NZ Green Party
The Green Party candidate list

The Greens have just announced their candidate list, as voted on by party members:

  1. Jeanette Fitzsimons
  2. Russel Norman
  3. Sue Bradford
  4. Metiria Turei
  5. Sue Kedgley
  6. Keith Locke
  7. Kevin Hague (West Coast, DHB Chief Executive)
  8. Catherine Delahunty (East Coast, activist and chairperson of the Tairawhiti Beneficiary Advocacy Trust)
  9. Kennedy Graham  (Christchurch, senior diplomat and law lecturer)
  10. David Clendon (Auckland, resource management lecturer)
  11. Gareth Hughes (Wellington, climate change campaigner)
  12. Steffan Browning (Kaikoura, horticulturalist and Soil & Health Association spokesperson)

Unsurprisingly Russel as co-leader has risen up to number 2.  I think that people will find the candidates 7 through 12 bring huge range of skills and experiences into a shadow caucus.  Take for instance Kevin Hague, who can list as joint achievements as being (among many other things) the Chief Executive of the West Coast District Health Board and being on the Hamilton rugby field protesting the Springbok Tour in 1981.

The full list is available here.

60 thoughts on “The Green Party candidate list

  1. It’s funny how most of the environmentalists are in positions where they won’t make it into parliament. Assuming the Greens do manage to get 5%.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  2. Which ones are not environmentalists AndrewE?

    Kevin Hague who has a long history of advocating for cyclists,
    Catherine Delahunty who has been a leading voice defending rivers and water quality on the East Coast,
    Ken Graham who as written a book on climate change and sustainability from an international perspective,
    David Clendon who lectures on environmental sustainability,
    Gareth Hughes who campaigns on climate change for a living,
    or maybe you mean farmer and environmental campaign Steffan Browning.

    Or was your assertion just a falsely held stereotype that you can’t let yourself get past?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  3. Can’t help thinking, as articulate as he is (i’ve seen him speak here and there) that someone as young as Gareth would be out of his depth in Parliament. Whether the Greens get 11 MPs in or not, yes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  4. Titillating, BP. C’mon, give us some substance! Or is this just about Bradford, Kedgeley and Locke?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  5. Well based on what frog said above…? You can’t just say ‘I disagree!’ then run away giggling to yourself!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  6. fwog, this is completely different to my vote list,
    I voted 100% southern

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  7. StephenR

    I stand corrected. The list appears to consist entirely of far-right neo-conservatives….. ;)

    Thanks for forcing me to rethink….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  8. I didn’t say you were wrong or you had to rethink, I just thought you might have had a reason for disagreeing with what frog said at 3-19.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  9. “I have a deep & genuine commitment to all our Charter principles & to Te Tiriti o Waitangi” Sue Bradford

    What use is a charter to a political party when it is so broad in its interpretation and requires a great amount of subjective assessment……….. (unless your one of those people with strong views who knows best). :roll:

    When the paramount ecological principle gets gritty (population, responsible parenthood) your gonna have to skip quickly to the next and claim that social justice is “ecological wisdom”

    and it’s gonna be fun when we return control of Aotearoa to Tangata whenua under the Treaty as understood by them in 1840.

    May I suggest a megaphone on the Green Party logo?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  10. Can anyone name any countries who are following NZ’s lead over MMP?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  11. jh,

    Shhhh……some people are still convinced that if New Zealand “leads”, others will see we are “leading”, and they will follow.

    I’m struggling to think of an example of this actually happening, of course….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  12. jh – I’m not sure I can comprehend what your problem is:

    If you check the voting record of the MPs you claim are not ‘green’ in the sense that you would like to define green I think you will find that they are stronger on environmental and conservation issues than any other MPs in Parliament.

    If you are judging them on something other than their record perhaps you had better let us know what this secret criteria is you have developed so we can assess its relationship to rationality.

    If you are criticising the people below the MPs on the list for not being Green enough again I would be interested to know how high you have set bar and perhaps to list MPs or candidates from other parties that have met this green standard. I would argue that these people are some of New Zealand’s pre-eminent environmentalists, so I am interested to see what you see as their failings.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  13. frog..!..catherine delahunty an’environmentalist’..?

    and not part of the ex-alliance cabal..?

    getouttahere..!

