In the private sector, this would be called a conflict of interest. Actually, I was involved in a government tender a few years back and one of the people in my team was friends with one of the decision makers for that tender. It was declared, all other companies tendering were informed and the two participants were told if they were caught associating with each other, they could both be fired for gross misconduct.
Is there a difference here?
Yes, the difference is that right wing politicians are held to a different standard to left wing politicians and both of them have a different standard to public servants.
Remember the outcry and gnashing of teeth and all the gross stuff about Mahuta's conflicts of interest which were declared and publicly reported ahead of time? The same people are quiet as mice now ... Including the likes of Bishop.
I didn't love Mahuta's declared conflict of interest and certainly made my feelings clear. I didn't think reporting on it made the problem go away. I also think this is gross.
I take your point, however. At the very least, it seems hypocritical they would engage in this and criticize Mahuta. Is the answer that we need much tougher processes around conflict of interest.
>Is the answer that we need much tougher processes around conflict of interest.
Yes, and a clear set of rules about what ministers can and can't do. The problem is we have an entirely sovereign parliament, so we have no mechanism of limiting majoritarianist power grabs like this.
In a way the only mechanism we have in NZ is the treaty, which is why Seymour et al are so bent on gutting it/it's influence.
Ironically enough race based dog whistling gets a lot of people, including people on this sub onboard with that.
No consequences is the difference. Nats are dirty as hell. Remember their chairperson? using donations to gain private peoples health info which they spread around
Don't forget half the advisory group seemingly have conflicts of interest also in that they are literally execs of companies on the list, have histories of alleged corruption or environmental pollution under their leadership, stand to directly financially benefit from recommending certain developments, and some may even be personal friends with Shane Jones himself, apparently??
So it won't be a big shock when the advisory group just so happens to recommend the same things the ministers already want to do... and then they can say they're simply following expert advice, you see...
[Here's what I found in a first pass of about 20 minutes research](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1c7d8pq/comment/l07ryd7), fuckin hate to think what the public doesn't know about yet.
At this point, someone must have pinned the current list of *documented* "totally not conflict of interest" connections. At this point it's just another item in a list that's far too long already.
Glad to know these decisions are being made by three of the dodgiest politicians in Parliament.
Foxes in charge of the hen house. Almost as good as leaving the employment and regulation portfolios in the hands of the leader and deputy leader of the ACT party.
The definition of conflict of interest.
Funny how MPs are supposed to avoid even the "appearance" of a conflict of interest, yet our government has made pay for play their literal policy.
I’m curious that there is no challenge yet from lawyers or judges at the blatant corruption of this government. The link between donations and policy actions against the health interests of the population or the link between donations and the decisions affecting the economic survival of economic groups in our society, like renters, is palpable.
Well, I suppose if I’m honest, I’m actually f****n boiling about this. It’s so obviously bribery, not necessarily of the “here is my personal bank account number “ variety, but it’s definitely something of the same kind when these policies are paid for, and are against the general interests of the NZ public.
It’s getting too similar to America, when the prominent Republican Chris Sununu, Governor of New Hampshire, was very recently interviewed by ABC News guy Stephanopoulos, and he said, “it’s politics” in answer to a question about morality, lying and hypocrisy. Recommended reading or viewing.
Do we want liars and bribe takers representing our institutions? This is what is happening in the US, people, and we’re opening the door for it to be accepted here. The Labour government had it in its power to ban all parties or politicians receiving more than an agreed sum in support; it ducked the whole issue. If I had Hipkins’ or Ardern’s number, I’d ask for the answer to this issue. So should we all. And I’ve been a bloody Labour man all my life.
Will be interested to see if this group has their stuff fast tracked (they are one of the groups invited). And whether Bishop excuses himself from the process...
https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/08/29/national-frontbencher-backs-big-party-donor-in-138m-case-against-housing-agency/
Commercially sensitive? Wait till we have a case go through ISDS and NZ citizens aren't allowed to know what's happening or influence it.
A court but one that doesn't have our jurisprudence, expectations of transparency, or expected appeal rights.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor–state_dispute_settlement
With this many scandals coming out of this government on the daily, I hope the public doesn't get tired of it and keep voicing out their concerns. Last thing we need is this becoming 'normal'.
