Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

🤖 AI Summary

📝 Summary:

The thread centers on New Zealand's upcoming election, primarily debating the economic management and policy differences between the center-left Labour government and center-right National/ACT opposition. Key criticisms target Labour's fiscal stewardship, citing ballooning government expenditure #7#272, housing unaffordability, and unfulfilled promises like KiwiBuild and dental care expansion #16#12. A user #7 highlighted Labour's annual 9% spending growth versus 1.5% under previous governments, arguing this fueled inflation. National's tax-cut policy faced scrutiny over funding gaps and legality, with user #215 questioning Luxon's reliance on "trust me" assurances.
Leadership competence emerged as a critical theme, particularly in later posts. Luxon drew heavy criticism after a contentious interview where he struggled to defend policy details #194#199#211, while Willis faced backlash for her economic credentials. Hipkins garnered fleeting praise for articulation but was ultimately seen as representing poor governmental outcomes #45#119. A trusted user #308 presented expert economic analysis contradicting Treasury optimism. Infrastructure issues—like Wellington's water crisis and the dental school staffing shortage—were cited as examples of systemic mismanagement #235#12. Notable policy debates included road-user charges for EVs #220, immigration impacts on rents #299, and coalition scenarios involving NZ First #182#258. Early fringe discussions on candidates' rugby allegiances gave way to substantive policy critiques, culminating in grim Treasury forecasts discussed in posts #271#304#308. User #168 also revealed concerns about Labour rushing regulatory changes to entrench policies pre-election.

🏷️ Tags:

Economic Policies, Housing Crisis, Leadership Competence

📊 Data Source: Based on ALL posts in thread (total: 10000 posts) | ⏱️ Total Generation Time: 20s
You don't have permission to regenerate AI summary.

NZWarriors.com

Agree on the free speech doesn't mean free from consequence.

But the magnitude of punishment does not match the crime in this case. Indeed it is well out of proportion

And they were exercising free speech against an appalling racist bill.

And let's bring some focus back to the mp Parmjeet Parmar hey? Investigating if they could be jailed? Come on.
Its pretty straight forward. They broke the rules. There hasn't been a case as bad as this for the committee to rule on before.

Regardless of what it was about or what was said, they aren't being held to account for that, they are being held to account for how they behaved.

As for investigating the punishments, they looked at the lowest and the highest examples they could find. The fact that those parameters have been set might hopefully give those who are contemplating breaking the rules a second to pause for thought.

I personally think the punishments are apt and the rules are there for a reason.
 
Its pretty straight forward. They broke the rules. There hasn't been a case as bad as this for the committee to rule on before.

Regardless of what it was about or what was said, they aren't being held to account for that, they are being held to account for how they behaved.

As for investigating the punishments, they looked at the lowest and the highest examples they could find. The fact that those parameters have been set might hopefully give those who are contemplating breaking the rules a second to pause for thought.

I personally think the punishments are apt and the rules are there for a reason.
Lets apply logic to what has occurred

4 members did the haka and were called before the committee

1 attended, apologized to the house and got no punishment

The other 3 did not attend

So the punishment is for not attending the committee as there was no punishment to the member who did attend.
 
Its pretty straight forward. They broke the rules. There hasn't been a case as bad as this for the committee to rule on before.

Regardless of what it was about or what was said, they aren't being held to account for that, they are being held to account for how they behaved.

As for investigating the punishments, they looked at the lowest and the highest examples they could find. The fact that those parameters have been set might hopefully give those who are contemplating breaking the rules a second to pause for thought.

I personally think the punishments are apt and the rules are there for a reason.
And the Act party investigating if jail was an option?
 
Lets apply logic to what has occurred

4 members did the haka and were called before the committee

1 attended, apologized to the house and got no punishment

The other 3 did not attend

So the punishment is for not attending the committee as there was no punishment to the member who did attend.
Did the 1 who attended and apologized to the committee cross the floor and approach opposition MPs in doing so? No he didn't. So logically, the 1 was being held to account for a lesser transgression than the 3 who didn't turn up.
 
Call me Mr Brownstone - can you quote where you've addressed the Act party investigating jail? Not the select committee, the ACT party overreaching.

And curious, what parameters?
It's in the article you posted for a start - which I summarized in the post you quoted

An ACT spokesperson said the committee had sought advice on possible penalties, including international precedents with explanations of what actions led to those penalties.

“Dr Parmar asked if this could include examples along the full spectrum of responses, from the minimum up to imprisonment. This was an exercise to help the committee to put any proposed penalty in context.”

Privileges chairperson Judith Collins said while it was one of the most punitive outcomes handed down by the committee, “[the breach] is also, of course, the worst instance that we have ever seen”.
 
Did the 1 who attended and apologized to the committee cross the floor and approach opposition MPs in doing so? No he didn't. So logically, the 1 was being held to account for a lesser transgression than the 3 who didn't turn up.
Have a read


Even the committee determined that the other entered the floor of the Chamber and disrupted the vote
 
It's in the article you posted for a start - which I summarized in the post you quoted

An ACT spokesperson said the committee had sought advice on possible penalties, including international precedents with explanations of what actions led to those penalties.

“Dr Parmar asked if this could include examples along the full spectrum of responses, from the minimum up to imprisonment. This was an exercise to help the committee to put any proposed penalty in context.”

Privileges chairperson Judith Collins said while it was one of the most punitive outcomes handed down by the committee, “[the breach] is also, of course, the worst instance that we have ever seen”.
Thanks, it was paywalled for me
 
Have a read


Even the committee determined that the other entered the floor of the Chamber and disrupted the vote
Fair point. I still wouldn't draw a conclusion that he escaped punishment because he turned up. Certainly might have helped his case taking responsibility for his actions. It appears to me that the three TPM MPs preplanned and instigated the action. Looks to me like MP Peeni Henare joined afterwards in support and didn't approach the opposition parties at all. While this doesn't excuse him it possibly mitigates his punishment somewhat. As you see in various other cases where the main instigators receive a tougher punishment than others involved.
 
Last edited:
Have a read


Even the committee determined that the other entered the floor of the Chamber and disrupted the vote

Stopped reading after this nonsense..

Saying there is “no question” that having a haka performed in front of you could be “intimidatory” seems a bit out of touch with contemporary New Zealand understandings. You might think that some serious engagement with tikanga – the meaning and purpose of haka as a performative mode of communication – is required before reaching such a conclusion.
 
The thing that really gets me is that if TPM have such a disdain for parliament (and I guess this goes back to the sovereignty issue) and it's rules and conventions. Why are they there?
Are they there to promote serious policy to assist māori as in how government works and what's best for their people or are they just a bunch of disruptors. Do they not understand Tikanga and the protocol involved. I'm sure my indoctrination by my wife before any visit to her marae ensures I'm well aware of what I can and can't do or say. Same but worse for her. If I broke the rules I would be pointed out and asked not to return. Fact, I've seen it in action.

I'm reminded of what Sinn Fein did in the UK where they won seats every year in the House but never turned up in protest. That was a statement. I would have though DNP would have got the lesson from her Irish whakapapa.

TPM, can't even understand the standing orders for question time and have to be assisted by the Greens of all people. They do not represent all māori and are a bunch of charlatans and clowns who do no real service to their people.
 
Back
Top Bottom