister of Statistics
Minister Responsible for the Earthquake Commission

20 Ayesha Verrall
Minister for Food Safety
Minister for Seniors
Associate Minister of Health
Associate Minister of Research, Science and Innovation

MINISTERS OUTSIDE CABINET

Hon Aupito William Sio
Minister for Courts
Minister for Pacific Peoples
Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs
Associate Minister of Education (Pacific Peoples)
Associate Minister of Justice
Associate Minister of Health (Pacific Peoples)

Hon Meka Whaitiri
Minister of Customs
Minister for Veterans
Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare)
Associate Minister of Statistics

Hon Phil Twyford
Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control
Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth
Associate Minister for the Environment
Associate Minister of Immigration

Priyanca Radhakrishnan
Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector
Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities
Minister for Youth
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment
I drink and I forget things.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 3577
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:55 pm
Location: Hamilton NZ

Interesting perspective from Damien Grant of Stuff.
Defying cannabis referendum result the right thing to do - and PM knows it
Damien Grant


Jacinda Ardern explains her vote in the cannabis referendum. ...

Opinion writing challenges us to consider fresh perspectives. Support healthy debate by making a contribution.

In the heated debate surrounding the 1986 Homosexual Law Reform Bill, the Salvation Army took the humane approach that, although homosexuality was “deviant”, a homosexual orientation should itself not be punished so long as no “covert acts” resulted. Medical and psychiatric treatment were preferable.

The Sallies opposed the bill and had a key part in obtaining 800,000 signatures to make their point; a remarkable achievement given the population was only a little over 3 million at the time.

New Zealand wasn’t an especially liberal place in 1986, at least when it came to the decriminalisation of homosexuality, although opinion polls did show growing support in favour of the reform.

A medicinal cannabis company is relieved the cannabis referendum went up in smoke, saying more research into the drug is needed.

Opposition to the change was ferocious, but Jim Anderton had the right answer to those preaching their version of Christianity when he told the house.

“Nowhere in Christian teaching can I find any suggestion that one’s values should be determined by public pressure, by referenda, or by the weight of numbers of a petition,” he said at the time.

“Pontius Pilate held a referendum. He knew that his prisoner was innocent, but, as the recognised lawmaker of his time and place, he believed that he could wash his hands of the decision of the mob, and stand aside and allow those with the weight of numbers on their side to have their way.”

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told us that she voted “yes” on the cannabis referendum because she did not want to see people in jail for its use. In this, she is correct. She has maintained that she abstained from telling us serfs how she voted because she wanted the electorate to make up its own mind, because clearly we were unable to do so if we had known her voting intention.

Never mind. The referendum result presents this government with the opportunity to do something that many past governments have done: ignore the results.

John Key happily defied the wishes of a 2012 referendum when he sold off shares in a range of state-owned utilities, just as he previously ignored a 2009 vote to allow parents to hit their children. We have a happy tradition of discarding referendum results.

Parliament quietly overlooked a 1999 vote to reduce the number of parliamentary seats to 100. In 1997, voters told their MPs to introduce minimum sentencing and hard labour by a whopping 92 per cent. That went nowhere. Jim Bolger pretended not to notice a 1996 vote that demanded no reduction in the number of firefighters.

We are a representative democracy. The operative word in that statement is representative. Parliament is a deliberative body and we elect people to do just that. To consider not only the current fashion of public opinion but the impacts and second-order effects of the laws that are passed.

On the issue of marijuana a reasonable person can, and an MP should, consider the ethical merits of subjecting the minority of otherwise law-abiding citizens to criminal sanctions for smoking dried leaves at the behest of a puritan majority.

Scrapping the prohibition on cannabis may prove unpopular. It might even cost the government some votes. But that is no reason not to do it. The Labour Party has a proud tradition of doing the right thing even when it is unpopular and this was never more true on the issue of hanging and flogging.

In 1941, with the democratic nations fighting a struggle for their existence, the government of Peter Fraser defied the angst of the conservative opposition and scrapped both capital and corporal punishment.

This was not a popular decision, but it was a courageous one. As one National MP, the Honourable John Cobbe, thundered: “What can we think, what can the world think, if, at a time like this, when the world is disturbed by war, that the Parliament of a British dominion brings down a bill for the purpose of relieving murders, traitors, and sexual perverts of the adequate punishment of their crimes?”

