Labour govt 2020-23

[Blue Skies]

Peter Dunne's view of the Labour's devious maneuverings over the 5 waters entrenchment.

https://honpfd.blogspot.com/2022/11/...sat-under.html

Here's the guts of it

"But things are never that simple. After Cabinet, the Prime Minister announced that the matter was being referred to Parliament’s Business Committee to see whether agreement on the amendment’s future could be reached. Now the Business Committee, which meets weekly and comprises all parties, determines the order of business in the House for the coming week. It does not deal with, let alone, resolve policy issues. Yet, here was the Business Committee, which operates on near-unanimity amongst its members, being asked – quite improperly – to decide a policy issue on behalf of the government. I was a member of the Business Committee for more than twenty years and never saw it used in this way.

The government’s game-plan was immediately clear. It knew National and ACT disagreed with the Greens’ amendment, so there was no prospect of agreement, let alone anything approaching near-unanimity. That would give Labour an excuse to withdraw its support, framing the argument that they had no option because of National and ACT. At the same time, they tried to paint the picture that by opposing the amendment National and ACT were effectively not ruling out water privatisation in the future.

According to Labour’s framing, this laid the fault for what had happened firmly at National’s and ACT’s doors. Under this narrative, it was nothing to do with the Greens who promoted it, nobly trying to save water assets from rapacious National and ACT. Nor was it anything to do Labour that blindly and unthinkingly supported the Greens’ amendment. The strategy is as devious as it is deceitful. And its resolution will consequently be more drawn out, meaning the situation will linger longer in the public mind. "

Clear and transparent? Or as Dunne puts it....devious and deceitful!

Peter Dunne is hardly an impartial commentator so take what he says with a grain of salt.
As usual things aren't always as they appear if you dig a little deeper.
Entrenchment is normally needing a 75% threshold.
The Threshold on this clause was only 60% so it would only need a couple go MP's from the Opposition to overturn the law, not Entrenchment in the normal sense of the word.
Now Constitutional Law experts love to get excited about this sort of thing, but in practical terms, once an asset like Electricity or Water is sold off, it can never be nationalised again, its a one way street so unlike other laws which can easily be reversed e.g. 3 Strikes, in a practical sense it's better not to have something as vital as water, vulnerable to the whim of a wafer thin 51% majority..
Look at the disaster of Brexit which should never have happened, but can't be reversed.

[BlackPeter]

What a complete b@lls up from this govt, complete muppets that do not deserve to be in power for ever, disgraceful !!

Peter Dunne is hardly an impartial commentator so take what he says with a grain of salt.
As usual things aren't always as they appear if you dig a little deeper.
Entrenchment is normally needing a 75% threshold.
The Threshold on this clause was only 60% so it would only need a couple go MP's from the Opposition to overturn the law, not Entrenchment in the normal sense of the word.
Now Constitutional Law experts love to get excited about this sort of thing, but in practical terms, once an asset like Electricity or Water is sold off, it can never be nationalised again, its a one way street so unlike other laws which can easily be reversed e.g. 3 Strikes, in a practical sense it's better not to have something as vital as water, vulnerable to the whim of a wafer thin 51% majority..
Look at the disaster of Brexit which should never have happened, but can't be reversed.

Actually - I don't think that the entrenchment itself is such a big issue - there are clearly arguments for as well as against.

The real scandal in my view is that neither Labour, nor National, nor ACT realised before the passing of the bill that it contains this "entrenchment "clause.

Makes you wonder why we pay our MP's a lot of money for not doing their job. It looks like these people are passing bills without properly reading them - and this seems to be true for our government as well as for the opposition parties.

That's scary

[jonu]

Peter Dunne is hardly an impartial commentator so take what he says with a grain of salt.
As usual things aren't always as they appear if you dig a little deeper.
Entrenchment is normally needing a 75% threshold.
The Threshold on this clause was only 60% so it would only need a couple go MP's from the Opposition to overturn the law, not Entrenchment in the normal sense of the word.
Now Constitutional Law experts love to get excited about this sort of thing, but in practical terms, once an asset like Electricity or Water is sold off, it can never be nationalised again, its a one way street so unlike other laws which can easily be reversed e.g. 3 Strikes, in a practical sense it's better not to have something as vital as water, vulnerable to the whim of a wafer thin 51% majority..
Look at the disaster of Brexit which should never have happened, but can't be reversed.