    (ya got me choking on my tofu..)’

    and..wither ‘dick’ green..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  14. # jh Says:
    May 12th, 2008 at 4:26 pm

    > Can anyone name any countries who are following NZ’s lead over MMP?

    Scotland

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  15. I think it is a matter of how we define “green”. If it is “green” as in “green/Grun movement” (watermelon) then most of them probably are “green”. If it’s “green” as in someone who places humans within the Earths ecology and believes that humans are behaving like bacteria on a petri dish of agar and who keeps an open mind as to what to do about it; I doubt it.

    That last thing we need is a bunch of hardwired brains. We need intelligent open minded people who can wipe their software and think again. :mrgreen:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  16. You “doubt it”? Based on what?? You seem to have as many stated reasons as BP at the moment, and that’s not a whole lot.

    I was under the impression that MMP had nothing to do with ‘leading’ and everything to do with being pissed off with politicians so-a-change-would-be-great !

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  17. phil u said: “catherine delahunty an’environmentalist’..?”

    Phi, your ignorance appalls me. Do some research before you post.

    Catherine Delahunty spend 15 years trying to prevent the miners from digging up the Coromandel, and a good amount of time since then dealing with issues of toxic poisoning from the wood pulp industry in the Bay of Plenty and sewage treatment issues in Te Tai Rawhiti.

    Save for Jeanette, Catherine must be up there with one of the strongest environmental activism records of anyone on the Green Party list.

    Or is it not ignorance but wilful blindness Phil? You know what I mean (2002 and all that)! – [Even though others won't, but I'm not getting into that here].

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  18. Actually this political culture is primitive. I suggest that every person involved in an issue take part in a debate mapping exercise, and we develop an open culture of critical analysis rather than advocacy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  19. StephenR Says:
    May 12th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

    You “doubt it?? Based on what?? You seem to have as many stated reasons as BP at the moment, and that’s not a whole lot.
    …………
    Can’t be activist on too many fronts or one goal will conflict with the other (depending on whether we are talking about the environmental movement or Grun Movement*).

    *Green politics is advocated by supporters of the Green movement, … The political term Green, a translation of the German Grün, was coined by die Grünen
    http://tinyurl.com/3qo4on

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  20. jh said: If it’s “green? as in someone who places humans within the Earths ecology and believes that humans are behaving like bacteria on a petri dish of agar and who keeps an open mind as to what to do about it; I doubt it.

    jh: the Greens have a commitment to social justice, which means that those with wealth should expect to pay more for halting and cleaning up environmental degradation than those who exist hand to mouth.

    But I think the Greens do keep an “open mind” about it – sometimes we will seek a market solution (eg, our proposal for an emissions trading scheme – but not Labour’s one which won’t work because it is too slow in implementation and doesn’t include some emissions at all).

    Sometimes we will seek a regultory solution, like a moratorium on new coal mining. We try to seek the solution that will work best in the circumstances, rather than be wedded to some sort of ideological straightjacket.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  21. Can anyone name any countries who are following NZ’s lead over MMP?

    It’s not a “lead”. Most of Europe already had MMP, usually with a lower threshold than we do.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  22. Why are you guys only promoting the top 12? Surely you’ve got to aim high in an election year, a couple of Green parties around the world have hit 20%, no?

    To some extent I can understand brevity, traditional wisdom around what gets through, but the top 6 are your 5% margin, all or nothing, same as last time anyway; it’s the next dozen that extra votes promote, and so those voters need to hear about. Or so I would have thought.

    18th on the list is surely achievable. Tell us what you’d do with them, what they’d do in government, or on the cross benches again as the case may be. Give us some hope, guys.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  23. # StephenR Says:
    May 12th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

    > *choosing* MMP that is.

    If you’re going to set the condition of the voters choosing it through a referendum or something, then the only example I know of is Bolivia in 1994, one year after New Zealand.

    But it’s hardly surprising that not many countries have chosen MMP through a referendum – very few countries ever have democratic referenda on changing the electoral system.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  24. # idiot/savant Says:
    May 12th, 2008 at 7:20 pm

    > > Can anyone name any countries who are following NZ’s lead over MMP?