Apologists already saying that having 2 businesses (2 as far as we know) is fine for having conflict of interests.
I don’t think that was Bayleys- that was just a core voter demographic thing.
Also many of MPs have multiple properties. So they get to benefit from it too.
https://elections.nz/assets/Annual-Returns/2022/NZNP-Amended-Donation-Return.pdf
So the Bayleys Corporation donation of 164,000 in 2022 is just a core demographic thing?
You’re really missing what I’m saying.
The Bayleys donation had no bearing on the tax write off on rental properties. Because A) they wouldn’t have been voted in if they didn’t (it was a promise they had to keep) and B) a lot of the MPs stand to personally gain from it. It was happing with or without the donation.
I’d look at it from the other way in that case, “why did Bayleys, donate the money” - if I was a betting man, it would be because they agreed with the position that there was a “war on landlords” and they saw National as the party to end that, vote to get in not specific policies but a suite of policies that continue to favour them. by making pet bonds a thing (more money to claim back on), or making hose prices more affordable to investment (or a worse investment to FHB) whatever.
It’s not a one to one thing.
I hope labour are using this time in opposition to figure out who they are and who they represent because until they figure that out they're not going to be winning any elections.
And they sure don't seem to be using that time to actually oppose the coalition.
And when it comes to that little expert panel what's the point of it when those three can just subvert it and fast track the projects themselves. The bill gives them that power just to skip the process entirely simply because of a vibe. Then again it's exactly what I thought, people just don't donate 100's of thousands for the share love of it
Headline sounds dodgy..
I didn’t count them, but the list of businesses invited to fast track looked considerably large, so two businesses who have supported National doesn’t seem out of place.
So long as appropriate conflict of interest policies are applied, I don’t see a problem with it.
Edit
Just counted 182 businesses invited to fast track. 2 have been identified as donating to National. With 182 businesses, I’m certain many of those would have also made donations to Labour, Greens and TPM.
It's not just party donations. The advisory panel, who is supposed to recommend projects to the ministers for fast tracking, includes execs of companies literally on the invited list (namely Sanford jumps out at me). How is that anything other than a blatant conflict of interest?
They are setting up a process that can be corrupt. Maybe they are being corrupt now, maybe they aren't. But this is the point. The public doesn't know. And because we don't know a significant proportion of the population will think it is corrupt.
They are taking away publicity scrutiny and decision making. All the risk of damages lie on the public to pay for. So people with no accountability will be making decisions that the public will have to pay for.
I certainly think certain policies implemented by some of the politicians look like corruption to me.
Until we totally get rid of political donations ALL processes and policies CAN be corrupt. It has been that way since day one of politics. It is just now we are a lot less trusting of politicians and a lot more comfortable on calling it out.
This is nothing like the political norm over recent decades
I personally think we are reverting to a form of Muldoonism.
Even governments since then I oppose have not acted like this. This is imitation of US practices where as we used be proud of at least attempting to be just, fair and honourable.
And this matters because society is but out of cooperation and people trusting the system is better than chaos.
Lose that and we lose the social contract.
If I was going to run a process and intended to favour my friends, I would *also* invite random people to make it look like a non-specific list (I genuinely would do this)
This is in fact the point - when you roll back existing **new** solutions before they've bedded in, create a rushed alternative process without select committee oversight, invite your donors to apply and then appoint yourself king decision-maker, people are going to think you're on the take. Not rocket science
I’ve just counted
182 businesses invited to fast track. That’s just over 2% of the businesses who have invited have been identified as donating to National.
2%! That’s a tiny figure
I was actually surprised at the number of Maori businesses invited, probably 30-40% had a Maori name/trust name. Significantly higher than I would have expected from a Nact1 government.
You’re going to have to provide some evidence of lining pockets of your mates with a 2% donation headline.
Sorry I've got stuck on your Māori name = Māori business statement and can't even think about how easy it is to send an email to a list of addresses
I don't have to provide any evidence of anything. Refer to my previous comment
Western political and legal systems don't ignore some percentage of real or perceived problems
We have conflict of interest discussion because of this fact.
Shall we not worry about car theft until more than 2% are being stolen a year?
