Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Inside the Shrine, in reply to Matthew Poole,
But he’s got such a nice smile.
Less and less on show however...
-
Key’s response to Gower – um yes, it was a National Party fundraiser, but he couldn’t be “sure” whether he was “right or wrong” when he had previously said it was a charity event – is remarkable.
Surely, finally, Key's faulty memory line will not be believed? Claiming it was a charity event is plainly false. Well done Gower for his smart reporting.
-
I don't know how, precisely, you measure effectiveness in the health space. I concede, not being on the front page is a proxy or sorts. However, are there more heart surgeries, shorter waiting lists for elective surgery, fewer avoidable somethingorrathers?
-
Hard News: Things worth knowing, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
I bet Bridges believes he’ll be there one day.
Bridges displays all of the ambition but little of the necessary judgment or experience to be PM. He's in desperate need of a few years in Opposition (I also suspect he's an error away from being an also-ran).
-
Hard News: Things worth knowing, in reply to Gaie Ellis,
So why would this Minister be gleaning anything on those responsibilities in China?
I wondered that, there may be an obvious reason but I've not looked for it. Perhaps others have?
-
Ben said:
Australians have a staggering amount stashed away (over 1.6 trillion dollars), and it’s only a little over 20 years that it’s been compulsory. It’s been so popular that the minimum contributions are now way higher than they used to be.
Going up to 12 per cent, from the current 9, by the end of this decade. I don't think I'd describe the increase as being due to it's the 'popularity' per se, just a clear recognition that 9 per cent isn't sufficient for most. It's certainly not unpopular though.
And at the risk of recalling an earlier distraction, the Tasmanian Labor/Green government just got turfed out, after 16 years, for the Libs.
-
linger said:
Can we go back to first principles here: just why should we believe that the known history of the Australian Labor and Green Parties should have much relevance for the future of the NZ Labour and Green Parties?
I'd not want to overstate it - electoral systems and parliaments are different - but they appear to campaign on similar issues, target similar voting cohorts and have some common campaign themes. On that basis, it's not surprising to me that they clash from time to time on both sides of the ditch.
Tom said:
Perhaps the Labour party is, just possibly, an organisation that doesn’t like being patronised by high and mighty middle class tofu eaters impatient with their antediluvian “smokestack industrial-age concepts and thinking”.
I used to get a bit of this but not so much now. The last campaign I was involved in, for Labour in Wellington Central in 2008, the Greens and Labour had a good relationship and both had excellent candidates.
I do think Labour must and can campaign on environmental issues as it has a strong claim of actually doing things through 5 governments (and Hebe, I've read your comments and understand what you were and weren't saying).
-
Hard News: Spring Timing, in reply to BenWilson,
Indeed, whereas NZ has had significant numbers of them for over a decade. We do actually have our own experiences to go on.
Ben, yup, it’s also useful to recognise that the NZ experience is a variation on a theme that can be observed internationally and across different electoral systems.
I also have to say, as a less active but equally long serving member of this remarkable community, you could consider the way you respond to new and alternative voices (to be really clear, I don't mean your responses to me).
-
I did not at any point say that Tasmanians aren’t subject to Tasmanian laws. But NZers are not subject to laws from any higher source than our own Parliament and that is a major point of difference to a state government. The buck stops with Parliament, here.
It wasn't clear to me that you understood Tasmania was a state or that states and feds shared legislative responsibility but otherwise, sure.
Do you want to be specific about what claims I made that you’re disputing? The Commonwealth government collects more than 5 times as much tax as the State government. This is what I meant by it’s comparative importance to people. This cascades down to far more massive influence over all aspects of major government expenditure.
This is a bit of a distraction to the main issue? That said, although the Commonwealth budget shows revenue and expenditure, it may not be obvious that the State's are constitutionally responsible for delivery (defence, foreign affairs, employment being key exceptions) and that the expenditure side of the Commonwealth budget consists of huge Specific Purpose Payments made to the States for delivery. The intergovernmental agreement on the transfer of funds is here and it explicitly notes that:
The Parties recognise that the States and Territories have primary responsibility for many of the service sectors covered by the National Agreements appended as schedules to this Agreement. The primacy of State and Territory responsibility in the delivery of services in these sectors is implicit in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia and it is not the intention of the Parties to alter the Constitutional responsibility or accountability of the Commonwealth, States and Territories.
Incidentally, while my experience is only in education, over twelve years under both Lib and Lab state and federal governments, I can't think of an instance where these payments have not been made.
The point leading to this discussion was that in Australia, the Greens and Labor aren't best mates and the examples given were of State politics. They could've been federal, although there's only one lower house Green.
I do think this - the similar levels of discomfort between these parties on both sides of the Tasman - is relevant to this thread and the discussion of the NZ political situation but this other stuff, about the respective roles and responsibilities, not so much.
-
Ben, it's not hugely material to this discussion, but you're not correct on the relative powers of states and the feds or on their respective budget responsibilities or, for that matter, on the level of interest.
Tasmanian state laws govern Tasmanians as do federal laws, however they cover different activities. Its only when they cover the same or similar issues that federal law prevails (the High Court recently determined a conflict between the laws with respect to same sex marriages).
And yes, I'm a wonk having worked in state and federal governments in Australian for quite a while.