To which the retort from the government benches was, quite rightly; “The Government has decided that the time has come for putting its intentions into law; and, if the Government should be chided by anybody, it should not be for doing this now, but for not doing it before.”

If the position of this government is that it will abide by the whims of an inattentive public than they are going to have to allow parents to start smacking their kids, hire several hundred firefighters and buy back 49 per cent of Meridian Energy.

Not only is the idea that the electorate should decide any particular issue impracticable, the closeness of the cannabis vote means that the prohibition of the drug is now unworkable.

A conviction for dealing in cannabis requires a jury trial if the defendant so chooses.

With nearly half the population believing that banning a plant is stupid the prosecution is going to be reduced to seeking out rejected National MPs and Salvation Army soldiers for the jury pool, because, you guessed it, the Salvation Army opposed change the law regarding cannabis.

Honestly, the Sallies do excellent work and I admire them for their dedication. They are a perfect example of the sort of private charity that I believe in, and I am sure they are going to hit me up for a donation after this, but I do wish they’d leave these social issues alone.

Although, to be fair, they do oppose capital punishment.

Moving to end our antiquated and largely unenforced cannabis laws will require political courage. It will give a demoralised opposition the opportunity to feign outrage and conservative pundits the chance to do what pundits do best; rail impotently.

But it would be the right thing to do and the Prime Minister knows it.
I drink and I forget things.
Gumboot
Posts: 8028
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:17 am

Good read, cheers.
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:54 pm
Location: Aotearoa

Which businesses are on 2020’s naughty list? & 'leaders'

... Every good Christmas story has its heroes and villains, and this year, Kiwi companies have shown who is worthy of our support, and who has acted on their worst impulses during the Covid crisis. On Christmas Eve, let’s take a look at who should make this year’s naughty list.

It’s hard to put together such a list without mentioning some of the business lobby groups and politicians that were far too hasty in calling for open borders and changes to New Zealand’s elimination strategy. ...
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinio ... ughty-list
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 3577
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:55 pm
Location: Hamilton NZ

Very interesting piece that was written when Ihumatao was "in the news". It gives a good background to the grievances that they, and the whole of Waikato Maori (and also Taranaki in time) had

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/stolen-mori- ... YeDhzKsNi8
There is an idea that sometimes arises in conversation about Māori land that Māori land was never stolen, but sold willingly. (Refer Dark and Santa)

Where Māori are unhappy about land, this idea puts it down to mere regret for the sale, and a notion that Māori are crying foul over a business transaction that was anything but. The very concept of stolen land is regarded as abstract, something which didn’t happen but can still be entertained for the purpose of discussion. In reality, stolen land was the norm. In the case of the Waikato War, it was the very reason for conflict.

The Kīngitanga was formed in 1858 in response to the speed at which Māori land was being bought up by settlers. Māori in Waikato were worried that the sale of the land was also eroding their sovereignty, and the small amount of political power they held in the colony. The Kīngitanga served as a land league, where its members refused to sell their land. This presented a problem to Auckland Pākehā, because available land was quickly growing scarce there. While the land which was protected by the Kīngitanga was not for sale, the option of leasing it was offered, which would have allowed Māori to retain the land, and their sovereignty, while giving the growing colony arable land to farm and settle. This was seen as unacceptable because it would put Māori in positions of power over Pākehā. From the point of view of a small group of businessmen based in Auckland, it was unacceptable for another reason: it prevented land speculation, and the easy profits which accompanied it.

Russell Stone called that group of businessmen ‘the Limited Circle’. At its centre was Thomas Russell, a lawyer by training, but with a taste for business and opportunity. With the help of the Limited Circle Russell was able to found the Bank of New Zealand, the foundation of the business ventures the group would carry out in the Waikato War. This collection of men included notable figures like John Logan Campbell, Josiah Firth, and Frederick Whitaker. Campbell and his partner William Brown owned a merchant company and the Southern Cross newspaper. Josiah Firth had land investments as well as a manufacturing company, while Whitaker was Russell’s partner in their law firm, and Attorney-General in the colony. When Russell founded the Bank of New Zealand, these men supported him and took ownership of shares in the company. In turn, they had readily available loans from the bank, and investments from the other members of the circle in their companies.

