The lie of the land in politics as we head into an election year

Public Policy / news

Chris Trotter assesses the political landscape heading into the 2023 election year

18th Dec 22, 6:00am by Gareth Vaughan

Another big year in politics is ending with next year, 2023, an even bigger one. Yep, it's an election year.

To assess the political landscape as we head into 2023, I had a chat with regular interest.co.nz political commentator Chris Trotter.

In the video Chris discusses the mood of the electorate, the key issues heading into 2023, and where the key political parties and politicians are at.

What does he think the Labour and National parties need to do? What are the prospects for the minor parties? And what's his advice for Jacinda Ardern and Christopher Luxon?

Chris also gives his prediction of what the election outcome will be.

*Note, there are a couple of ropey connection moments in the Zoom video. Apologies for this.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

211 Comments

by Pa1nter | 18th Dec 22, 6:47am 1671299270

In summary: our democracy is slowly eating itself.

by Foxglove. | 18th Dec 22, 9:04am 1671307477

I would suggest that the Labour Party is quickly eating itself. It is plainly obvious that the Maori members in caucus have influence and control well beyond their numbers, pro rata. In my opinion that is largely because they are strong and the remainder a lot weaker. This imbalance cannot fail to present a divided party and distorted policy and the travesty of traditional democratic process being wilfully undermined by the attempt to entrench three waters is a stark example of exactly that. That and other similar disquieting ventures reveal this government is intent on introducing policy akin to the Bumiputra regime in Malaysia, That is racially selective legislation and quite frankly, not welcome in New Zealand past, present and future. The electorate has been alerted and the majority will turn increasingly against the government accordingly.

by Pa1nter | 18th Dec 22, 7:39am 1671302350

Both Labour and the Nats are in a bit of a crisis because their bases are going to be increasingly divided over generational issues. The oldies will want ever increasing public services to support them in their old age, and the workers won't want the increased tax to pay for it, especially given the housing situation they have inherited.

A 30 year old Nat voter has competing interests over a 75 year old one. At some point both these major parties will need to pivot away from older voters, or the parties may split.

by nzforall | 18th Dec 22, 1:29pm 1671323347

But while the 75 year old voter will die in the forseeable future, The 30 year old Nat voter will one day we hope also attaine the age of 75 and in all probability his/her views will have done a 180 by then. Its called life

by Nzdan | 18th Dec 22, 5:24pm 1671337485

The 30 year old voter didn't live through a time like the 75 year old voter did, where everything they did came with a massive tail wind.

Therefore, the 30 year old voter will likely not possess the same "silver spoon" mindset as the current retirees do, and might actually have empathy with younger tax payers.

by murray86 | 19th Dec 22, 8:02am 1671390133

Who has a "silver spoon" mindset?

Assuming you're talking about Boomers again, then you're just demonstrating the shallow, facile form of thinking you seem to be limited to. Considering that Boomers as a dominant group have been long gone from parliament please explain why the policies being presented to voters really haven't changed? Try to avoid conspiracy theories such as the 4th Turning.

by blobbles | 19th Dec 22, 10:21am 1671398476

Long gone from parliament is not equal to long gone from electorate. Geez, simple stuff that. Towards the end of this decade is when the demographics will finally start shifting towards younger/middle aged as the largest voting age group.

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 10:33am 1671399209

Fairly evident with the sea of gray hair present at every electorate meeting.

"But more young people should show up to these electorate meetings".....heh, their work hours are probably not often conducive to these times.

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 10:25am 1671398711

I don't dabble in conspiracy theories so you can relax there. There have been changes to policies, e.g. around housing, but the elephant in the room is still the National Super benefit scheme. Try touching that massive taxpayer drain and you'll bet met with a vehement no from the silver spoon brigade.

Otherwise, it's pretty hard to actually prove my comment about a silver spoon mindset, it's largely anecdotal. But go out there and talk to a few pensioners or Boomers as you put it, then you'll see.

by Beanie | 19th Dec 22, 10:28am 1671398885

How would you recommend National Super be changed Dan?