    > It’s not a “lead?. Most of Europe already had MMP, usually with a lower threshold than we do.

    The only European countries I know of that have MMP are Germany, Hungary, Italy, Scotland and Wales. Hungary got it about 4 years before New Zealand, Italy about 4 months before us.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  25. Wow, I have to say- pretty impressed with the list. Not only does it have all the most effective parliamentarians who aren’t retiring from politics, everyone else below them looks really commited, and there are some impressive credentials there too. Hopefully we can snag at least the top twelve.

    JH- you’re drawing a false dichotomy with your “green vs Green” rhetoric. It’s hard to be Green without also being green, as environmentalism is one of the policy pillars of the movement.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  26. Return of the population timebomb

    It has become taboo over recent years, but population, not consumption, really is the key to managing our use of the world’s resources
    / /

    It’s a simple notion: reduce per person consumption and end our environmental problems. And it lets us sidestep the issue of population size and growth, a subject of much concern in the 1960s and 1970s but taboo today.

    Why taboo? Much credit goes to pressure from social justice activists. They’ve insisted in recent decades that any focus on numbers inevitably violates the right of women to manage their own fertility.
    http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_feeney/2008/05/return_of_the_population_timebomb.html

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  27. I congratulate you for choosing Steffan Browning, anyone from Soil & Health Association I agree with most heartily, personally i would put him up the order replacing keith locke, who is only going to lose votes for the green party, as his stance on immigrantion and helping the poor of the world before we help the poor of NZ is a real put off to everyone i know.
    They had a thing on biochar on the news today? why aren’t the greens pushing it, what with the polution our farmers produce.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  28. Who was the economist on the forum who complained that “this is supposed to be about the environment” when all the boys and girls were coming against Nandors proposition that The Greens are not a left-wing party? Was that David Hay?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  29. JH- you’re drawing a false dichotomy with your “green vs Green? rhetoric. It’s hard to be Green without also being green, as environmentalism is one of the policy pillars of the movement.
    ………………..
    The paramount principle is the ecological principle. You use that superficially to get votes and skip to social justice which you use in a way which places people beyond the worlds ecology. Non Violence is just an excuse for rabid Anti Americanism and as for “Appropriate decision making”, I’m still wondering what happens between the speedway and the local residents.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  30. jh asked: PS Why isn’t BJ Chippendale on the list above Sue Bradford?

    BJ didn’t offer himself as a candidate, jh. Personally, I think he would be an excellent candidate, although to say he would perform better than all the sitting MPs apart from Jeanette would be stretching it. Sue Bradford won several media awards for her performance as an MP last year.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  31. Toad

    “Sue Bradford won several media awards for her performance as an MP last year”

    Wow, left wing social engineers giving awards to left wing social engineers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  32. I had no idea the media gave out actual awards, but she has probably been one of the more successful MPs, especially considering she’s a backbencher.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  33. jh said: Return of the population timebomb It has become taboo over recent years, but population, not consumption, really is the key to managing our use of the world’s resources

    The Greens will be releasing a population policy before the election. Watch this space, and hope you are happier in the knowledge that this issue is not being ignored jh.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  34. jh says: “The paramount principle is the ecological principle.”, etc.

    Rubbish. The Green Party has often debated the ranking of its principles and has always determined that they are equal. This is because greens believe environmental problems cannot be solved without the other three principles in play (and visa versa for that matter).

    There’s an obvious reason the Greens have had more success on social justice issues than environmental ones – they have to work with the government! Labour has shown it is just not interested in making progress on environmental matters, but will support Green social justice initiatives. This is the surpreme frustration of the Greens in Parliament.

    As for anti-Americanism, there are many other reasons to be so inclined than non-violence, but the Greens are not anti-American. They will oppose any government (not people) showing facist tendencies and good on them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  35. “Rubbish. The Green Party has often debated the ranking of its principles and has always determined that they are equal. This is because greens believe environmental problems cannot be solved without the other three principles in play (and visa versa for that matter).”

    and the Green Party debated the treaty and decided we should use the agreement as made by British agents with Maori in 1840 as the basis for the modern day state of NZ (a series of tribal cantons)………………..

