Quite right. Contact the Greens or Labour for advice on achieving gender balance.
Printable View
Chris Hipkins stuffed up, simple. It's not a matter of gender or testosterone bias here. He could have added up the numbers and figured out that with a whole bunch of members not in attendance that the vote for Speaker of the House would have been compromised. A simple but profound balls up.
Lets' not shift the blame to simple commentary on this website, or whether we're male, female, Labour, National or anything in between, we have nothing to do with it. Labour screwed up on their first outing, plain and simple. It'll be three years of misery if they can't get the basics right from the outset. This is a poor beginning.
This is a good summary imo ... https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...day-farce-fast
"red-faced-government-needs-to-bury-first-day-farce-fast"
Labour have a long road to hoe ahead.
He only just had time to serve papers on news reporters and an editor to reveal their sources, before he took off How low can the Deputy PM go and we´re only in week one !
It seems fogotten that he cheated out more money from the Government in superannuation payments than he was entitled to. That´s what the news should be about.
So now it is clear Winston held NZ to ransom for 3 weeks or so while "negotiating" in bad faith with National, after having secretly signed papers to sue them ! The only reason for his "negotiations" was to extract as much as possible from the inexperienced Jacinda/Labour in which he was very successful. I think Winston is going totally nuts. I can´t wait to hear more about what Tim Murphy mentions in the link below, about suspicion of some type of deal between Winston and Cameron Slater berfore the elections.
There will be a fair amount of sweat breaking out in Labour´s ranks right now when they realise the real Winston Peters and his never ending agendas and personal vendettas. He is a fraudster who cheated the Government for 7 years !
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/11/0...n-goes-fishing
What would have been even more extraordinary was if the missing National MP had been present in the House and there had been a confidence vote called?
Given the shambles yesterday if one or two of the coalition MPs or a Greens MP hadn’t been in the right place at the appropriate time (for whatever reason), Ms Ardern could have been rolled by a confidence vote on Day 1 of Parliament sitting... rookie errors by Hipkins and he genuinely looked to be panicking, Robertson clearly concerned and competence to run the House was questioned.
The Coalition Whips failed to complete
Job 1 - have enough members in the House and were way too complacent.
Ardern will be asking herself what in hell happened and why her first sitting day in Parliament wasn’t the headline - although Winston’s stunt serving discovery also ensured her first day wasn’t the top story on the news websites.
Her mentor didn’t suffer fools so expect Hipkins and the Whips to be on notice - the capitulation on the select committee numbers will ensure opposition to have ample opportunity to score points. A strong opposition is crucial to hold the executive and government to account, National’s message will be that the coalition can’t manage the process and if legislative programme is slowed then it’s because the coalition is flawed. The flip side is they don’t want to be as negative or ideologically blinkered as Tony Abbott
Paddles is dead ...RIP Paddles
No wonder Jacinda looked a bit sad yesterday
I think the sadness was due to the dawning reality that the whip (a very important position) was incompetent. And if that is teh cream on top then its a worry about what has settled underneath.
That and realising Winston has gone off reservation with his legal stuff BEFORE the election!
Does that mean that to hold this nation to ransom all you have to do is kidnap the PM's cat?
It means national is doing what it said"making the govt's life hell".Meaning we don't give a stuff about our country or its people, we will do anything below the bar like we did in the election, to regain power, divide to rule, transparent and clear , not good for NZ.It will backfire on them next election .
We will have to disagree.
Chris Hipkins reportedly didn't return any of the phone calls made by National that were made about the number of select committee members - it was clearly a bone of contention for the National Party (they said as much in a number of news reports) and in the aftermath, the spin and PR coming out of the Labour Party that they were going to concede on the numbers doesn't pass the sniff test. It was arrogant and complacent not to engage with the opposition on this point - and with several members being away on the first sitting day, as the Chief Whip Hipkins should have known the numbers in the House - he should have at least known that David Parker and Winston Peters were at APEC and that 3 other MPs would not be present to alert him of the risk (and if required, requested a 'pair' well before the first day of the house or ensured one of the missing MPs ensured they were in the House) - as I mentioned previously, this is the main job of a whip. You could say that he isn't responsible for the Green or NZ First MPs but he is because he's the Labour Led Government's Chief Whip.
