by frog
If you are feeling the economic pinch and need some stay-at-home weekend entertainment – here it is. You don’t even need to blow $10 on DVDs.
Turn on Parliament TV. You’ll see a titanic battle of the wills playing out in slow motion.
Previously on Parliament TV…the Government declared urgency in order to push through its evil Auckland Super City legislation. But the Greens and Labour and the Maori Party are fighting a tooth and nail rearguard action.
Our Sue K has been in the trenches with the pro-democratic forces:
The only power left to us to protest is to delay the passage of this iniquitous legislation
And so protest we do. The Opposition parties’ strategy is very complicated: stall and delay.
Opposition parties are tabling thousands of amendments because each requires a vote and that takes time. And Opposition representatives are speaking Te Reo. It is translated into English and that takes time.
This is dig in your toes, give no ground politics. And it may go on for days. NACTs honeymoon is giving way to a winter of discontent.
You’ll see only a handful of MPs in the house at any one time during this battle, but behind the scenes, their generals are furiously reviewing tactics (generating amendments if you’re with the freedom fighters) and troop movements (leave is cancelled on all sides to keep voting blocs intact).
This contest moves a lot slower than the Chiefs-Brumbies game will tonight, but it will arguably be more hotly-fought. Tune in while the Greens and others fight painstakingly for democratic process.
Published in Parliament by frog on Fri, May 15th, 2009
Tags: brumbies, chiefs, parliament tv
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Most of us stopped playing soldiers when we were 10.
They really think this makes them look good?
What am I saying…
What do they care what the taxpayer thinks. It’s not election year.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog wrote: “You’ll see only a handful of MPs in the house at any one time during this battle, but behind the scenes, their generals are furiously reviewing tactics (generating amendments if you’re with the freedom fighters)”
really? I thought the MPs who aren’t in the debating chamber would be using the time to carefully read through the legislation, to find all the things National were trying to hide from them by only making it available at the last moment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
To put growth in perspective:
“On the other hand, there’s China’s massive urban migration. I can’t emphasize this enough. There is a migration of hundreds of millions of people from China’s rural areas to its budding cities. Just within the next 15 years, China will add some 60 new cities with between 1.5-5 million people. The U.S. doesn’t even have 10 cities today with a million people in them.”
http://dailyreckoning.com/a-far-east-pair-trade/
JohnKey talked to the contractors federation about the enormous oppurtunites presented by China.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Greeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
LOL nice one greenfly. Is that to the tune of “Otaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagoooooooooo” that is commonly heard no the terraces of Carisbrook during the NPC season?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“really? I thought the MPs who aren’t in the debating chamber would be using the time to carefully read through the legislation, to find all the things National were trying to hide from them by only making it available at the last moment.”
Surely that’s part of the “reviewing tactics” I guess. How long is the actual bill anyway?
Also is this the first serious filibuster in NZ in a long while?
BTW I noticed the Green Party’s Russel Norman (I think) wasn’t voting in Māori (but was supporting the amendments) anyone know why this is? It occured to me his te reo Māori may not be that good but it seemed he only had to learn a few words and repeat them over and over again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
first Auckland fwog and then Christchurch,
Central Government fwog,
RMA is deaded fwog,
give up,
it is good you have joined the government of this country fwog.
concentrate on yous green things, there is much to be achieved
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Are amendments still possible? Perhaps I should ask my MP to propose one to call it after my cat?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You DO know Parliament operating like this is a semi libertarian dream.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
what’s the cat’s name nil? it’s probably got a good chance…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like Moaning Myrtle in the Hogwarts loos, peterquixote endlessly intones his call for us to ‘give up’.
Doesn’t look like we are planning to anytime soon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tell us why libertyscott.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# peterquixote Says:
May 15th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
> first Auckland fwog and then Christchurch,
I understood that Christchurch was already pretty amalgamated
> RMA is deaded fwog,
I hope not
> it is good you have joined the government of this country fwog.
The Green Party has not joined the government.
> concentrate on yous green things, there is much to be achieved
Like protecting the RMA, for instance
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Do semi Libertarians like liberty … a bit?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You could have delayed things twice as long by insisting that all three official languages were used.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Looks like it’s starting to back-fire. Tune into talk-back and look at the message boards….
If the NZ parliament wasn’t so far up its own arse, the people might respect it more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>If the NZ parliament wasn’t so far up its own arse, the people might respect it more.