    :mrgreen:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  36. JH, social justice cannot be ignored for environmentalism, and vice-versa. The realisation that the world has finite resources cannot be seperated from the principle that those resources must be distributed fairly, with an opportunity for everyone to claim a share- even future generations.

    Social justice in the Green sense is directly derived from environmentalism. I honestly can’t see how you think it’s appropriate to address our over-consumption without addressing how unbalanced that consumption is.

    As for non-violence? I think you’re straw-manning. I’m a big fan of this one, and I’ve long worried that our policies on America risk isolating us from a big ally if we don’t engage on our differences and why they’re healthy. We can disagree with unjust wars without attacking American culture and values. (in fact, I feel it’s far more in line with American values to disagree with unjust and imperialistic wars)

    And the Treaty? I think everyone acknowledges how colonial and outdated the translation of it was, but the official/Maori version is actually a lovely document that pledges partnership and trust between Maori and European people, equating leadership with responsibility to the population in much the same way our democratic system does now. Having a document like that as the core of our constitution would be a beautiful thing indeed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  37. jh: why are you so scared of Te Tiriti being implemented in the version that is accepted according to the principles of international law?

    Just saying “move on” and that after 168 years it is impossible to implement doesn’t cut it with me.

    Sure, there need to be some negotiations, and some compromise, but it is still the document that is the cornerstone of constitutional propriety in this country.

    Reject Te Tiriti, and you are back to the Wild West, or the Wild Kororareka (Russell) of the 1830s.

    Negotiation and order, or war and chaos – what should be our destiny. I, for one, would prefer the former. Pakeha essentially subjugated Maori though the Land Wars, and now it is time to acknowledge that, and achieve some solutions that acknowledge both pre-existing Maori property rights and the rights of those who have innocently acquired property consequent on abrogation of those Maori property rights.

    That requires genuine negotiation between Crown and Hapu, but not negotiation with unilaterally Crown-imposed limits.

    The Crown still acts for the guilty party in terms of events past.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  38. Toad

    What you have just outlined is a sure fire recipe for civil war, I am sick and tired of being told (usually by sickly white liberals) that I should feel guilty about something that happened 150 years ago.
    I am also sick and tired of hearing that it is my fault that Maori top almost every single statistic when it comes to crime, poverty, child abuse and the like.

    It is time we moved on as a nation and time that we stopped pandering to one race, it is also time that we all started acting like New Zealanders first and worry about our ethnic heritage second.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  39. BB, it is nothing about feeling guilty. My great-grandfather was the first Mayor of Woodville, and apparently did some appalling things by the standards I acknowledge today.

    Although he was dead before I was born, I still ackowledge him as one of the founders of our nation.

    Just as I do Te Kooti, although I have some problems with some of the things he did too.

    It is not about feeling guilty – it is about acknowleging the past and negotiating to find a way to move on in harmony.

    And if you want a civil war, which I don’t, I suspect we as Pakeha would lose – you just need to look at the racial composition of the Army. In a civil war situation, the vast majority of service men and women are Maori, and would would be loyal to their hapu, rather than to the “nation” of New Zealand that has stripped them of their land!

    To reverse Jim Morrison’s immortal line, as “We got the numbers, but they got the guns”!

    You want a civil war, BB, carry down the path you’re on. Personally, I’d like to accept the Maori version of Te Tiriti, which is the one acknowledged in international law, and negotiate on that basis to a harmonious resolution of grievances.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  40. Toad

    First of all I need to make it clear that I was not calling you a “sickly white liberal”

    Secondly how on earth did you take from what I have written that I want a war?, all I have said is that a policy like that would start a civil war and have us end up as the Zimbabwe of the South pacific.

    Mind you, I am not sure that you are right given the overwhelming numerical superiority of one of the possible combatants, you also seem to suggest that it is only Maori who feel strongly enough about NZ to fight for what they believe, if you think that then you are sadly wrong.

    Anyway, back to the original point, look if you can find any of he original people who suffered at the hands of the settlers then by all means negotiate to your hearts content, however I suspect you will only find distant descendants alive these days, these are the same people who lay the fault for all that is wrong with Maori at my door, if you and the Greens are silly enough to pick up that guilt then that is your problem.