The concession on the select committee members potentially does have several implications - all of the National MPs will be on a select committee but more importantly as the the party with the most votes the relevant Minister will need to be present at several committees to vote as the coalition won't have majorities unless they are there, this give the opportunity for opposition MPs at Select Committee to ask questions about the Coalition's performance and have the relevant Minister(s) present. That will put the spotlight on portfolios where the Minister will have to stay informed and be held to account - and not hide away from the select committee process as this is the engine room of Parliament.
The other main area that the National Party will be able to hold the Labour led Government to account is question time - the questions are divvy'ed up between the parties based on the non-executive members (Ministers) of the House. National has the most MPs in the House and none of them are by definition in the Executive, NZFirst has many executive members and few non executive members and the Greens have two executive members and 5 non executive members and Labour has the second biggest number of MPs but a lot of executive members. At last tally, of the 14 allocated questions in question time, I think National has 9 questions per sitting day to hold the coalition to account on a range of issues - they are also a single party, relatively disciplined, well resourced and have the benefit of many of their MPs probably having a far deeper knowledge of the portfolios than the coalition ministers.
Again if National slips into the trap of being like the US Republicans and blocking everything that won't bode well nor will being as negative as Tony Abbott was as this trapped him in Government - but if they pick away at the under performance of ministerial portfolios, question policy and costings and ask the right questions, remain organised and make concessions around policies (e.g. agreeing to the 26 weeks parental leave) so that aren't seen as ideologists then that is the people are well served by a strong opposition.
Effective opposition is healthy. Negative disruptive divisive , spiteful even isn't and kiwis will see this pre election and post election behaviour below the bar for what it is, untrustworthy(labour and nat had an agreement about the speaker) divisive and power hungry above all else, destructive and ultimately self destructive. Thats prob a good thing because they do need to renew and refresh with members who will put their country ahead of themselves, not this largely corrupted and addicted by power and self importance party imo..
A great and accurate post. Labour peed of National by their undemocratic decision to reduce number of selct committee seats witout any consultation and silly Hipkins not taking their calls to disucss their concerns. They got him back quick smart. Josjuatree you should read tthe post above, again if you have to.
Hipkins is inexperienced as could be seen by this fiasco and his statement the other day that his Government wanted to see what they can do to "square off" people living overseas with student loans. That amounts to Government saying don´t worry about continuing to pay your debt to the country. Incredibly naive.
I don't rate Hipkins at all, can't believe the responsibility he has been given, bit like letting a child run a creche.
Jacinda Ardern is leading by example in how a leader should behave not negative and nasty and they are not mucking around and achieving much in this short time so far. For example exposing the typical national lie that it couldn't be done re the ban on foreign buyers lol.
Exactly! We need an effective opposition - nobody is denying that. What we don’t need is a game playing, schoolyard high fiving bunch of bully boys who resort to sarcasm, name calling, and smart alec sniggering when a brand new government makes a few teething mistakes. I have no problem with the opposition holding the government accountable. I expect them to do that, but I don’t expect to see them ridiculing or belittling them constantly for the next three years, or being “anti-everything-Labour-does” just for the sake of it. If they continue to do that they will lose all credibility as an opposition party.
Jacinda’s speech today was professional, well prepared and to the point. Her only mistake to date is trusting that her opposition will play fair and respectfully. She learned that lesson the hard way. She is not and never has been a “dirty” politician which is one of the reasons she is Prime Minister. NZ is tired of all the bull**** in politics we have seen for a great many years. We are sick to death of watching the “little boys” games. National’s dirty tactics throughout the election campaign pissed a lot of people off and Bill English went down in a lot of people’s estimation because he was dumb enough to be drawn into that.
National needs to to wake their ideas up and start doing what is right for the country. The election is over. Whether you like it or not this is the government we now have. If National really gives a **** about the country they will pull their woolly heads in, stop throwing their toys out of the cot and get on with the business of being an effective opposition, which by the way, does not automatically mean opposing everything the government tries to do.
Video: The touching moment Trevor Mallard holds Labour MP's baby while sitting in Speaker's chair
This Govt Progressive Inclusive and empathetic. Catching up with the OECD in paid parental leave etc.:)
First of all her name is Jacinda and she is the Prime Minister so show some respect and call her by her proper name. Whether you like her or not is irrelevant.