The Waikato War was stoked by fears of Māori rebelling against the Crown, and threatening the settlement of Auckland. This wasn’t a credible fear and the Kīngitanga had no intention of overturning the Treaty of Waitangi. Their only goal was to recognise the partnership that had been promised. Despite having reporters at Kīngitanga hui who knew there was no threat, the newspapers in Auckland fed into the fear of Māori rising up against the Crown. Campbell and Brown’s Southern Cross reported that ‘a crisis in native affairs is coming on’. This wasn’t coincidental – Brown had openly stated his purpose in operating the paper was for politics, not profit, and argued that it was a strong source of influence. The outcome of this fear was the outbreak of war in July 1863, starting with the famous ultimatum that was sent to Māori living in the region between Auckland and Waikato. It told them to join the Crown or leave their lands, and was the precursor to the confiscations that would follow.

Although the war was progressing as planned, the Premier, Alfred Domett, came into conflict with Russell and Whitaker. They were key members of his ministry – Russell was a powerful voice with finances, and Whitaker was the Attorney General. In November of 1863, the tension came to a head and the partners resigned from Domett’s ministry, destabilising the government and forcing Domett himself to resign. In the aftermath, Whitaker became the Premier, and Russell the Minister of Defence. In a short period they had taken over two of the three highest roles in government and by extension, control of the war currently being waged in Waikato. At the same time that this was happening, a man named W. C. Wilson resigned from his position as a partner in the anti-war newspaper the New Zealander in Auckland. He subsequently launched his own newspaper which immediately took a pro-war stance, encouraging the confiscation of Māori land and the extension of government power into Waikato. Wilson was a board member and shareholder of the BNZ, and his new paper was called the New Zealand Herald. While they couldn’t prove it, his competitors suspected the Herald of being financed by Russell, and this was backed up by Russell’s nightly visits to the Herald offices. So by the end of 1863, one of Thomas Russell’s business partners was the Premier, while another was the editor of the largest city’s newest pro-war newspaper. Russell himself was in charge of the war effort as the Minister.

The next part of Russell and Whitaker’s scheme was to pass a set of laws I’ve termed the War Acts. The War Acts were three bills which legalised the war and dictated how land confiscations in Waikato and beyond would work. The Suppression of Rebellion Act gave the military immunity for actions taken during martial law, and transferred the responsibility for prosecution of rebels from civil courts to military tribunals. It also gave the military the power to designate Māori as rebels. The New Zealand Settlements Act authorised confiscations of land belonging to rebels, and gave the government the power to dispose of the land as it saw fit. The profits were to cover the expenditure of the war effort. The last of the three was the New Zealand Loan Act, and it was perhaps Russell and Whitaker’s best move. The Loan Act authorised the government to take out a large loan for the purposes of financing the war against the Kīngitanga. It seems a simple matter for a government waging a war to take out a loan, but it requires a large lender which can be difficult to find. Luckily for the colonial government, the Premier and the Minister of Defence were well connected, and happened to be the primary shareholders of the major bank in the colony, which was also the bank where the government accounts were held.

So by the end of 1863, a small group of Auckland businessmen had had two of their number successfully attain high political posts. Those two, Russell and Whitaker, then used those positions of power to propagate a war in Waikato. In this they were aided by the Herald - bankrolled by Russell and owned by Wilson, who was also a board member and shareholder of the BNZ. The BNZ in turn, managed the government accounts, and provided a substantial loan to the government to fund the war, which in turn paid the BNZ interest on the loan. The dividends of these payments went to a small number of shareholders, the membership of which was carefully curated by artificial buy-ins on the shares.

However, the story doesn’t stop there. As the war progressed, more land was confiscated from Māori down country. The Settlements Act allowed the government to dispose of it in whatever way it wanted to, and so advertisements were sent to the goldfields of Victoria, and around New Zealand, promising plots of land to men who came to fight against the Kīngitanga. Māori land was being used as currency to hire more mercenaries. The soldiers answered the call, and they came to serve their time and collect their parcels of land. These men represented the first Anzac conflict – Australians and New Zealanders fighting alongside each other.