    I am more than happy to acknowledge the past Toad, what I am not happy to do is have that past used as an excuse for the ills of Maori, that is simply rubbish and anybody who is taken in by the con is a fool.

    We can either move on and work together to create one nation or we can keep seeing Maori slip further down, the choice is an easy one as far as I can see.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  41. BB –

    A major part of Te Tiriti relates to guaranteeing Maori property rights. Are you arguing that we ignore these property rights? And that we ignore theft simply because it happened in the past?

    Would you be unhappy if you found out that years ago someone (who was still alive) stole and continues to profit from your (now dead) parents’ property? Given that the crown orchestrated the theft of Maori land and that the Crown still exists and continues to profit from the theft, is there not at least be a prima facie case for compensation?

    To put it simply – to advocate for “moving on” from Te Tiriti would suggest you have no respect both for the rights of property owners or those affected by theft. That would make you both a communist and soft on crime – maybe I should tell my ACT buddies that you’re actually a pinko limp liberal?

    Finally, no-one has argued that recognising Te Tiriti is necessary to absolve any sense of collective guilt. Instead most people in the Green Party value property rights and victims compensation, which is why we recognise Te Tiriti.

    So it would appear that your views are inconsistent and shallow. Come on Big Buddha, let the light of logic clear the cold conservative poison from your clogged brain cells.

    Ciao!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  42. A supreme peice of irony. Christchurch City gifted part of Hagley Park to the government for a nurses hostel. When the hostel was closed down the government gave the land to Ngai Tahu as part of their treaty settlement. My understanding is that instead of the council entering into a gifting contract with the Crown they had foolishly made the gift in a Local Act. The Crown simply included a clause in the Ngai Tahu Settlement Act that repealed the Local Act, vested the land and buildings in the Crown and then transferred the land and buildings to Ngai Tahu.

    Recent governments have had a penchant for rogering Christchurch and Canterbury. Like adding 5 cents to the petrol tax to be distributed on a per capita basis. Canterbury got that but lost an equal amount from the pre-existing petrol tax so that it got no real increase. In effect it went from losing one-third of the pre-existing tax to losing one-half. By getting all of the 5 cents it managed to keep it’s overall loss at one-third. With hypothecation of the petrol tax it reakky will lose half its petrol tax to other regions, roughly two-thirds of that loss goes to half million South Islanders who don’t live in Canterbury, the other third to Auckland and Wellington. Despite the fact that the government has known for three years that Canterbury has the worst economic damage (%RegionalGDP) from traffic congestion of the four urban areas studied by Transit.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  43. Tiriti guarantees Maori tino rangitiratanga and the Crown kawagatanga. It was made pre satellite phones and was an order from above to an unwilling Hobson. Europeans were a small minority. It resulted in a vague agreement re power sharing but Maori wouldn’t have much of a clue as to the ability of the British to migrate. What other result could there have been. Stop cherry picking the effects.
    ……………………..
    Chris Trotter says it well

    Seabed makes odd bedmates
    FROM THE LEFT – CHRIS TROTTER

    The Dominion Post | Friday, 08 February 2008

    “The Labour-led Government’s decision to pass the Foreshore and Seabed Act represented their determination to ensure that our beaches remained the common property of all New Zealanders. It had long been held that the Crown’s ownership of the foreshore and seabed was “settled law?, which is why the Court of Appeal’s upholding of the Maori appellants’ claim to exercise “customary title? came as such a bombshell.

    Michael Cullen’s legislation was, in effect, a renationalisation of the foreshore and seabed on behalf of the whole nation – Maori and Pakeha.

    The Maori Party, the ACT Party, and (to their shame) the Greens, in calling for the act’s repeal, are, in reality, calling for the privatisation of large parts of the New Zealand coastline.
    …?
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4392654a1861.html

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  44. On Sue Bradford she may have been voted the most effective MP but in fact 85% of people opposed repeal of Section 59 and how many people she persuaded (“men who smack are …perverts”). Labour made its MP’s vote and National folded , so it shows how politicians can work and manipulate the system. Hardly “appropriate decision making”?