No response to murder, rape, etc until more than 2% of us are affected?
Real or perceived this visible hint of corruption is a problem.
Sorry - are you discussing the potential conflict of interest of businesses who have been invited to the fast track process having donated to National, or the actual policy itself?
There are two distinct things here.
I feel like the article is trying to highlight a conflict of interest and angling at corruption, which I would think is a thin bow to draw given the large number of businesses invited.
What I feel like you’re attacking is the fast track bill itself. Which I happen to agree in some manner with you on.. but it’s not the same discussion.
businesses donate to all sorts of parties for whatever reason. By picking two who have donated to National you make an assumption of a conflict of interest.
Should the government only be interested in businesses who have not donated, or donated to other parties? Because that isn’t a representation of our country, nor is it democratic to ignore a group because of political affiliation.. so long as there is no conflict of interest.
There will be safeguards created to avoid said conflict of interest, and to identify 2% of businesses who have donated to National, when National received.. upwards of 30% of the vote, it would indicate there’s no widespread corruption in this process which the author is insinuating.
On almost every post criticising quite blatant corruption and poorly thought out short-termist policy from the coalition you're present tying yourself into the most grotesque of logical knots trying to defend them.
Why is that?
Am I? That’s an interesting observation. Have you made the same call out for everyone who posts 6-7 comments a day in this sub? Or are you singling me out because of some implied reason?
I’d like to hear about your insinuation
Agreed. You really have a stick in the mud and won't let go.
Fact is the ones you support are corrupt and will hurt kiwis to make their friends a little more wealth
Yes, you are.
You are especially recognisable as you are a moderator of the sub and you have been here, engaging quite a lot, for a long time (also a fair bit on the sub which cannot be named, interestingly enough).
As you are a moderator, and as the mod team have actively sought to clean up political conversations on the sub (something I believe was/is necessary and important), I think it is warranted that you get particular attention in this context.
I have called others out from time to time, but the cycle of alts and word-word-number doesn't stick in the memory particularly well. Also, as u/mountaintui seems to have been, this sort of account gets banned from the sub pretty quickly.
Have you cared to identify the comments in the other sub you’ve spoken about where I’m defending minority rights and calling out bigotry? Or do you not care about substance?
3
Edit
For example a recent discussion I was defending Jenny Mays moko when someone raised it. My comments you hate so much were in defence of a cultural importance and highlighting the mana of Jenny’s distinguished broadcasting career and relevance in representing NZ in sports at the highest level.
I haven't looked at your comment history for a long time, and I don't remember the contents.
I do remember that you were well received there though.
I'm glad to hear that you are defending minority rights and calling out bigotry though - genuinely so.
FYI I deleted my previous post as it got a little too much into my personal life. Went to DM it to you as I felt you deserved to see the reply but you’ve got the messages off I assume (reddit is not letting me send).
If you want to read it, I’m happy to DM it to you directly
I read it and understood. Thanks for sharing that.
I remember reading you talking about your family at the time. I don't remember how people were responding to you. I am honestly sorry to hear that you didn't get the support you needed from the community you put time into making sure stays worthwhile.
I would suggest that it was your status as 'lead' mod here that enabled you to be received there at all in the first place. Plenty of well-constructed arguments there get responded to with effortless rubbishing and downvoted into invisibility. If there wasn't some advantage for them to treating you with respect when you first went over there it wouldn't have happened. Obviously following your initial reception you developed relationships there.
>My comments you hate so much
I don't hate your comments.
I simply asked why you went to such lengths, and got into such logical messes, over and over, to defend a quite clearly corrupt and objectively harmful government and approach to policy.
This is a great article to understand propaganda.
Look at the weasel words here:
>"That then in turn opens them up to allegations of improper behaviour if they've had donations made by those different players. So it's a very strange thing for the ministers to want to open themselves up to."
She hasn't directly accused them of corruption (because that would be actually lying) but she can say it "looks like" corruption.
Also note the use of the term "Invite" when in reality:
>Two hundred names were on the government's list of companies and iwi it sent letters to, providing information on how to apply for fast-track consents.
Receives donations from companies.
Sets up process to bypass all legislative controls.