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 10:44am 1671399881

Lift the age.
- Life expectancy in 1970's was 72, today it's 82.
- Yet we're still working on a 65 year retirement age, just tacked an extra 10 years courtesy of future tax payers.
Income test it.
- If you're working you're not retired, so why should one claim a benefit?
- Yes your job is taxed at secondary, not a good enough reason to allow people to claim a benefit while working.
- How many pensioners still work in career roles preventing others from moving into? I know of quite a few in my industry, taking the benefit (or pay rise as they call it) courtesy of the tax payer.

by murray86 | 19th Dec 22, 10:47am 1671400053

I'm 65 and very fit and healthy for my age, but i can tell you my body is still telling me I am getting old. I am still working because I can't afford to retire, but wish i could. Remember if you push out the retirement age to whatever, you're effectively saying you are happy to do it to yourself, because what ever age you push it to will apply to you when you get there.

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 11:05am 1671401125

You're not lumped with $300 p/w in costs the moment you hit 65, why do you need this from the taxpayer if you're still working? Maybe income testing would mean those who don't need this benefit go without and those that do receive a bigger slice of the pie? Have an abatement amount, go part time hours then the benefit can top you up.

Yes, if the age is 70 by the time I retire then it is what it is, if a pension even exists then. This generation aren't coasting along expecting future taxpayers to bail them out at retirement.

by vman | 19th Dec 22, 11:11am 1671401513

i have quite a few colleagues earning in excess of $150k getting the pension,couple it with a gold card,they say it's great...free ferry to Waiheke and some quality wines on the taxpayer once you are there...

by murray86 | 19th Dec 22, 12:03pm 1671404610

You sound like you expect me to be ready to die because I'm 65. Why would I be lumped with $300 p/w in additional costs at retirement age? The pension doesn't by any means provide a living level of income, but does allow me and many others in my position a chance to get ahead of some bills and just maybe save a little. Or do you resent that too?

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 12:26pm 1671406019

Never said I expect you to die at 65. If you're behind in bills you're the ideal candidate to receive the pension. I'm sure there are plenty who are never behind on their bills. Maybe they have a massive share portfolio, a few rental properties, millions in the bank?

Try income testing away their pension. We might find savings in our frivolous super benefit scheme and give someone like yourself an extra $50 per week from the gains? Oh but that would punish those who were successful.....like their financial outcome would be any different if super were means tested long ago.

by imhenry | 19th Dec 22, 5:15pm 1671423327

There is the root of the Problem National Superannuation was sold as a Pension as of right' that is what you paid your taxes towards. It was not sold as a Benefit.

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 5:22pm 1671423727

But then they halved the top marginal tax rate from 66% to 33% 10 years later, which then effectively null and voids the notion that their taxes went towards the pension.

by Foxglove. | 19th Dec 22, 6:08pm 1671426519

Was that not Rogernomics on the way to a flat tax rate that never eventuated. The great adjustment, panacea if you like, was the introduction of GST to compensate. The second term of that Labour govt and the Key’s National government increased GST but offered relief in income tax. Clark’s Labour government and this sorry lot increased income tax over the top of those GST increases. That’s the problem with indirect tax impositions, any compensation in income tax is soon nullified because it’s such an easy target. Therefore NZ has ended up with GST plus increases and the same level of income tax revenue. Strictly speaking that reduction from 60% to 33% was meant to have been set off against GST revenue.

by murray86 | 19th Dec 22, 10:44am 1671399863

I'm a Boomer and frankly I have been disgusted with all policy offerings coming from any of the political parties in NZ for at least the last 30 years. Unlike you I firmly believe that the Government can deliver policies which will benefit the younger generations without starving the older ones who were promised more than what they are getting long ago. The economic theory of today is too wedded to old, out dated models that have been made obsolete by political manoeuvres internationally. and as many point out on this site, the RBNZ and the Government are too wont to follow the US than have their own vision. The problem is not generational, it is political due to a lack of understanding and a lack of vision. These continue to create disparity and division as elites work to entrench their power and privilege.

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 10:55am 1671400508

What policies do you think the Government can deliver to the young without starving those with a silver spoon? I have a couple of ideas:

Scrap student loans, less than $1b per year to implement, or 6% of the annual silver spoon fund.
Apply a 100% tax to super benefit payments if one is full time employed. Set an abatement threshold if people want to drop to part time.

by murray86 | 19th Dec 22, 12:05pm 1671404724

Your first yes, your second is just jealousy based BS and you need to get over yourself. Do you feel jealous of someone who drives a better car than you, or lives in a better house? Judging by your commentary here you do.

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 12:30pm 1671406223

No jealousy at all. I am doing very well for myself and have everything I need, including a car that was brand new 12 months ago.

I can see past my own self interests and point out the frivolous waste set up by a cohort that had the biggest tail wind of a lifetime yet no gumption to use it to pay for their own retirement.

by murray86 | 19th Dec 22, 1:09pm 1671408551

Tell me is that 'frivolous waste" Boomers only?