What, I’m supposed to respect the clowns who are pushing this poorly thought-out rubbish down our throats under “urgency”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Straw man. If you don’t like it, that’s fine, but stop wasting taxpayers money acting like spoilt brats.
Find a more mature way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think the point is BP that is no other way This should have not been rushed through under urgency but given due process in a select committee, This after all is about he democratic representation of over 1,000,000 people
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I wonder who is doing whom the favour.
I asked my friend and colleague, Wendell Cox, an international expert on local government and governance, if large scale amalgamations were typically driven from the left or the right. Here in Auckland we have the strange situation where the proposed Auckland Super-City was first driven by the centre left, but has now been adopted by the centre right.
He replied:
“Regrettably the right and left are of virtually equal distatefulness on the issue. In Toronto, it was a right wing government trying to kill a left wing local government and merge it with more conservative governments, hoping to move things to the right (and get rid of a socialist mayor for whom they had particular dislike, and for whom I worked to try to stop the amalgamation). In the US, much of the consolidation movement … so far getting nowhere (there must be a God) … is pushed by the elitist left, with the exception of Indiana (our latest victory I might way), where it is a highly regarded Republican governor who is so badly advised on the issue that it is not funny. Often you will find the most vocal proponents of these policies are central city business organizations and central city leftist elites. Then, there are always the misled rightists who think that larger governments will employ fewer people per capita, not realizing that the larger the government the more personnel it needs and trade unions become even more powerful. As I like to say, the only economies of scale in government consolidation are for lobbyists.
“Here are my main reports on the issue
Toronto
http://www.publicpurpose.com/tor-demo.htm
http://www.newgeography.com/content/00318-the-toronto-megacity-destroying-community-great-cost
Pennsylvania.
http://psats.org/local_gov_growth_report.pdf
New York.
http://www.natat.org/documents/government_efficiency.pdf
Indiana
http://indianatownshipassoc.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,7/Itemid,/
I then asked Wendell whether the end result of such amalgamations was a shift to the left or to the right.
He replied:
“You can bet that the left always wins.
The left is better at power and governance (not in terms of quality but in terms of control) and thus routinely takes over the reigns of power. That much power should not be available in a municipal government. Bureaucrats tend to be elitist and generally more left wing, so the advice the councilors and the mayor receives will be more to the left. Democracy is diluted. Taxes are raised from a larger base and spending goes up… not just on personnel.
“Here is my commentary published by the “National Post” on the 10th anniversary of the Toronto merger. Interestingly, there was not a single letter to the editor posted in response… at that point Toronto was having severe budget difficulties.”
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=790bcc66-f18a-4611-a8c2-11f2ff744c23&p=1
So who knows? We could end up with Mike Lee or even Russel Norman as the new Super-City Mayor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But it’s not going to achieve anything. National has the numbers, and doesn’t have to listen to you, or anyone else.
Remember the EFA? We do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I think the point is BP that is no other way.”
How about winning an election?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If you take the position that the EfA legislation was wrong and anti democratic You can’t use that as an excuse to excuse an anti democratic behavior by the present Government.
The Auckland transition agency gives power to three hand picked Hide stooges that have control of the local democratic process of 1.4 mill Auckland without going to a standing committee. I would have thought you could take your partisan hat off and realise that this is totally wrong
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How about winning an election?
Yeah the people of Auckland really voted for his to happen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Auckland transition agency gives power to three hand picked Hide stooges that have control of the local democratic process of 1.4 mill Auckland without going to a standing committee.
And the quorum is two out of the 3 and the chair can decide a tie if only him/her and one other turn up.
All this power in the hands of one person – a really smart move !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And a very mature approach too, I’m sure BP would agree.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I see the thieving left are still at it over the weekend.
If an employee took money to do a job, and spent it deliberately thwarting the will of management, they’d be fired.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sure, but that’s a ridiculous analogy to Parliament. Its the opposition’s job to thwart “management”. The money wasting argument is just a ruse to draw attention away from what the govt is trying to pull off.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sure and in this case it’s ‘mal-managment’ with the National Government (now refered to in many quarters as the ‘Rankin Government’) subverting democracy in a never-before-seen dismissal of the voice of the people of New Zealand over the ‘Swollen City’ plans.
BluePeter, you seem very upset over this issue! Not your usual ‘fun-loving’ provocative self this week? Has the swarm of blunders by National rocked you more than you are wanting to admit? It’s certainly brought me great cheer
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>ts the opposition’s job to thwart “management”.