Secondly, nobody with even half a brain believes that an opposition party has to oppose everything a government does. If they did that they would very quickly lose both respect and credibity. Any government - even National, will get many things right so it would be pretty damned stupid for an opposition party to oppose everything simply because the name "Opposition" comes from the verb "oppose." That's just nonsense and you know it.
Ok heres a small exercises for you. In its 9 years of opposition list the Bills Labour supported National on (my money is you coming up with less than 5)
The flip side of your argument is government should be prepared to support an oppositions good idea. Like for example dropping income tax rates which all parties (National, NZ First, Maori and Act) supported last term except Labour.
While the idea of Cindy (she needs to earn the respect and failing on day one is not a good start) and all MP's sitting around a warm campfire, holding hands singing kumbaya and agreeing on legislation may have some appeal it isn't going to happen under our Westminster style of parliament. Its like our justice system. Its a bear pit and winner takes all.
Seating in the chamber is interesting
NZF and Greens separated by Labour
And some Labour dude called Duncan Webb has been given the naughty boys seat .....all out on his lonesome at the back of the house on the opposition side.
Winnie grumpy about this
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...g-new-zealand/
Seems we have quite the mature opposition. Prepared to support Labour with any TTP agreement. Shame labours coalition partner NZ first wont be quite so mature and I suspect the Greens wont be either
Good ole Jacinda ....looks like she going to get TPP across the line......on her terms. She still saying 50/50 but obviously playing the under promise over delivery game.
I now regret going on marchs protesting against this abhorrent (as it was then) trade agreement. Stupid and foolish wasn’t I
Interesting take on the free tertiary education policy https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/edu...equality-worse
This was patently a failed attempt by Labour to woe the young constituency in an attempt to buy their vote. On that front it was a failure as youth did not turn out to the elections as expected. There was no youthquake of new engaged young voters flocking to Labour.
This is now going to end up an expensive GAP year funding for those with not much inclination to do anything except drink and lay around. And of course it supports the wealthy - it means they do not have to fund that first year - instant return on taxes which I like to see. Other than a GAP year party the "poor" wont benefit as they wont be able to afford years 2 and three. And year 4 because they flunked year 3.
It will alo certainly make education harder. At the moment first years are arguably motivated to be there to study. Now those some classes will be loaded with loafers who will not focus on learning.
A much more sensible policy would be to make final year free - to incentivise people to finish. Also ought to be targeted to skills shortage.
Are you sure about that? http://www.elections.org.nz/research...ics-electorate This says youth voters are by far the largest increase of enrolments over all age groups. What's your source that says the youth vote were not the largest increase in voters in the 2017 elections? Maybe you'll say enrolment <=> voting. Fair enough. But try and find something that backs up your claims that Labour did not tap into the youth vote, other than supposition.
Oh dear. The hip young prime minister of canada is not on the same page as the hip young prime minister of NZ. Seems ttp is dead in the water.
How are Labour getting on bring those Manus Island illegal immigrants to NZ. Is it too early to call that a "fail" or is it still a work in progress?
I Be referee in baa_baa and mini discussion re 18-24 year old voters
Enrolments 2014 338,269 and in 2017 333,164 - so enrolled numbers down
Those that voted 2014 212,204 and in 2017 230,783 - so more voted this time
Turnout rate increased from 62.73% in 2014 to 69.27% in 2017
So less 18-24 year olds enrolled but more voted in 2017 than 2014
Source | same as linked above
No scientific definition of youthquake found so make no comment whether one happened.
Thankyou Mr Referee.
Youthqake can be described as an interested and energised demographic keen to vote for labour.
Conclusions " there was no "youth quake" of enrolments
There is no evidence that the additional youth voter turnout went to labour.
A compromise positon might be that each party secured the same portion of that youth vote as it did its whole vote.
Which of course means National secured more of the additional youth vote.
The new Government seems hellbent on turning our closest neighbour and biggest trading partner into a less than happy relation https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...tralia--greens
Not a good start and one would think the Government would have bigger fish to fry at the start. Buy obviously that does not include allowing parents to choose which one of them stays home to look after the newborns. Labour knows best https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...parental-leave
Sounds familiar ?
Any idea what their problem is with parents having a bit of a choice, whether home togethr for some of it or not ? I don´t understand what the issue is for them.
Last year my son and daughter in-law. who live in another country, took leave for 3 months at the same time as they had the newborn and a 2 year old. They can take 3 months each of non-trabsferable (together or separately) parental leave and another 3 months of transferable parental leave. 9 months in total if fully utilized. They said the 3 months together was a great thing to be able to do. But not in NZ apparently, according to Labour !!