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 1:22pm 1671409357

There's frivolous waste elsewhere of course. But the National benefit is the easiest starting point. It's glaringly obvious that it's money being frittered away no questions asked to people who don't need it, veiled behind those who do genuinely need it.

I speak a lot about the entitlement mentality of older generations, see how you have your back up at this discussion? I've never once said scrap the super, just that in its current form is irresponsible.

by blobbles | 19th Dec 22, 2:23pm 1671413037

BuT I PaID fOR iT In mY TaXES!

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 2:27pm 1671413247

Exactly. Would it be the taxes that disappeared when the top marginal tax rate dropped from 66% to 33% in 1989?

by Beanie | 19th Dec 22, 6:41pm 1671428475

Do you really think the tax take disappeared? They were replaced with gst. Which then increased. Twice.

by Foxglove. | 19th Dec 22, 7:39pm 1671431997

Somehow it seems to more than quite a few, GST has evolved into an invisible tax. Perhaps that was the intent all long. Jim Anderton and Michael Cullen certainly exploited that gap in perception very well.

by blobbles | 19th Dec 22, 11:04am 1671401044

The problem is generational. Maybe a wakeup call is due. For instance, at my workplace, I shouted drinks to a bunch (10-12) of mid-late 20yo people who work in contact centre roles. Most of them had degrees, 2 of them were sleeping two to a room in flats. Most of them were still at home with their parents. All of them had second jobs and many were saving up "to go flatting". A couple were doing Onlyfans stuff (mildly dodgy) and a couple more were talking about how they really wanted to find "a rich older person with a house" and looking around at many of the middle aged professionals also having drinks. They were all on medium term contracts and barely above minimum wage. Three of them talked about how they cried with joy when they got the job at my work as it comes with healthcare and a couple of other basic benefits which they had no hope of ever paying for (gyno exams/some dental work/one can finally afford to get glasses). 3 of them at least are head and shoulders above where I was in intelligence/attitude when I was their age.

As I write this I have 4 parents all who own homes, are retired (though one chooses to still work, another two are perfectly capable, but decide to enjoy ebiking everywhere) and receive rather large government support for healthcare through to paying for their lifestyles.

The difference between where young people are at today compared with 10-50 years ago is absolutely astronomical. As a society we are failing them hard and its getting worse, not better. We can't expect these people to participate in a system that continues to fail them.

Although I agree with most of what you have said at the same time, its important to realise we are in a society that is killing itself by destroying hope for the young.

by IT GUY | 19th Dec 22, 11:10am 1671401408

So well said.

The lockdowns have also had a massive impact on the kids in high school as well, it's the generation about to enter work as well......

Anxiety is way more common than it used to be. Everything looks so perfect in their friends lives on social media.

by vman | 19th Dec 22, 11:12am 1671401561

That probably says more about the effects of social media on society...

by blobbles | 19th Dec 22, 11:27am 1671402435

Indeed, these guys were such a great bunch of people, but clearly many were suffering from having constant instability in their lives. Whether its coming from unstable work environments, unstable living environments, anxiety about what the future holds for them and how they will ever be able to achieve what we (as a generation above) have been lucky to get to. I really, really feel for them and whenever I vote, vote for whatever is going to give them a better future, even if its voting against my own interest. Because without them having a good life, we are all screwed, whether it's through population or general discontent. At the same time, their resilience, intelligence, empathy and self awareness gives me real hope that they will pull through the struggles that are far more difficult than probably any generation has experienced going back to WWII.

by murray86 | 19th Dec 22, 12:11pm 1671405070

Blobbles you provide a brilliant example of how badly Governments have lost control of the economy and the effects on some. but make no mistake there are plenty of older generations in the same or similar boats because they weren't able to go to uni and get a degree and/or translate that into a better wage. i know quite a few people with higher education who can't and haven't been able to get better paying jobs.

This is not about generational benefits but about poor economic policies.

by blobbles | 19th Dec 22, 4:17pm 1671419826

That's the thing though, this feels like to me almost an entire generation that will be lost, not just the "some" part. Only ones who are doing well are those with richer parents who aren't selfish, otherwise they are generally screwed. Theres a small group who are doing OK at the start of their careers, but the only ones I see starting to lead good lives are those whose parents are wealthy.

