Posts by izogi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The new establishment, in reply to simon g,
As long as we're onto this topic, can someone explain to me what caused DIA and MFAT, via the NZ High Commission, to inform Barnaby Joyce of his citizenship when he never asked about it? Even moreso, why did they inform him of who was asking hypothetical questions about NZ citizenship, which were not directly related to him anyway?
NZ media's largely been focusing on Hipkins and Labour's involvement, but I'd really like to see Peter Dunne and Gerry Brownlee quizzed for their perspective on why DIA and MFAT acted as they did. Instead, Dunne's been deflecting attention from DIA by declaring to Australian media that media queries were more responsible than Hipkins' queries, and Brownlee's been deflecting attention from MFAT by (that link just above) declaring that Bishop's outburst against Labour was justified.
Whatever the appropriateness of Chris Hipkins' involvement, Barnaby Joyce would have found out anyway via either Australian Media or the ALP. When the NZ High Commission pre-emptively notified him, and told him who'd been asking questions, it went from a domestic Australian problem into an international diplomatic incident.
MFAT's actions in notifying Joyce about something he never requested became the trigger for possibly destabilising Australia's government, and the immediate rhetoric which Joyce and Bishop broadcast about Hipkins' involvement, which was probably at least overstated if not completely incorrect, might even have risked affecting New Zealand's election. Surely the diplomatic sensitivity of the action must have been recognised by NZ's diplomatic staff, who for some reason decided that warning an Australian Deputy PM that both his country's media and parliamentary opposition were planning to ambush him was more important than avoiding an international incident?
Are there are some objective criteria which exist in DIA and MFAT for deciding when to notify Australian MPs if it's noticed they have NZ Citizenship? If not, how can we be certain there's not a rogue employee (or Minister) somewhere in the agencies who's deciding, possibly with malicious intent, which Australian MPs to inform and which to leave alone? I'm sure that's probably not happening, but I find it concerning that it could be happening.
-
Hard News: A thundering clash of, in reply to Dennis Frank,
I don't have the specific ref, but I recall James Shaw in one of his RNZ interviews soon after they left (Morning Report?), he said there was meant to be some notice period of anyone leaving --- I think something like 48 hours --- so that the exec could discuss issues and, if necessary, prepare. I think he alleged they'd given almost no notice, thus seriously harming the campaign, and this was the fundamental problem which perhaps some are unlikely to forgive.
Whether this is the actual state of things is another question entirely. I presume Kennedy Graham and David Clendon would have their own version of events. Probably neither really matters, by now, to a public which has largely already made up its mind.
-
Hard News: A thundering clash of, in reply to Russell Brown,
Armstrong:
An almost audible groan would rumble along the National Party’s benches at Parliament every time she rose to ask a question. They knew it was a cue for another sanctimonious lecture on National’s failures.
Yes because clearly the real purpose of question time is so that government back-bench MP's can grill Ministers about what makes them so awesome.
-
Hard News: A thundering clash of, in reply to Katharine Moody,
Well it certainly shows through in the way that we so often talk about child poverty instead of just poverty, even if just to try to make an argument which seems less negotiable.
-
Hard News: A thundering clash of, in reply to Trevor Nicholls,
Jan Logie told Seymour to his face last night, on Backbenches, that he disgusts her (around 7m30s).
-
Hard News: A thundering clash of, in reply to Robert McLachlan,
I think we're being unfair.
Surely it's not Bill English's fault that the Parliamentary Service isn't a vindictive, punitive organisation that sees its mission as extracting a total and cruel financial efficiency from its beneficiaries at all costs, then aggressively attacking those who don't comply to the maximum extent afforded by the law.
Naturally if it's anyone's fault, it's the Speaker's fault.
-
Hard News: A thundering clash of, in reply to Neil,
It appears she involved her family in this without discussing it with them first. Now she claims to be quiting to protect them but it looks more like she's going to protect herself from her family.
I have no idea about Metiria's family, and I'm personally fortunate to have a great extended family.
But re the anonymous source, I also know good people with extensive extended family, some of whom are screwed up and whom you'd hide from in the supermarket if you met them, rather than risk encountering them. Granted this could have been a legitimate gripe, or just a misunderstanding about the times so long ago, but without further information on the source I'd take it with a grain of salt. The mere fact that someone's related to Metiria doesn't automatically mean they're trustworthy when talking about her, but I totally get it if she didn't want this to step up to a whole new level where she was having a messy family argument in front of the public.
-
Hard News: Metiria's Problem, in reply to Tom Semmens,
She told Campbell that she's removing herself from the list. She's remaining an electorate candidate, but presumably only to do the campaigning and it'd be unlikely for her to win.
Campbell's interview is still going. He's giving her plenty of room to talk.
-
The story goes on: Campbell on Checkpoint this evening, just now at 5.08pm, announces that Metiria Turei has resigned. She's removing herself from the list. (This must be really new because I don't see it even reported as breaking news on Stuff. Only just breaking news on the Herald.)
According to Campbell, this supposedly came after they approached her for comment on an anonymous allegation from someone claiming to have known her whilst on the DPB, who was claiming that she had much more support than claimed... or something like that. Maybe she was going to do resign without that approach anyway.
Campbell has an interview/statement with her that's playing now.
-
Hard News: Metiria's Problem, in reply to dave stewart,
a whole lot of TOP votes will probably just get flushed down the toilet - which would advantage the incumbents more than the line up for change?
Would it necessarily? Lost votes, sure, but advantaging the incumbents? I've seen assumptions that TOP's getting so much support from traditional Green voters but I know at least one steady National advocate who's now seriously considering switching to TOP, and I've wondered how many others there might be. In that case I guess it depends on why a former National voter was voting that way previously, and I bet there are any number of complex reasons for people voting as they do.