There was a catch to these land incentives though, and it was quite a big one. The land these soldiers were being given was deep in Waikato, and a lot of it was wild land, filled with swamps and misshapen by rolling hills, all overgrown with scrub and native bush. It was hard land that needed to be cleared before farming or work could occur. Waikato wasn’t connected to Auckland by road or rail, not properly, so machinery was difficult to bring in, and prohibitively expensive for men who had been on soldiers' wages and taken land as part payment. There was also the loneliness – the towns were small, or non-existent, and there were few women, making it hard for the men to see the possibility of raising a family on the land. A few years after the war ended, soldiers began to leave. Some simply walked off the land, ceding their claims, while others waited until they could sell their plots back to the government.

When the land was then sold by the government to cover costs, it was the Auckland speculators that snapped it up. Russell bought one block of land, the Piako swamp, for 50 percent of the legally mandated sale price of confiscated land. Another speculator and friend of his amassed some 15,000 acres in Waikato - the equivalent of 60,000 of the popular quarter acre paradise. Josiah Firth owned a large portion of the land surrounding Matamata. It was there that he founded the company which survives today as Firth Concrete, now owned by Fletcher Construction.

Russell and Whitaker didn’t stay in government long, having only needed a short period to make their mark. One historian commented that it was rare to see a politician "place themselves in a position so morally difficult to hold", and it was a fairly made point. They had used their wealth and connections to encourage a war against Māori, using the press for propaganda, their bank for financing, and their political office to put a veneer of legitimacy across the entire proceeding. At its core, it was a well managed heist that targeted Māori land with the reasoning that European needs were more important than Māori rights.
I drink and I forget things.
usemame
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:36 am
Location: Te Ika a Maui

A fascinating explanation of the actual mechanics used to further greed. Thanks.
usemame
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:36 am
Location: Te Ika a Maui

I'm shocked.

Shock.ed
Gumboot
Posts: 8028
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:17 am

Kicking things off with a funny speech by Grant Robertson in parliament today.

I loved his barb about disappearing lounge suites. The useless Harete Hipango didn't look at all amused. . :lol:

https://ondemand.parliament.nz/parliame ... mId=219317
Gumboot
Posts: 8028
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:17 am

Sir Michael Cullen has died. RIP
Gumboot
Posts: 8028
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:17 am

I've been enjoying Victor Billot's Newsroom series of Sunday odes to various Kiwi luminaries. Today's is "An Ode for Billy Te Kahika"
A Queendom Divided

Queen Cindy the Kind appeareth

on her balcony far above the rude clamour

of the town square many cubits below.

Petals gently flutter, stirred only

by airborne pink non-binary unicorns

circling at an appropriate social distance.

A blast of trumpets! The Queen steps up

and waves down at very small distant figures.

“Ahem! Fellow countrymen, womyn,

indeed all mannereth of divers pronouns!

Loyal subjects, we have contained

the Great Plague. The realm is secure!”

Yet despite this happy vision of concord,

a worm gnaws the perfect apple of State.

The citizens parteth and flee;

and through their midst march a band

of bedraggled ruffians making a hullabaloo.

A saucy fellow steppeth out from the mob.

“O Queen! We refuseth your freedom muzzles!

We rejecteth your pox elixir, and tinctures!

We place our faith in the Almighty,

garlic and refusing to wash but once a year.”

The Queen frowneth, and is discontented.

“O William T K Junior, O Vincent of Eastwood,

but wherefore art not in thy bubble today?

Why dost thou lead these folk about the streets?

Be gone!”

A posse of burly Sheriff’s Men intercedes

and snatcheth William and his selfie stick.

To the Tower! Lo, and so in those dark days

thus the Dominion was cleaved between

the sensible townsfolk and some mighty halfwits.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/an-ode-for-billy-te-kahika
Gumboot
Posts: 8028
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:17 am

NZ's staying at level 4 till midnight Friday, with Auckland locked down till midnight next Tuesday.

My daughter was booked to fly back from Auckland for the mid-term break next Tuesday. Bollocks.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 3577
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:55 pm
Location: Hamilton NZ

Got my first test yesterday as I am feeling like death warmed up. No covid in my town (allegedly our pee is clear) so I suspect I have picked up that RSV bug that's doing the rounds. Couldn't get into my doctor until the test result is known because "I might be sick". Not kidding.
I drink and I forget things.
Gumboot
Posts: 8028
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:17 am

Enzedder wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 7:29 am Got my first test yesterday as I am feeling like death warmed up. No covid in my town (allegedly our pee is clear) so I suspect I have picked up that RSV bug that's doing the rounds. Couldn't get into my doctor until the test result is known because "I might be sick". Not kidding.
Sorry to hear that, mate. Hope it's just the man flu and you make a speedy recovery.
User avatar
Ymx
Posts: 8557
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:03 pm

Gumboot wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 4:46 am NZ's staying at level 4 till midnight Friday, with Auckland locked down till midnight next Tuesday.