Its not long ago that almost everyone was expected to own a house by retirement age. And we see more and more who are beginning to rent in their retirement now, but that's about to be followed by an avalanche of younger people who 80% won't own homes, if we keep going the same way. All monies from the tax payer will go towards some sort of corporate landlord structures, yet another transfer of public monies into private hands (accommodation supplement is the start of this). And all of this is currently being cheered on by a generation of boomers who own all the property therefore see no problem with it. Generalisation? Yes, but one backed by the statistics.

by IT GUY | 19th Dec 22, 11:06am 1671401167

Its Act that is pushing for older eligilbility

They have a much younger voter base then National.

“It’s time to face reality on the superannuation age, and gradually increase the age of eligibility starting now instead of waiting ‘til it’s harder,” says ACT Leader David Seymour.

“New Zealand has become an outlier on superannuation where Australia, the U.K., the U.S., Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain among many other countries have, or are, raising their retirement ages.

“If New Zealand was richer than those countries, or had some other advantage, then perhaps we could afford to ignore reality longer than them. The truth is we can’t and the reality is this: People are living over ten years longer than they were two generations ago, and they are having fewer children to pay taxes for superannuation. That means our current approach is not fair or sustainable.

“We would take the sensible approach of gradually increasing the superannuation age to 67, at a rate of two months per year from 2023. Once the age reached 67, it would be indexed to life expectancy, ensuring that each generation was entitled to same period on the pension as previous generations.

“Someone who is currently retired would see no difference from this policy. Someone who is currently 64 would be eligible for superannuation two months later than currently planned. Someone who is currently 61 would be eligible for superannuation at 65 years and eight months instead of 65. Someone who is currently 51 would be eligible to retire in 16 years’ time instead of 14. In that time, life expectancy will have increased by approximately two years.

“This ensures the sustainability of the pension over time, as New Zealanders live longer and healthier lives.

“Altogether, this change will save the New Zealand taxpayer $16.02 billion over the next 12 financial years, and that’s before accounting for interest. This represents an approximate 12 per cent reduction in debt in 2034.

“In tandem with this change, ACT would also de-link the KiwiSaver withdrawal age from the superannuation age. KiwiSaver participants would still be entitled to withdraw their funds at 65, no matter what changes were made to superannuation.

“Other political parties aren’t brave enough to make this change. It is good public policy and the right thing to do to ensure superannuation is sustainable for our children and grandchildren.”

by Beanie | 19th Dec 22, 11:25am 1671402346

I generally agree with raising the age, but would make it more gradual. And I would drop any rhetoric about life expectancy as that opens a can of worms regarding race, gender, occupation, medical status etc.

It would be interesting to know how much the medical costs have increased for the average superanuatant from when they retire to expire.

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 11:34am 1671402867

Which is one reason why they get my vote.

by imhenry | 19th Dec 22, 5:04pm 1671422678

New Zealanders are being increasing divided over generational issues flouted by the Politicians. I think it is time for both parties to get a grip and govern for the whole of New Zealand. Starting with a review of our MMP system. 120 Mp's. What the hell do the do all day apart form dreaming up Political ideology. Reduce the Number to 60 MP"s and do away with List MP'S

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 5:32pm 1671424330

I agree, I reckon drop it down to 53. 1 for each district in New Zealand. Once done we look at their salaries, high salaries/perks are not bringing in talent, they're just fostering a culture of career politicians. Maybe we need legislation that structures a political party's election promises to become measurable outcomes tied into an individual KPI's.

PM Base Salary - $150k (or tied to ratio of median salary?).
- KPI 1 Outcome Met - +$20k,
- KPI 2 Outcome Met - +$20k,
- KPI 3 Outcome Met - +$20k
List MP - $120k, +$15k, +$15k
etc.

by PocketAces | 19th Dec 22, 5:49pm 1671425388

That's called first past the post and we have rejected that. Deal with it

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 7:16pm 1671430611

Yep, fair call. FPP -> MMP = increase in seats.

My second point stands around salaries and KPI's for politicians.

by Foxglove. | 19th Dec 22, 7:53pm 1671432837

Except the Royal Commission at the time emphatically determined that the introduction of MMP did not justify an increase in MPs. As David Lange described as the most shameful and cynical legislation he ever witnessed in parliament. The then MPs thought that if the electorate had had enough of their shenanigans, of which certainly they had had a gutsful, then they would hardly be likely to vote for MMP which would usher in another 30 or so of the same blighters.

by TwoCents | 18th Dec 22, 10:02am 1671310964

influence and control well beyond their numbers, pro rata.