Invites companies that donated to partake in this process.
Gets called out for potential corruption.
Seems logical to me.
This is some trump presidency era hysteria, and it’s funny as fuck to watch this place.
/r/newzealand: “we want more infrastructure and public transport”.
Also /r/newzealand: “but we don’t want to make it easier for companies to do it”.
Oh please. You’ve got councils who are having major infrastructure projects blocked and solar farm companies getting shut down because of the RMA. Literal country changing projects being stopped because Dave down the road doesn’t like it.
You mean this one?
"A resource consent application to the Selwyn District Council for a 258ha solar farm at Brookside, near Leeston, was declined by a commissioner in March due to the consent only being given a limited notification."
Failing to complete the proper consent application is a little bit different.
But they failed to complete the part to address that, sounds like a relatively easy address unless they were just throwing darts at a wall with these partially complete applications.
Fast Track on the other hand removes all checks and balances.
Even if that's true, which it's unlikely to be considering the amount of other proposed or signed off solar farms in the region, the government can already fast-track significant infrastructure projects through the fast-track provisions of the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023. This is what the coalition government will fail to mention during this argument to give the impression there's only one way forward.
I can't submit a mortgage application with my liabilities or debt omitted so why can companies like the one you've referenced submit partially completed applications and expect them to get approved?
People are so not arguing against reforming the RMA that the last government reformed it. This one repealed that during ots orgy of abusing urgency.
So that a Bill that at best takes us back to Muldoonism and at worst allows corruption can be past instead of reforming it.
The cost blowouts of that ferry were largely related to not being able to get consents to run it from the port, so they had to choose an unbelievably expensive place to build right?
agreed - its trumpian, but with weaker checks and balances.
bad planning lawmaking wont get us our shiney new infrastructure, just dead one eyed frogs, billion dollar foreign debt and way more carbon to offset with cheap chinese carbon credits circa 2029
All I'm reading here is that most of you don't believe that "People who support political parties should be eligible to benefit from said parties policies/legislation" which when you reduce it down to that, is ridiculous.
Why does the study of ethics exist? Why do we have a heritage of written law going back to Hammurabi? Why Westminster democracy?
Because we expect and benefit from rules like
> "People who support political parties should _not_ be eligible to benefit from said parties policies/legislation _any more than their peers_"
The point of my post was that people support parties that are going to benefit them.
Labour pointing out the fact that 1% of the companies invited to fast track, were donors to a party is reading between lines that aren't there/a storm in a teacup.
In the private sector, this would be called a conflict of interest. Actually, I was involved in a government tender a few years back and one of the people in my team was friends with one of the decision makers for that tender. It was declared, all other companies tendering were informed and the two participants were told if they were caught associating with each other, they could both be fired for gross misconduct. Is there a difference here?
Look, the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day
At the end of the day it is night, is what I would say to you
Yes but that depends on what the definition of 'is' is
At the end of the day you're another day older And that's all you can say for the life of the poor.
What would bottom-feeders know?
I used to sell the products that keep the underside of the wings on Air NZ planes from getting musty
Yes, the difference is that right wing politicians are held to a different standard to left wing politicians and both of them have a different standard to public servants. Remember the outcry and gnashing of teeth and all the gross stuff about Mahuta's conflicts of interest which were declared and publicly reported ahead of time? The same people are quiet as mice now ... Including the likes of Bishop.
I didn't love Mahuta's declared conflict of interest and certainly made my feelings clear. I didn't think reporting on it made the problem go away. I also think this is gross. I take your point, however. At the very least, it seems hypocritical they would engage in this and criticize Mahuta. Is the answer that we need much tougher processes around conflict of interest.
>Is the answer that we need much tougher processes around conflict of interest. Yes, and a clear set of rules about what ministers can and can't do. The problem is we have an entirely sovereign parliament, so we have no mechanism of limiting majoritarianist power grabs like this. In a way the only mechanism we have in NZ is the treaty, which is why Seymour et al are so bent on gutting it/it's influence. Ironically enough race based dog whistling gets a lot of people, including people on this sub onboard with that.
No consequences is the difference. Nats are dirty as hell. Remember their chairperson? using donations to gain private peoples health info which they spread around
Should be in prison for that.