My daughter was booked to fly back from Auckland for the mid-term break next Tuesday. Bollocks.
Assume you need to wait until no more cases. And of course those which are now spreading within bubbles.

Seen PR thread which mostly seems to be the local kiwis patting themselves on the back, on the strategy.

I expect it will be quite a mental tough thing that once you are back to zero. Assuming you make it. To then open the doors knowingly from zero to whatever the natural saturation point becomes.

Vaccinations are not a silver bullet and only reduces spreading and only reduce hospitalisations and death.

So you’ll be opening the doors to death no matter where your vaccination program gets to. Even 100%.

I guess we will see how this change is spun by Jacinda, given the stance on zero being the only thing on the radar.
User avatar
Muttonbird
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:09 am

Ymx wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 10:51 am
Gumboot wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 4:46 am NZ's staying at level 4 till midnight Friday, with Auckland locked down till midnight next Tuesday.

My daughter was booked to fly back from Auckland for the mid-term break next Tuesday. Bollocks.
Assume you need to wait until no more cases. And of course those which are now spreading within bubbles.

Seen PR thread which mostly seems to be the local kiwis patting themselves on the back, on the strategy.

I expect it will be quite a mental tough thing that once you are back to zero. Assuming you make it. To then open the doors knowingly from zero to whatever the natural saturation point becomes.

Vaccinations are not a silver bullet and only reduces spreading and only reduce hospitalisations and death.

So you’ll be opening the doors to death no matter where your vaccination program gets to. Even 100%.

I guess we will see how this change is spun by Jacinda, given the stance on zero being the only thing on the radar.
There will be a change but it will not be a flip-flop or something to be spun. It will be the natural progression of a highly successful, changing Covid policy.

Right now, with 30% fully vaccinated, elimination is still essential. At 80% we will relax most (probably not all) restrictions in a managed way because we'll be at a point where we have done all we can to ensure the safety of our most vulnerable.

That is not a backdown, it is progression of policy.
User avatar
Ymx
Posts: 8557
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:03 pm

I think the UK was around 80% when opened up.

I have to say the equilibrium of cases has been a lot higher than expected. Less hospitalisations and deaths being the key. But it’s certainly still badly affecting many who are vaccinated, plus those who have regretfully chosen not to. And it’s not zero deaths.

Slightly worrying what will now happen when schools return and autumn arrives.

So you will be opening up, slowly? However slowly you creak open the door it will make no difference obviously once you have your saturated population of vaccinations. And there will be cases and deaths ahead for you. The virus will still go through those unvaccinated and those less affected by the vaccinations at some point.

So it’s going to be a tough moment for you. But also, if slowly opening is your strategy, how do you slowly open it up? Your strategy is to already be open internally, and close borders.

Once you open the outside, even slowly, the virus will get in to your communities, then how will you temper it? Will you re introduce internal lock downs?? Like I say it will get around everyone, and burn. As you can see from your current outbreak.
User avatar
Muttonbird
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:09 am

By slowly I imagine there will be some restrictions for a while. Gathering limits, mandatory scanning and mask-wearing, etc.

All that stuff at the border, pre-departure testing, vaccine passports, zoned entry doesn't do anything. The virus murders that kind of effort. We murder the virus with 14 day managed quarantine, but that can't last forever.

Yes, there will eventually be a surge, I don't think anyone here is denying that, but that surge will happen after we've protected who we can. We've done a great job of that so far.
User avatar
Ymx
Posts: 8557
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:03 pm

So ….. assuming you clear this one up, you’ll go back to fully open tier 0? If that’s what you call it.