'pro rata', yes, but 15 is all they need to hold parliament to ransom. It is all about 'the numbers' ... 61 seats are required for a parliamentary majority, Labour hold 64 + Greens with 10 = 74 less "the first 15" Maori caucus = 59. Uh oh!

by Foxglove. | 18th Dec 22, 10:08am 1671311310

Exactly! Ransom is rather soft though. More like standover I would say.

by nzforall | 18th Dec 22, 1:31pm 1671323519

The so called maori elite treat the ordinary maori with such distain that its no wonder they dont want a barr of them. Talked to one maori lass and asked if she did all right after a big settlement? Never saw a cent she says.

by Foxglove. | 18th Dec 22, 2:10pm 1671325831

Similarly, quite some time ago recall the report in the paper concerning the GP who worked hugely hard in the community including lobbying for extra welfare funds to assist more than a few Maori families especially children for instance going to school with neither shoes nor lunch. And all the effort was successful, funding came through. The GP then left because suddenly there were two large Mercedes being driven around and the children were still bare foot and hungry.

by murray86 | 19th Dec 22, 8:07am 1671390448

This is a point I made a couple of years ago. There are a number of issues which provide political platforms for interest groups. But careful consideration of the proposed solutions reveal shallow, and ultimately ineffective proposals. I asked myself why only to realise that if these issues where genuinely addressed and fixed then the political platform, power, privilege and source of funding would all be lost to the interest groups. Thus real solutions are not what they are really trying to achieve.

by Cobolt24 | 18th Dec 22, 2:54pm 1671328442

Damned if they get rid of the influential members of the caucus. Damned if they don't.

Interesting that it's only just recently the divisions within Labour are being realised.

by kiwikidsnz | 18th Dec 22, 9:31pm 1671352261

Labour could also have remembered their democratic principles & walked away from Government to force a new election when faced with the racist separatism instead of secret appeasement in return for maintaining political power.

After all, Labour only became a political force after universal suffrage was introduced instead of just the landed property owners.

by the Joneses | 19th Dec 22, 7:18am 1671387525

It all started in 2010 when John Key signed the "United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples". Labour are really just doing what National signed up for.

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 8:00am 1671390054

This was after Helen Clark refused to sign it. Funny that eh?

by kiwikidsnz | 19th Dec 22, 8:54am 1671393299

National were explicit that no racist veto would be permitted.

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/national-govt-support-un-rights-dec…

"Will Māori get a veto right on government decisions?

The Treaty of Waitangi continues to be the basis for the Crown-Māori relationship. In some instances this does involve mutual agreement on proposals, notably Treaty claim settlements, but right of veto is not conferred."

by the Joneses | 19th Dec 22, 12:39pm 1671406777

So only if there is a veto power it is "racist" then?

From your link that JK signed us up for:

acknowledges that Māori hold a special status as tangata whenua, the indigenous people of New Zealand and have an interest in all policy and legislative matters;

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 12:41pm 1671406876

I've shared this on here a few times, was told it's not an issue because it's not "legally binding".

by imhenry | 19th Dec 22, 5:11pm 1671423063

Unintended consequenses. John Key was trying to be inclusive for all New Zealander. Labour have twisted it for Political advantage. Now the rules have been set watch Nationals reply it will not be pretty for a hell of a lot of Labour MP's

by the Joneses | 19th Dec 22, 7:39pm 1671431981

Read the wording of what John Key signed:

acknowledges that Māori hold a special status as tangata whenua, the indigenous people of New Zealand and have an interest in all policy and legislative matters;

To paraphrase - Maori are special, and therefore have (special) interests in all policy and legislative matters.

You can't really argue this sentence was just a mistake can you? As in - "Maori are special aren't they, not found anywhere else.. Oh and on a completely separate point they are very interested in politics in general aren't they? Well some of them are anyway.."

by PocketAces | 19th Dec 22, 9:36am 1671395813

Do we really have to suffer racist nonsense on this forum?