Simple. Labour has committed to extending the period of paid parental leave (for one parent) to 22 weeks initially, up to 26 in 2020. There are several ideas behind this. That provides a significant chunk of time for one parent to focus on bonding with their baby, establishing breastfeeding (if its Mum), recovering from birth especially if it was a birth requiring medical intervention. The NZ College of Midwives has come out in support of this initiative.
For some strange reason National has (apparently suddenly, unless I missed something) decided it would be best to give both parents leave at the same time, but only half the amount of leave. Which kind of defeats the purpose of increasing the period of leave in the first place. So of course Labour isn’t going to buy into that suggestion.
Your son’s scenario above is an awesome idea and I agree that taking the first 3 months off together would be invaluable. But in that scenario your daughter in law could then still take another 3 months off if she wished - so 6 months for Mum. I doubt even National would support that kind of arrangement as the cost in this country would be pretty significant.
I understand where Labour is coming from. I also see some merit in what National is proposing but I don’t think 3 months is enough. It can easily take a good 6 weeks or more to establish breastfeeding alone.
Labour has has started things rolling with the increase in the number of weeks of leave. Down the track they may well re-visit it and make some changes. But reducing the total amount of leave would be a backward step and I don’t see it happening.
So the economists who said their wasn't a big hole in Labours plans (ie who said Joyce was wrong) are now worried about rising debt
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/988...n-labours-plan
It would be useful for Labour to cite the research that supports an extension to 26 weeks. Thus far all I have heard is "NZCM supports it" and the odd mention that the policies other countries in the OECD are currently greater than ours, neither of which adequately supports their policy in an objective fashion.
If National MP Jian Yang was the China conduit to NZ I wonder whose doing that role for the Labour Government.
Labour in Opposition seemed quite comfortable with Jian Yang and never made any comment about him at all.
That Professor Brady has some interesting views on Chinese relationships.
Wellington trains on strike. No coincidence that happens under Labour. No coincidence the Speaker of the house is a card carrying member of that Union
Strange? It's because the current PPL entitlement may be taken by either parent, so logically having both parents off at the same time results in half the entitlement to each. Having both parents entitled to the full amount places a significant financial burden upon the taxpayer, and without peer-reviewed evidence that having both parents present for 26 weeks provides significant benefit for the child, it cannot be justified.
I agree with you. Just wondering why National would consider it a better option for both parents to have time off for a much shorter period of total time, than one parent (could be Mum or could be Dad) having a decent period of time to devote to their newborn (and other children they may have).
From a mother’s perspective, I would rather see a parent home with a newborn for 26 weeks than two parents home for only 13. If both parents take the 13 week option, they then presumably have to go back to work, which means baby has to go to some form of childcare (might be family but might not be). OR, one parent then makes a decision to give up work. Either way, an 13 week old baby in childcare is not the ideal. Personally, I don’t believe its ideal for a 6 month old baby either but the longer baby can be home with a parent, the better.
I don't see why this parental leave thing shouldn't be back-dated. About 40 years would suit me fine!
;)
I still fail to see why I should pay for other people's lifestyle choice to have however many children they want to have, no one pays me any benefit for the good lifestyle I choose to live.
Thats like saying why should your taxes should go towards education because you have no kids in school. Or why should your money pay for mental health costs because you don’t have a mental health condition. Or why should you contribute to infrastructure costs because you don’t have a car and you live off the grid.
If you feel exploited by your taxes contributing to the lives of other people maybe you’re living in the wrong country.
That is irrelevant. The issue is: why should people be encouraged to breed with financial assistance from the tax payer. If you cant afford kids on the first six -12 months of their life how do you think you can afford them in their older years. Simple answer is you make sure you can afford them before beginning the breeding programme.
Just looked up the Stuff website. 3 headlines screaming at me:
" Hey Labour, dads matter too"
"Acting PM proves a trainwreck"
"Does Labour have a debt problem"
Not bad after 3 weeks on the job !!
And now Helen Clarke is back running the country. Punch and Judy shows were thrown out years ago - now the Labour party are using all the old gear but the strings are worn out and we can expect some fun. WP will be Punch but who will shove their hand up the back of his shirt to operate him?