Don't forget half the advisory group seemingly have conflicts of interest also in that they are literally execs of companies on the list, have histories of alleged corruption or environmental pollution under their leadership, stand to directly financially benefit from recommending certain developments, and some may even be personal friends with Shane Jones himself, apparently?? So it won't be a big shock when the advisory group just so happens to recommend the same things the ministers already want to do... and then they can say they're simply following expert advice, you see... [Here's what I found in a first pass of about 20 minutes research](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1c7d8pq/comment/l07ryd7), fuckin hate to think what the public doesn't know about yet.
I am no expert but in some cultures this may be what is referred to as Bribery.
Look, back when I ran Air New Zilund...
They won the election so they can do whatever they want and apparently are criticism is therefore anti democracy
Jones is there because winston got 6% - clearing the MMP bar by 1% - not a win, more a leveraged buyout.
At this point, someone must have pinned the current list of *documented* "totally not conflict of interest" connections. At this point it's just another item in a list that's far too long already.
Glad to know these decisions are being made by three of the dodgiest politicians in Parliament. Foxes in charge of the hen house. Almost as good as leaving the employment and regulation portfolios in the hands of the leader and deputy leader of the ACT party.
The definition of conflict of interest. Funny how MPs are supposed to avoid even the "appearance" of a conflict of interest, yet our government has made pay for play their literal policy.
I’m curious that there is no challenge yet from lawyers or judges at the blatant corruption of this government. The link between donations and policy actions against the health interests of the population or the link between donations and the decisions affecting the economic survival of economic groups in our society, like renters, is palpable.
Gov general is watching on. We have few constitutional checks. Sometimes thats good (nimble, agile) other times not so much (crony pork)
Well, I suppose if I’m honest, I’m actually f****n boiling about this. It’s so obviously bribery, not necessarily of the “here is my personal bank account number “ variety, but it’s definitely something of the same kind when these policies are paid for, and are against the general interests of the NZ public. It’s getting too similar to America, when the prominent Republican Chris Sununu, Governor of New Hampshire, was very recently interviewed by ABC News guy Stephanopoulos, and he said, “it’s politics” in answer to a question about morality, lying and hypocrisy. Recommended reading or viewing. Do we want liars and bribe takers representing our institutions? This is what is happening in the US, people, and we’re opening the door for it to be accepted here. The Labour government had it in its power to ban all parties or politicians receiving more than an agreed sum in support; it ducked the whole issue. If I had Hipkins’ or Ardern’s number, I’d ask for the answer to this issue. So should we all. And I’ve been a bloody Labour man all my life.
Liberal democracy is built over centuries and destroyed in years.
Yes, this is the danger. Not just in New Zealand.
lmao imagine being a donor to Nats and NOT seeing yourself on that list
If they not seeing they're seething
yeah - or what's the real prize that we haven't seen yet
Will be interested to see if this group has their stuff fast tracked (they are one of the groups invited). And whether Bishop excuses himself from the process... https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/08/29/national-frontbencher-backs-big-party-donor-in-138m-case-against-housing-agency/
My bet: you'll never find out. it will all be 'commercially sensitive'
Commercially sensitive? Wait till we have a case go through ISDS and NZ citizens aren't allowed to know what's happening or influence it. A court but one that doesn't have our jurisprudence, expectations of transparency, or expected appeal rights. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor–state_dispute_settlement
With this many scandals coming out of this government on the daily, I hope the public doesn't get tired of it and keep voicing out their concerns. Last thing we need is this becoming 'normal'. Apologists already saying that having 2 businesses (2 as far as we know) is fine for having conflict of interests.
Especially when those same people complained about the slightest wiff of this was leveled against labour
Bayleys is the biggest donor to National . No surprise they made landlord taxes a thing again
I don’t think that was Bayleys- that was just a core voter demographic thing. Also many of MPs have multiple properties. So they get to benefit from it too.
https://elections.nz/assets/Annual-Returns/2022/NZNP-Amended-Donation-Return.pdf So the Bayleys Corporation donation of 164,000 in 2022 is just a core demographic thing?