If we'd have lived up to treaty obligations centuries ago, this would not be a thing anymore.

by IT GUY | 19th Dec 22, 10:00am 1671397235

You should listern to Chris in the youtube......

by Yvil | 19th Dec 22, 8:11pm 1671433876

For once I agree with you PA, wouldn't it be wonderful if there was one rule for all Kiwis with no special benefits for anyone? (including people of Maori descent)

by Carinaz | 18th Dec 22, 7:04am 1671300266

Kiwi should be worried about....Thanks to politicians.......more so as probability of National party ruling and selling NZ after next election.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/chinese-police-centre-in-nz-tied-to-business…

What does one do if only choice in democracy is between ..........expressing in wordss may end up being edited so best to leave......

by Premonition | 18th Dec 22, 7:40am 1671302453

Why did people believe the Government and Media Lie about "Interest Rates Will Stay Very Low for a Very Long Time" ???

Your answer can be found in a New Netflix Documentary called - Don't Pick Up The Phone.

This documentary is about Abusive Hoax Calls. People using Authoritative Tactics to fool people with No previous criminal convictions to commit crimes so bad they were sent to Prison. It's also about Innocent Victims Allowing others to commit unthinkable crimes against themselves because they did not use their common sense and say NO.

When you watch this documentary it would be wise to keep reading over the 2nd Scroll at the same time. Especially this part - "The Pandemic was a well Orchestrated Scamdemic. Those that Conformed to the Scam Stole the Freedoms of Others. It was NEVER about your Health. It was ALWAYS about CONTROL ! "

These Hoax Calls came from our Criminal Government and Criminal Paid to Say Media. And 80% of the Population Fell for the Scam.

by Pa1nter | 18th Dec 22, 7:59am 1671303554

Why did people believe the Government and Media Lie about "Interest Rates Will Stay Very Low for a Very Long Time" ???

Which lie? About there being an emergency rate and policy? I would have thought the temporary nature is implicit in the name.

by Brock Landers | 18th Dec 22, 9:23am 1671308601

Did Yvil ban him again?

by linklater01 | 18th Dec 22, 11:38am 1671316719

Premonition,

I am truly sorry for your family, trying to deal with someone like you who has gone down the rabbit hole. I recently met someone like you, outwardly an ordinary human, but now hopelessly infected with these bizarre beliefs.

by HW2 | 18th Dec 22, 11:45am 1671317132

The Aussie conspiracy theorist cop killers were truly crackers. Prem was just a joke persona by a colourful existing member

A comment Prem made was about taking on the 'hall monitor', so did he get monitored. Fair call.

by Pagz | 19th Dec 22, 5:27am 1671380831

Perhaps it was the only way to save ourselves from ourselves?

by PocketAces | 19th Dec 22, 9:38am 1671395898

Tell me you don't actually believe that.... please!

by HW2 | 18th Dec 22, 7:08am 1671300517

Chris thinks the young old scammer has what it takes to scam us one more time. Its going to be a long year of politics taking our focus. Listen on fast-forward

An enjoyable listen all the same, thanks Chris and Gareth

by kiwikidsnz | 18th Dec 22, 7:59am 1671303562

NZdrs need to vote this racist Govt out while we've still got enough of a democracy left to do it with.

That is the ONLY issue in 2023, all the rest of the noise shall eventually pass.

by Pa1nter | 18th Dec 22, 8:01am 1671303704

Pretty subjective, but ok. Racism is bad.

by HSL | 18th Dec 22, 8:19am 1671304797

Sadly I think that if labour or the greens get in this country will become the new South Africa, corrupt and divided and as racist as South Africa under apartheid. I love NZ but I have skills that are valuable in Australia so it’s a no brainer for me

by Foxglove. | 18th Dec 22, 8:33am 1671305588

True, if Labour is to retain power then the Greens will be in cabinet, likely The Maori party too. Well then if Labour presently can’t control its own caucus how the heck do they think they could hold that lot together. Hardly an appealing prospect as far as stable government is concerned.

by HW2 | 18th Dec 22, 9:07am 1671307668

Well then if Labour presently can’t control its own caucus how the heck do they think they could hold that lot together.

👍

by Pa1nter | 18th Dec 22, 8:41am 1671306092

So you'd stay for a lower salary if not for attempts at social engineering?

Interdesting

by Brock Landers | 18th Dec 22, 9:14am 1671308050

✈️✅

New Zealand. Nice place to visit, but nobody skilled wants to live there.

by Pa1nter | 18th Dec 22, 9:22am 1671308552

Well, except for you, if you found a property that met your price and quality expectations.

Lol, you edited in "skilled". Sneaky.

by Brock Landers | 18th Dec 22, 9:24am 1671308657

... still really only bearable if one can escape the god awful social engineering and weather for six months of the year, innit Painter.