It’s the oppositions job to serve the taxpayer.
Given National has the numbers to get this through, it’s simply an expensive arm-waving event designed to further Labour/Green personal agendas.
We, the voters, elected National.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
National has been blundering lately, Greenfly. A dismal performance.
Reminds me of every single week under Labour…..
As for the super city/tunnel, it’s all a storm in a teacup. A pissy little city like Auckland simply does need need layers of bureaucracy, and it is better to spend less on a road than more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
typo: doesn’t need layers of bureaucracy….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bill passes.
So, what a fine waste of taxpayers money the delaying tactics were.
Achieved nothing.
No change there for the Greens, huh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bill passes, but the Opposition is not steamrolled, in fact they make a very strong and public statement about their genuine reservations about the trampling of the democratic process. Well worth the time and money. Looking foward to the next time the method is employed.
Plenty of change for the Greens, by the way. Not push-overs, us
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s the oppositions job to serve the taxpayer.
The taxpayer does not speak with one voice, nor should Parliament.
Given National has the numbers to get this through, it’s simply an expensive arm-waving event designed to further Labour/Green personal agendas.
And those we represent.
We, the voters, elected National.
A majority, not a totality.
So, what a fine waste of taxpayers money the delaying tactics were.
Achieved nothing.
Yet to be seen what may be achieved by it.
National could have ended this Thursday by coming to its senses and agreeing to a normal select committee process for the bill. So long as they abuse urgency to shortcut the democratic process, these sorts of actions will occur.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter calls National’s, A dismal performance.
He’s so right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>agreeing to a normal select committee process for the bill
They the boss.
You not.
You have to win election to be boss.
Stop acting like spoilt brats.
>>He’s so right.
Glad you think so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter would have the Opposition gratefully lap up everthing the party in government presents to the parliament, without a skerrick of protest. You see the Government/Opposition system as bosses and brats Blue? You’re a simplistic chap!
Are the rank and file getting too uppity for you now?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter said: …, and it is better to spend less on a road than more.
And it’s even better to spend nothing at all until we’ve got public transport that can effectively get people where they want when they want in place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>until we’ve got public transport
You’ve yet to prove public transport is capable of solving the transport problem. We’ve got too many journeys going in too many directions, and not sufficient population density to make public transport a viable solution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>the Opposition gratefully lap up everthing the party in government presents to the parliament
Nobody said they had to.
What they should be doing is:
a) not wasting time and money on inevitability
b) not treating the Maori language as a joke
No wonder Turiana walked….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
e hikoi ana ia, but Sharples stayed and stayed.
Inevitability doesn’t mean lack of trying, Blue. There was much to be gained from stopping them in their tracks for a while at least(even aside from the golden opportunities it presented for lampooning – Rankin’s name came up over and over). It also revitalised the opposition, rallied the troops and stopped the roll-on the NActs had been enjoying in the house. No more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
They the boss.
There is no boss in the simplistic sense that you pretend. Parliament is supreme, not the government. Parliament has rules and conventions. None were broken in this attempt to expose the govt’s shenanigans. If the govt wants to save such time and money in future they can stop their contempt for the public and let all bills go to select committee as they’re supposed to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Just for accuracy.
The critical element in public transport (as we currently know it) is not population density but employment density.
It’s employment density on Manhattan Island that maintains the NY tube system not the metro population density which is lower than Los Angeles and even Auckland. (although Auckland’s harbours do contribute to the problem.
Cities like Auckland (and Seattle and LA and most if not all New World cities simply do not have the employment densities and never will.
Look were all the jobs are being created. NOt in Queen Street but in places like Albany and Manukau.
The forces of decentralisation. One PCs were invented mainframes were doomed for most uses. A few mainframes remain like a few CBDs. But they reminders of a past age. No new CBDs are being built. The new employment centres tend to be served by shuttles which, like taxis are a highly useful form of public transport but don’t seem to get recognised as such.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think this sums it up pretty well:
http://bkdrinkwater.blogspot.com/2009/05/turia-to-labour-grow-up.html
“The filibuster here is in the time it takes to vote on the amendments. A classier method would be this: instead of having dozens of amendments per hour, have four or five, and speak to each of them. If the bills are really as bad as they’re being made out, this would be a good way of having the Opposition’s objections read into the Hansard, and would substantially bolster Labour’s case that the legislation not proceed.”