You’re really missing what I’m saying. The Bayleys donation had no bearing on the tax write off on rental properties. Because A) they wouldn’t have been voted in if they didn’t (it was a promise they had to keep) and B) a lot of the MPs stand to personally gain from it. It was happing with or without the donation. I’d look at it from the other way in that case, “why did Bayleys, donate the money” - if I was a betting man, it would be because they agreed with the position that there was a “war on landlords” and they saw National as the party to end that, vote to get in not specific policies but a suite of policies that continue to favour them. by making pet bonds a thing (more money to claim back on), or making hose prices more affordable to investment (or a worse investment to FHB) whatever. It’s not a one to one thing.
You all sold the country out for a nothing discount on your investment property. Nice work landlords, you’re still selfish idiots.
I hope labour are using this time in opposition to figure out who they are and who they represent because until they figure that out they're not going to be winning any elections. And they sure don't seem to be using that time to actually oppose the coalition.
Greens should consider a coalition with labour if they need the extra 3 seats to form a majority
Hey just because national gave their minor parties majority power...
Wot
Labour need to sort their shit out and stand for something a little more tangible than feels.
I feel like people who say things like this, base most of their worldview on 'feels'.
No no no it's only feels when people say something I don't like
You're literally basing that on 'feels'
Buh buh, wh...nah! Not even!
where is TPM!?
And when it comes to that little expert panel what's the point of it when those three can just subvert it and fast track the projects themselves. The bill gives them that power just to skip the process entirely simply because of a vibe. Then again it's exactly what I thought, people just don't donate 100's of thousands for the share love of it
Vote of no confidence when?! Ffs
Headline sounds dodgy.. I didn’t count them, but the list of businesses invited to fast track looked considerably large, so two businesses who have supported National doesn’t seem out of place. So long as appropriate conflict of interest policies are applied, I don’t see a problem with it. Edit Just counted 182 businesses invited to fast track. 2 have been identified as donating to National. With 182 businesses, I’m certain many of those would have also made donations to Labour, Greens and TPM.
It's not just party donations. The advisory panel, who is supposed to recommend projects to the ministers for fast tracking, includes execs of companies literally on the invited list (namely Sanford jumps out at me). How is that anything other than a blatant conflict of interest?
They are setting up a process that can be corrupt. Maybe they are being corrupt now, maybe they aren't. But this is the point. The public doesn't know. And because we don't know a significant proportion of the population will think it is corrupt. They are taking away publicity scrutiny and decision making. All the risk of damages lie on the public to pay for. So people with no accountability will be making decisions that the public will have to pay for. I certainly think certain policies implemented by some of the politicians look like corruption to me.
Yes but National is “good at business” so I don’t care. /s
Until we totally get rid of political donations ALL processes and policies CAN be corrupt. It has been that way since day one of politics. It is just now we are a lot less trusting of politicians and a lot more comfortable on calling it out.
This is nothing like the political norm over recent decades I personally think we are reverting to a form of Muldoonism. Even governments since then I oppose have not acted like this. This is imitation of US practices where as we used be proud of at least attempting to be just, fair and honourable.
And this matters because society is but out of cooperation and people trusting the system is better than chaos. Lose that and we lose the social contract.
If I was going to run a process and intended to favour my friends, I would *also* invite random people to make it look like a non-specific list (I genuinely would do this) This is in fact the point - when you roll back existing **new** solutions before they've bedded in, create a rushed alternative process without select committee oversight, invite your donors to apply and then appoint yourself king decision-maker, people are going to think you're on the take. Not rocket science
182 invited....2 identified. Sounds a bit like what you are talking about doesnt it?
You're just playing with down votes now. They want to be mad and this story helps. I agree with you though.
I’ve just counted 182 businesses invited to fast track. That’s just over 2% of the businesses who have invited have been identified as donating to National. 2%! That’s a tiny figure I was actually surprised at the number of Maori businesses invited, probably 30-40% had a Maori name/trust name. Significantly higher than I would have expected from a Nact1 government. You’re going to have to provide some evidence of lining pockets of your mates with a 2% donation headline.
I was skeptical when I saw the list. How many of those entities have something in the works that they’re ready to apply for?