Then as you open the outside door to tourism(?), or removing the quarantine period, you’ll shuffle to a higher tier you think? More like how the UK had been operating (albeit before we were vaccinated) eg
- social distancing
- masks inside shops, and limits
- no inside gathering/limits on numbers
- outside limits/restrictions in sporting activity
- no concerts/events

How long will you be in this stage for? What will you be waiting for to further open up? Assuming vaccinations are as good as they’ll be already at this point.
Flockwitt
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2020 9:58 am

Same points as being raised elsewhere. There's not going to be any soft landing with this next year. Once Delta gets in it'll be in. Then for those with complications it will be a roll of the dice if they survive. And there will be push back on lock downs to slow the spread if the health system can't cope. The whiners will feel their moment has come pointing at the government's lack of preparation. Unfortunately we simply can't build back years of neglect, only marginally improve. We're not out of this by a long shot.
User avatar
Ymx
Posts: 8557
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:03 pm

I think that’s the key really for you guys. You’ve done great at damage limitation so far. But once vaccinations are done, there is really no where to turn but to just lube up and open the back door.
Flockwitt
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2020 9:58 am

Yep. It's not a pleasant prospect. Both my mother and my aunt have lethal existing conditions. I've two friends with underlying issues. Those numbers start stacking up real quickly for many people. The inevitable worry and the inevitable loss in 2022.
Gumboot
Posts: 8028
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:17 am

Level 3 - Woohoo! (south of the Bombays, at least)

Spring has sprung :grin:
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 3577
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:55 pm
Location: Hamilton NZ

Ymx wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 10:48 am I think that’s the key really for you guys. You’ve done great at damage limitation so far. But once vaccinations are done, there is really no where to turn but to just lube up and open the back door.
You know, I am quite enjoying this closed door though. It seems that the quiet life of the 60s and 70s is back.

Tourism workers can re-purpose and employers/manufacturers would have to woo Kiwis as customers again and make sure we're paid enough to buy their products.
I drink and I forget things.
Flockwitt
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2020 9:58 am

While we've lost a top income earner in tourism the fact is unemployment is at record lows, the economy is still chugging along and things could be a helluv a lot worse.
User avatar
Ymx
Posts: 8557
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:03 pm

I assume tourism is why you opened the Aus travel corridor. Took that risk.
User avatar
Muttonbird
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:09 am

Ymx wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:58 am I assume tourism is why you opened the Aus travel corridor. Took that risk.
Tourism, humanitarian, and a little bit publicity/marketing.

The concept was that both countries would pursue the same elimination goal, and would jointly benefit. The TT bubble took a long time to get off the ground with both administrations working out the rules, intent, and machinery.

It lasted what, a couple of months, then Gladys Berejiklian happened. She reneged and now it's all over.
User avatar
Ymx
Posts: 8557
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:03 pm

So this terrorist attack in Auckland.

Lucky to have no fatalities.

Says he was shot within 60 seconds of launching attack. How does that happen unless police fully aware he was about to conduct attack??
Slick
Posts: 11915
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:58 pm

Ymx wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 11:18 am So this terrorist attack in Auckland.

Lucky to have no fatalities.

Says he was shot within 60 seconds of launching attack. How does that happen unless police fully aware he was about to conduct attack??
He was under close surveillance for the last 5 years….
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
Slick
Posts: 11915
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:58 pm

Slick wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 11:47 am
Ymx wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 11:18 am So this terrorist attack in Auckland.

Lucky to have no fatalities.

Says he was shot within 60 seconds of launching attack. How does that happen unless police fully aware he was about to conduct attack??
He was under close surveillance for the last 5 years….
Edit: the report I saw was a bit ambiguous actually. Apparently he has been on the watch list for the last 5 years with surveillance for a good part of that. He had just been released by police and was under close surveillance at this point. It’s all a bit fucking mad to be honest- all those resources for a known ISIS sympathiser who has threatened to do this
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
User avatar
Ymx
Posts: 8557
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:03 pm

That’s pretty close surveillance.

Armed police following him around and in to supermarket no doubt.

I’d say they had suspicions something was up on the day.
User avatar
ScarfaceClaw
Posts: 2623
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:11 pm

Ymx wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:00 pm That’s pretty close surveillance.

Armed police following him around and in to supermarket no doubt.

I’d say they had suspicions something was up on the day.
Five years of close surveillance. You can’t go all minority report and arrest him for something he might do but that length of time suggests something was inevitable.

Perhaps a cheeky accidental car crash a few years back might have been an option.
Post Reply