“We shouldn’t kid ourselves that this filibustering is really about any legislation being offered, or that it’s about urgency. This is about getting Labour’s new MPs enthused: enthused about something, because presumably they’re not wild about their own leadership, or about the soul-searching Labour needs to do if it’s to have a realistic shot at the 2017 election.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Accept that it all would have ended much earlier if the Nats had agreed to send the bill to a select committee as is only proper. So much for Turia’s theory. She’s just showing she can spin like any other politician when she wants to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m with BluePeter on this one. The ‘classier’ method is the better option (speaking in detail to the ammendments, getting objections recorded into the Hansard).
Let’s hope that when ‘the filibuster’ is next employed (sometime soon, I expect), this approach is taken. Perhaps then National won’t be able to wriggle out of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly >>I’m with BluePeter on this one
A blackhole has just opened up in my closet.
I’m frightened.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>much earlier if the Nats had agreed to send the bill to a select committee as is only proper.
National don’t have to do what you demand. That’s the whole point of winning an election.
And given your history on the EFA and ETS, you’re hardly the party to talk….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Let’s hope that when ‘the filibuster’ is next employed (sometime soon, I expect)
I very much doubt it. Outside the beltway, this is a massive backfire. The general public don’t like it.
The only people who do are party hacks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A blackhole has just opened up in my closet.
Look for a lampost, Blue, and beware the White Witch!
(The Lion’s okay, if you are into that sort of thing)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
this is a massive backfire. The general public don’t like it.
Nah. The general public are wondering what it was all about, why it happened. And that’s the point. So it worked. Well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not what I’m seeing.
They’re really, really, really attuned to wasteful practices.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Then they’ll be fuming over Rankin’s appointment!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly said: Then they’ll be fuming over Rankin’s appointment!
Lest we forget
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The logical extension of your argument is that the Nats can do away with select committies for all future bills and that would be just fine because they won the election. How stupid.
Yet another straw man. Neither of these was passed in urgency to avoid public participation via select committee.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
On another note, see the item about the pigs?
Ok, I was slow to catch on, but I’m switching to organic pork and chicken.
This cruelty has got to stop.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Neither of these was passed in urgency to avoid public participation via select committee.
Yeah, we remember the select committee “process” on the EFA. Didn’t return to select committee, did it?
I’m sorry, but your behavior on the EFA was truly atrocious, so you and Labour have no credibility when it comes to questions of process. Guess you’ll get to lead by example next time around. Perhaps in 2017….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah, we remember the select committee “process” on the EFA. Didn’t return to select committee, did it?
It went through one whole SC process, which is one more than the Auckland bill. The HRC then recommended it either go through another, or that previous submitters be informed of the major changes to the bill, which is what happened. I’ve no issue with criticism of that decision. I would have chosen the other option too and I certainly wouldn’t have argued a Nat fillibuster was a crock.
But you’ve got yourself all tangled up haven’t you. Either you can argue that its OK for the government to abolish select committees NO MATTER WHO THE GOVERNMENT IS, in which case Labour is off the hook, or you can say that NO GOVERNMENT SHOULD DENY THE PUBLIC A SAY and admit the Nats are wrong this time. Otherwise, YOU are the political hack arguing for your convenience alone rather than from principle as you’d have us believe.
What’s it going to be?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ok, I was slow to catch on, but I’m switching to organic pork and chicken. This cruelty has got to stop.
Good on you for this, BP.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strawman, Valis. Where did I say it was OK to abolish select committees?
National are following Labours own Royal Commission report, aren’t they? The public will be having a say. The second bill is going to select committee for full consultation.
Remind me about the EFA process, again?
>>Good on you for this, BP
I’m quite incensed about it, actually. And disappointed in myself for not “getting it” sooner.
I’ll be doing my best to make up for that….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This whole thread is about the filibuster vs having a select committee. In just about every post you’ve said that the Nats can do what they want because they are the boss. If its ok to deny the public this time, why not next time?
No, they haven’t just tweaked the RC recommendations, they’ve gutted them and put in its place what they want with no further input from Aucklanders.
The public should have had a say on the first bill too. Why should the govt get to pick and choose what bills are opened to public scrutiny?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter – waaaaaay back,
BluePeter Says:
May 16th, 2009 at 11:05 am
you suggested that we
Find a more mature way.
I’m interested. What’s your suggestion?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why have a dog and bark yourself?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If you don’t have the product, don’t advertise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)