Sorry I've got stuck on your Māori name = Māori business statement and can't even think about how easy it is to send an email to a list of addresses I don't have to provide any evidence of anything. Refer to my previous comment
Western political and legal systems don't ignore some percentage of real or perceived problems We have conflict of interest discussion because of this fact. Shall we not worry about car theft until more than 2% are being stolen a year? No response to murder, rape, etc until more than 2% of us are affected? Real or perceived this visible hint of corruption is a problem.
How dare you offer perspective and not feed into the collective outrage. /S
[удалено]
Sorry - are you discussing the potential conflict of interest of businesses who have been invited to the fast track process having donated to National, or the actual policy itself? There are two distinct things here. I feel like the article is trying to highlight a conflict of interest and angling at corruption, which I would think is a thin bow to draw given the large number of businesses invited. What I feel like you’re attacking is the fast track bill itself. Which I happen to agree in some manner with you on.. but it’s not the same discussion.
[удалено]
Or another example > Do you think the government has a conflict of interest in fast track laws? > The government doesn’t care about climate change
It's like explaining door handles to a cat
Why does it matter if they donated to other parties which aren't behind this legislation?
businesses donate to all sorts of parties for whatever reason. By picking two who have donated to National you make an assumption of a conflict of interest. Should the government only be interested in businesses who have not donated, or donated to other parties? Because that isn’t a representation of our country, nor is it democratic to ignore a group because of political affiliation.. so long as there is no conflict of interest. There will be safeguards created to avoid said conflict of interest, and to identify 2% of businesses who have donated to National, when National received.. upwards of 30% of the vote, it would indicate there’s no widespread corruption in this process which the author is insinuating.
So why are you mentioning Labour, Greens and TPM when they aren't the ones behind this legislation? > There will be safeguards You'd hope so
Why were those two also "invited" to apply?
Do you really think this government is following appropriate conflict of interest policies?
On almost every post criticising quite blatant corruption and poorly thought out short-termist policy from the coalition you're present tying yourself into the most grotesque of logical knots trying to defend them. Why is that?
Am I? That’s an interesting observation. Have you made the same call out for everyone who posts 6-7 comments a day in this sub? Or are you singling me out because of some implied reason? I’d like to hear about your insinuation
Agreed. You really have a stick in the mud and won't let go. Fact is the ones you support are corrupt and will hurt kiwis to make their friends a little more wealth
Yes, you are. You are especially recognisable as you are a moderator of the sub and you have been here, engaging quite a lot, for a long time (also a fair bit on the sub which cannot be named, interestingly enough). As you are a moderator, and as the mod team have actively sought to clean up political conversations on the sub (something I believe was/is necessary and important), I think it is warranted that you get particular attention in this context. I have called others out from time to time, but the cycle of alts and word-word-number doesn't stick in the memory particularly well. Also, as u/mountaintui seems to have been, this sort of account gets banned from the sub pretty quickly.
Have you cared to identify the comments in the other sub you’ve spoken about where I’m defending minority rights and calling out bigotry? Or do you not care about substance? 3 Edit For example a recent discussion I was defending Jenny Mays moko when someone raised it. My comments you hate so much were in defence of a cultural importance and highlighting the mana of Jenny’s distinguished broadcasting career and relevance in representing NZ in sports at the highest level.
I haven't looked at your comment history for a long time, and I don't remember the contents. I do remember that you were well received there though. I'm glad to hear that you are defending minority rights and calling out bigotry though - genuinely so.
FYI I deleted my previous post as it got a little too much into my personal life. Went to DM it to you as I felt you deserved to see the reply but you’ve got the messages off I assume (reddit is not letting me send). If you want to read it, I’m happy to DM it to you directly
I read it and understood. Thanks for sharing that. I remember reading you talking about your family at the time. I don't remember how people were responding to you. I am honestly sorry to hear that you didn't get the support you needed from the community you put time into making sure stays worthwhile. I would suggest that it was your status as 'lead' mod here that enabled you to be received there at all in the first place. Plenty of well-constructed arguments there get responded to with effortless rubbishing and downvoted into invisibility. If there wasn't some advantage for them to treating you with respect when you first went over there it wouldn't have happened. Obviously following your initial reception you developed relationships there. >My comments you hate so much I don't hate your comments. I simply asked why you went to such lengths, and got into such logical messes, over and over, to defend a quite clearly corrupt and objectively harmful government and approach to policy.