    The Greens apply the ecological principle to big industries but at the other end you become advocates for the slack. Sue Bradford apologised for the Kahui’s “they aren’t part of the up side of life” despite the whanau pulling in a bomb from the welfare system.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  45. jh said: Michael Cullen’s legislation was, in effect, a renationalisation of the foreshore and seabed

    Don’t get me started, jh. Trotter’s got it wrong – pure and simple.

    It wasn’t a renationalisation, because what the Court of Appeal said was that the issue of ownership had to be determined by the lower Courts on a case by case basis. So it cannot be said that the Crown ever owned all of the foreshore and seabed before the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

    The Act prevented people with a claim to property rights from going to Court to get a determination as to whether those property rights actually existed.

    So it was an abrogation of the right of hapu to go to Court to determine whether they or the Crown owned particular parts of the foreshore and seabed, and, as such, was an affront to justice.

    And the Greens are not calling for the privatisation of a large part of the coastline. You cannot privatise something that the State does not own. If the State decides that coastline should be in public ownership, then those who lay laim to ownership should have the opportunity to prove their claims, and if they are upheld, be compensated for any subsequent nationalisation.

    Anything short of that is confiscation. Imaging the uproar if the Government had decided, rather than negotiate a deal with Toll, to legislate to place ownership of the railways to public ownership without compensation. Yet that is effectively what they have done with the foreshore and seabed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  46. jh said “On Sue Bradford she may have been voted the most effective MP but in fact 85% of people opposed repeal of Section 59 and how many people she persuaded (?men who smack are …perverts?). Labour made its MP’s vote and National folded , so it shows how politicians can work and manipulate the system. Hardly “appropriate decision making??”

    You miss out the rigorous select committee/parliamentary process, all the evidence and overwhelming NGO and expert support for this law change.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  47. I think the point is this Toad:

    “By convincing the National Party leader that the foreshore and seabed issue is nothing more than a dispute over property law, they have opened the way to a much more radical application of indigenous rights.

    For who can dispute that, at one time, the entire geographical entity we call New Zealand was the property of Maori collectivities?

    And, if they have a customary right to New Zealand’s beaches, then why not its rivers, estuaries, swamps, lakes, forests and everything else?”

    Your argument is “Open wiiide…..it won’t hurt a bit” or a bit here and a bit there. Note people from Naitahu protesting on Brighton Pier (Chch). Cast your eyes at Fiji, Uganda…. Rwanda…
    :roll:

    We need to remember that the population is up to 53.333 times greater than in 1840. [75000/ 4000000].

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  48. billy, don’t forget the expert support *against*, and the NGO *opposition*.

    I don’t think the figure was 85% either (maybe in one poll) but most figures were in the mid-high 70s. pedantic, yes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  49. billy Says:
    May 14th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
    You miss out the rigorous select committee/parliamentary process, all the evidence and overwhelming NGO and expert support for this law change.
    ………….
    In theory yes but when presented with Dr Millichamps contrary evidence Sue Bradford questioned her motives. In my opinion the whole thing hinges on whether light occasional smacking is harmful
    and if there is always a better way (“naughty mat”). One clincher was when the children’s commissioner stated that “X did a meta analysis which showed that it is never ok to smack”…. I simply don’t believe that as I have read from other sources that while little has been done on light smacking the evidence is “equivocal” as to whether it is harmful or not. It smacks of an ideological putsch.
    There is nothing that comes close to the Otago Interdisciplinary Health and Development Study of children over 30 years… (day long interviews…. not 10 minutes as we were told).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  50. “In a civil war situation, the vast majority of service men and women are Maori, and would would be loyal to their hapu, rather than to the “nation? of New Zealand that has stripped them of their land!”

    i take it as a matter of faith that our fine representitives in the armed forces have a strong professional military ethos & would do nothing to violate the integrity either of this country or the armed forces.

    “I am also sick and tired of hearing that it is my fault that Maori top almost every single statistic when it comes to crime, poverty, child abuse and the like.”

    what would you do about this problem?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  51. “List positions above 30 are listed alphabetically.” what is the point of that? we want to know if the vote goes above 30 who will be the next one in?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

The ability to post further comments on this blog will return after the election.