Edit: Very skillfully.

by Pa1nter | 18th Dec 22, 9:29am 1671308969

The social engineering doesn't interfere with my day to day life so i generally don't get too caught up in it.

I imagine it'd be different if I watched sky News Australia

As for the weather, I make most of my income during NZs warmer hours using the power of free energy from the sun, why would I work the rest of them if I didn't have to?

by Brock Landers | 18th Dec 22, 9:35am 1671309348

If you're going for maximum brain damage I recommend TV One Breakfast.

Nobody can blame you. Visiting the real world does wonders for ones sanity.

by Pa1nter | 18th Dec 22, 11:04am 1671314696

Everything is the real world, it's our tinted glasses that are in the way.

by Brock Landers | 18th Dec 22, 11:15am 1671315310

That's an interesting euphemism for "the Maori world view".

by fortunr | 18th Dec 22, 3:56pm 1671332210

TV One Breakfast is an ode to human stupidity. One of the most brain-damaging programs out there for sure.

by vman | 19th Dec 22, 8:04am 1671390295

Can't say i ever watch it here...but it is breakfast tv...when over seas I sometimes watch the local breakfast tv in my hotel...it's always very light,you don't tune in for in depth investigative journalism...

by EdwardD | 19th Dec 22, 9:49am 1671396553

I only understand about every fifth word. Turned them off well over a year ago.

by Fossil Lover | 18th Dec 22, 10:26am 1671312416

Used to be a nice place to visit. Lockdowns, MIQ, government control of every industry, overly expensive, vaccination apartheid. Tourists or skilled people won't visit a communist country. Covid was the excuse to rob ever more freedom from the dumbed down masses (media brainwashing).

by vman | 18th Dec 22, 11:51am 1671317477

'Fossil' seems so appropriate....

by blobbles | 19th Dec 22, 10:46am 1671400008

Fossil Lover sounds like that American "FREEEDOM!" expert that came on Fox news at the height of the pandemic, saying NZ had overnight turned into a facist state as it locked up it's own citizens (MIQ) without cause and how horrific our COVID strategy was. At the time the US had something like 10k dead a day and we were COVID free.

He looked like an idiot then and now it's aged even worse. Much like most of the above opinions.

by Due Diligence | 18th Dec 22, 8:24am 1671305047

On a recent interview with The Platform, Chris said he wouldn’t be voting Labour next year, due to reasons including their position on freedom of speech. I was shocked. Good call Chris.

Free speech, co-governance, war on landlords, immigration, vaccine mandates. All excellent reasons to vote this lot out.

by HW2 | 18th Dec 22, 9:05am 1671307523

JAs offensive comment this week in Parliament belies the holy persona and helps to explain the person behind the mask.

The Be Kind message was only ever something for others and apart from nice words from the PM it never translated into actions. Just ask kiwis and residents trapped offshore for months.

by Gummy Bear Hero | 18th Dec 22, 9:58am 1671310704

Laughter rippled around the world at Jacinda's " such an arrogant prick " utterance ... everyone had a " pot calling the kettle black " thought at her comment ....

.... here's the rub : she was polling at an amazing 58 % preferred prime minister after the 2020 election ... a mere 2 years later she's dropped , collapsed to just 29 % .... a lower rating than Helen Clark received before being resoundly thrashed by John Key in the 2008 general election ...

The cold hard fact is that Jacinda doesn't have the mental strength nor sharpness of Helen ... even Dave Seymour runs rings around Ardern ... Mike Hosking constantly embarrassed her ... she's just not up to the task which Winston Peter's gave her ...

by Foxglove. | 18th Dec 22, 10:59am 1671314394

Coincidentally GBH, through the morning gloom just heard appropriately , the haunting harmony of The Platters, “The Great Pretender.”

by vman | 18th Dec 22, 11:53am 1671317585

Mike Hosking constantly embarasses himself lol..

by Gummy Bear Hero | 18th Dec 22, 10:58pm 1671357495

... touche ... exactly as you do ...

But , London-to-a-brick , I'd wager that under the blow torch of a Hosking grilling you'd perform even worse than Ms Ardern ...

by vman | 19th Dec 22, 8:06am 1671390361

I didn't realise this was about my radio shock jock debating skills?

by Baywatch | 19th Dec 22, 6:26am 1671384399

Gummy loves Hosk..😘

by vman | 19th Dec 22, 9:51am 1671396663

He must be in Hosk's age demographic for listeners.

by vman | 19th Dec 22, 10:03am 1671397401

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/newstalk-zb-is-number-one-again-in-…

The Hosk has the most listeners at breakfast overall...but it seems many must be in rest homes,he is only number 2 in many of the key demographics:

ZM's Fletch, Vaughan & Hayley has the most listeners at breakfast in the key commercial demographic of 25- to 54-year-olds, with Hosking at number two.