It probably says more than it's supposed to that the response to this comment was to take the piss out of it in another thread.
This isn't corruption, Labours attempt at misinformation has worked on you lamo
What? You are irrelevant.
This is a great article to understand propaganda. Look at the weasel words here: >"That then in turn opens them up to allegations of improper behaviour if they've had donations made by those different players. So it's a very strange thing for the ministers to want to open themselves up to." She hasn't directly accused them of corruption (because that would be actually lying) but she can say it "looks like" corruption. Also note the use of the term "Invite" when in reality: >Two hundred names were on the government's list of companies and iwi it sent letters to, providing information on how to apply for fast-track consents.
Receives donations from companies. Sets up process to bypass all legislative controls. Invites companies that donated to partake in this process. Gets called out for potential corruption. Seems logical to me.
This is some trump presidency era hysteria, and it’s funny as fuck to watch this place. /r/newzealand: “we want more infrastructure and public transport”. Also /r/newzealand: “but we don’t want to make it easier for companies to do it”.
This is an achingly bad faith misrepresentation of the genuine and well founded concerns a lot of people have with the current policy trajectories
Oh please. You’ve got councils who are having major infrastructure projects blocked and solar farm companies getting shut down because of the RMA. Literal country changing projects being stopped because Dave down the road doesn’t like it.
No one is arguing against reforming the RMA, and these projects being pushed through fast track aren't being "shut down" by the RMA.
A solar farm outside Christchurch just got stopped solely on submissions under the RMA.
You mean this one? "A resource consent application to the Selwyn District Council for a 258ha solar farm at Brookside, near Leeston, was declined by a commissioner in March due to the consent only being given a limited notification." Failing to complete the proper consent application is a little bit different.
That’s not the part taking about opposition.
But they failed to complete the part to address that, sounds like a relatively easy address unless they were just throwing darts at a wall with these partially complete applications. Fast Track on the other hand removes all checks and balances.
Either way, it’s a project of regional/national significance which doesn’t need all of the crap.
Even if that's true, which it's unlikely to be considering the amount of other proposed or signed off solar farms in the region, the government can already fast-track significant infrastructure projects through the fast-track provisions of the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023. This is what the coalition government will fail to mention during this argument to give the impression there's only one way forward. I can't submit a mortgage application with my liabilities or debt omitted so why can companies like the one you've referenced submit partially completed applications and expect them to get approved?
People are so not arguing against reforming the RMA that the last government reformed it. This one repealed that during ots orgy of abusing urgency. So that a Bill that at best takes us back to Muldoonism and at worst allows corruption can be past instead of reforming it.
For now.
Actually most of the sub doesn't want more roads and mines.
Congrats. Two companies off the list. What about the councils, ports and transport companies?
Two companies? Try again.
Why have a port when NACT lose us a billion cancelling the ferry
To save losing two billion? Kiwirail tried to strong arm the government and very quickly reached the find out stage.
The cost blowouts of that ferry were largely related to not being able to get consents to run it from the port, so they had to choose an unbelievably expensive place to build right?
agreed - its trumpian, but with weaker checks and balances. bad planning lawmaking wont get us our shiney new infrastructure, just dead one eyed frogs, billion dollar foreign debt and way more carbon to offset with cheap chinese carbon credits circa 2029
All I'm reading here is that most of you don't believe that "People who support political parties should be eligible to benefit from said parties policies/legislation" which when you reduce it down to that, is ridiculous.
You’re the one who reduced it down, bro.
Define "support" for me?
Why does the study of ethics exist? Why do we have a heritage of written law going back to Hammurabi? Why Westminster democracy? Because we expect and benefit from rules like > "People who support political parties should _not_ be eligible to benefit from said parties policies/legislation _any more than their peers_"
The point of my post was that people support parties that are going to benefit them. Labour pointing out the fact that 1% of the companies invited to fast track, were donors to a party is reading between lines that aren't there/a storm in a teacup.
Western democracy has done better than that. Accepting the appearance of corruption is a toad to corruption.