So a new agency will get $7.6 million per year until 2021 to assess re-entry into Pike River. PM says her pre election commitment to re-enter the mine is now her "absolute ambition". No wonder they are starting to call her "Cindy Astern" !
And Winnie is strangely silent on his pre-election grandstanding saying he would lead the re-entry himself.
$30 odd million for what ?
Finding a crime scene maybe and retrieving bodies is what its all about. The families are involved and if they can do it safely( a bottom line for the families as well) it will be done, Reassessment underway in a transparent way.Great stuff.
Re-entry? Wait, as we need to spent $7M plus first to assess what this Pike River re-entry promise is :p
Even some die hard Labour supporters must be feeling some shame by now. Yippee-ki-yay, mother......!
I have no idea where this money is going to go. I can only assume its a Labour Trickle Down theory in play that will help see people out of poverty. Solid Energy has already done loads of work on this as have the families. The worse case risks are known; mitigation strategies are known. All that is needed is knowledge of current methane levels and then send people down the drift bit by bit to work it out.
All this talk of "safety" drives me nuts. Its going to be a major handbrake preventing us from doing anything - and its a great scapegoat for allowing dishonest politicians a back door exit to sneak out of.
Labour's tourism tax policy appears to be yet another ill thought out policy that may need backtracking on:
"Labour campaigned on charging international visitors a $25 per trip levy, with 60 per cent of funds collected going on tourism projects, and the rest going on conservation work.
Tourism Minister Kelvin Davis has asked for advice on implementing a levy, and last night said no decisions would be made until after that was received.
The previous National Government introduced a border clearance levy, which has meant people with a return ticket to or from New Zealand pay a total charge of about $22, included in their airfare.
Labour's plan for a new charge would come on top of that, but only affect visitors who are not citizens or residents of New Zealand.
Tourism Industry Aotearoa's chief executive Chris Roberts told the Herald the proposal as outlined pre-election, "is not actually implementable".
"We can only find one border tax in the world where local passport holders and residents are excluded from paying it. And that is in Mexico, but Mexicans who fly out of Mexico have to pay and then seek reimbursement," Roberts said.
"Unless they are going to set up booths at the airport to collect the tax, to put two different prices into all the airline systems around the world . . . that is a complication that they haven't thought through.
"We are yet to see how it could be workable. It would essentially be coming up with a world first.""
When so many of the local populace being permanent residents and dual nationals then you can only describe this is as a government bureaucrat job scheme. I can't imagine Sabre or Amadeus going to do a mountain of development to register a separate identity document for travel to allow passengers would are NZ nationals or those with residency visas to pay a different fare, let alone a aggregator like TriVago or Expedia to change their interface to facilitate exemptions in airfares.
I can't see booths at arrivals and departures with passengers queuing up to show they paid the $25 levy, then processing their ID documents and handing out $25 in cash, credit card refunds or international bank transfers being part of a seamless visitor experience or streamlining the chaos at Auckland Airport when a bunch of inbound aircraft arrive at peak times - I can only assume that they will have to exempt Australians because they don't give them a residency visa or alternatively we'll all be queuing up to pay $25 entry arriving in Australia as kiwis in a tit-for-tat with the Turnbull Government.
The alternative is paper or online forms, scanned documents and refund processing and another wing of Internal Affairs.... or they say exemptions are too hard and we all get paddled an Sir Apirana Ngata everytime we head to Australia - $25 for NZ and $25 for Oz because anything we do to Australian citizens will be matched here and the NZ Labour led Government and the Australian Government are getting along so well.
Hmmm - thinking hat time. I wonder what I can go and study next year with my new free fees Special Tax Dividend.
Edit. I like the sound of this: Diploma in Professional Scuba Instruction at DiveHQ.
Or maybe a bit of surfing. I can do Surf and Beach Education at Ara where I get to learn surfing technique
Theres also a Diploma In Skydiving - that could be "educational"
Theres also a NZSFW Certificate in Cocktail and Mixology
So Cindy Astern is now looking for a CEO for a new agency to assess re-entry into Pike River Mine. He/she could be liable for several millions of dollars in fines or jail time if something goes wrong. I think this is a perfect job for Little himself or Peters, to show how brave (or stupid) they really are.
" From Stuff:
" However, the briefing documents show the way the agency would run, and while Little would be in charge of overseeing the agency and make the final call on re-entry, the chief executive of the agency would be liable for any decisions."