Peter Dunne is an extremely experienced parliamentarian who said in his 20 years on the Business Committee, he never saw it being used this way. Dunne is well versed in parliamentary mechanisations and smells a dead rat stuck in Ardern's craw. Labour has the arrogance to say trampling all over constitutional principles doesn't matter, essentially because it's them that's doing it.

Devious and Deceitful!

[FTG]

Peter Dunne is hardly an impartial commentator so take what he says with a grain of salt.
As usual things aren't always as they appear if you dig a little deeper.

Yes folks, dig a a little deeper. More appropriately....."BS is hardly an impartial ST Poster, so take what he says with a grain of salt".

Putting aside all the political jostling & manipulations, principally it is rather straightforward.

"Not only does justice have to be done, but justice has to be seen to be done".

[Bjauck]

What a complete b@lls up from this govt, complete muppets that do not deserve to be in power for ever, disgraceful !!

It is ridiculous that being successful entrepreneurs only gives them a limited time in NZ. From what they said they provided a service that was more popular and presumably more efficient than what was here before. So NZ will be the poorer should they now be forced to leave. It is tough for them they made their money after they arrived. Maybe if they had come with a wad of capital first under the old investor 1 & 2 visas they would have been successful.

https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new-...tor-categories

[westerly]

Yes folks, dig a a little deeper. More appropriately....."BS is hardly an impartial ST Poster, so take what he says with a grain of salt".

Putting aside all the political jostling & manipulations, principally it is rather straightforward.

"Not only does justice have to be done, but justice has to be seen to be done".

Is there an impartial poster on Sharetrader?

westerly

[Blue Skies]

Peter Dunne is an extremely experienced parliamentarian who said in his 20 years on the Business Committee, he never saw it being used this way. Dunne is well versed in parliamentary mechanisations and smells a dead rat stuck in Ardern's craw. Labour has the arrogance to say trampling all over constitutional principles doesn't matter, essentially because it's them that's doing it.

Devious and Deceitful!

Well obviously he's never seen it before because this is the 1st time the management of NZ's Water Resources are undergoing major reform.
The only other resource which is remotely comparable is Power & we saw a National govt say FU to the 67% of Kiwi respondants who voted against privatisation in the 2013 referendum, & go ahead & sell them anyway.
That's been great for the shareholders (myself included ) but hasn't turned out so well for the country.

To be clear, Im not arguing about the benefits or problems with 3 Waters here, purely the clause requiring 60% of MP's instead of 51% to overturn the ban on selling off our water assets.
It doesn't seem like something worth getting in a fury about.

Imagine if Privatisation was a bottom line for a minor party like ACT, to go into coalition with National, & National had to agree.

Are you sure it's the "trampling of Constitutional Principals " you're really upset about, or just can't stand the govt & the 3 Waters reforms?

[Bjauck]

Is there an impartial poster on Sharetrader?

westerly

Exactly. Everybody tends to be partial to their own point view…It is for the reader to determine whose points of view are based on firm evidence and to sort opinion from fact.

[jonu]

Well obviously he's never seen it before because this is the 1st time the management of NZ's Water Resources are undergoing major reform.
The only other resource which is remotely comparable is Power & we saw a National govt say FU to the 67% of Kiwi respondants who voted against privatisation in the 2013 referendum, & go ahead & sell them anyway.
That's been great for the shareholders (myself included ) but hasn't turned out so well for the country.

To be clear, Im not arguing about the benefits or problems with 3 Waters here, purely the clause requiring 60% of MP's instead of 51% to overturn the ban on selling off our water assets.
It doesn't seem like something worth getting in a fury about.

Imagine if Privatisation was a bottom line for a minor party like ACT, to go into coalition with National, & National had to agree.

Are you sure it's the "trampling of Constitutional Principals " you're really upset about, or just can't stand the govt & the 3 Waters reforms?

Blue Skies, it appears you are well versed in the dark arts that Ardern so often brings to bear. The Business Committee is not the place to sort out constitutional issues....that was Dunne's point. And you and Ardern both well know it. Stop fudging around. Perhaps Labour was ignorant enough to vote this through without thinking about it....it wouldn't surprise me...but it has been exposed by neutral parties (academics) and experienced parliamentarians like Dunne as an abuse of power. Dunne has gone further to label Ardern's subsequent subterfuge as "Devious and deceitful" Something you appear to run with. We aint having it!

[davflaws]

.it wouldn't surprise me...but it has been exposed by neutral parties (academics) and experienced parliamentarians Dunne as an abuse of power.

I note that sometimes you accept academics as neutral parties, but I suspect that is only when they agree with you.