The ZM trio also had the most listeners in other key demographics, including 18-34, 18-39 and 18-49.

by Gummy Bear Hero | 19th Dec 22, 10:32am 1671399138

The Gummster would love to see the results of a head to head poll :" Who do prefer as PM of NZ ; Ardern or Hosking ? " ...

by the Joneses | 19th Dec 22, 12:43pm 1671406981

When I think of Hosking, I think Idiot.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/102974035/mike-hosking-cra…

by PocketAces | 19th Dec 22, 10:30am 1671399033

No, everyone did not!!

by PocketAces | 19th Dec 22, 9:41am 1671396113

And as a pakeha, exactly my reason for most likely, at the next election, voting Te Pati Maori.

I am disgusted at my fellow countrymen, and their comments dripping with racism

by TheAnalyst | 19th Dec 22, 10:53am 1671400438

So your happy to vote for a racist party (Te Pati Maori) because your disgusted with your fellow countrymen's racism.

Hmmmm.....

by PocketAces | 19th Dec 22, 2:54pm 1671414875

Well, how damned racist was it to steal land from Maori, suppress their culture and language, and deny them their rightful place in THEIR OWN LAND, how racist is that and how racist is it to then turn round to say it is racist to put it back to rights.

Mind who you are calling racist

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 3:07pm 1671415628

"‘In the 1870s, shortly after the Native Schools system had been established, a number of prominent Maori sought through Parliament to place greater emphasis on the teaching of English in the schools. A newly elected Maori Member of Parliament, Takamoana, sought legislation to ensure that Maori children were taught only in English.

We desire that "The Native Schools Act, 1867," should be amended to this effect:—Let there be two classes of schools. First, for all children knowing only their own Maori tongue, also having a knowledge of all Maori customs. These should be taught to read in Maori, to write in Maori, and arithmetic. Second, all children of two years old, when they are just able to speak, should be taught the English language, and all the knowledge which you the Europeans possess. If this plain and easy course be followed, our children will soon attain to the acquirements of the Europeans.

https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/maori-forbidden-at-sc…

by PocketAces | 19th Dec 22, 6:21pm 1671427308

Oh for crying down the drain

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 7:08pm 1671430103

Is that all you have to say? *shrug*

by TheAnalyst | 19th Dec 22, 6:47pm 1671428872

Where did I call you a racist?

Your so full of white man guilt.

by IT GUY | 18th Dec 22, 8:42am 1671306156

How do you ever trust a party that has two caucaus's A Maori one and a full one Who knew this governance structure existed, who is accountable, do they issue two policy platforms? unelectable and untrustable. Winnie is not the answer he cannot be trusted either!

by nigelh | 18th Dec 22, 3:34pm 1671330875

Its a matter of the best least trustworthy in politics! I either don't vote or its Winnie who we all know looks after himself and claims to be able to sort out immigration, the Treaty of Waitangi references in legislation and a few other things but never does. I just feel Luxon and Seymour are the worser evils.

by Hans Brink | 18th Dec 22, 3:44pm 1671331496

We have already decided to vote for the Nats and hopefully they don't have to kowtow to Winnie or something worse.

by Foxglove. | 18th Dec 22, 8:11pm 1671347492

Yes ditto for us and many of our contemporaries. That is because before anything else, the first priority has hardened into making damn sure Labour are out of government.

by Hans Brink | 18th Dec 22, 9:33pm 1671352392

Yeah I believe in the pendulum of politics. Move from left to right and back, there is good things on both sides. Time to move right, so we will vote for the bald head since there is no alternative, pity so few choices. Of course there is David Seymore and I have voted ACT in the past, but I am tired of fragmenting the vote and ending up with indecisive politics.

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 8:03am 1671390201

I'll continue voting ACT, which being a coalition partner to National will likely be a vote for National anyway. I'd like to see ACT continue to grow in share.

by IT GUY | 19th Dec 22, 9:29am 1671395399

I think act will get closer to the 12% upper band chris talks about then the 10% lower band.

by Gummy Bear Hero | 19th Dec 22, 10:36am 1671399391

I'll keep voting ACT .... if Raf Manji wins the Ilam seat , TOP will get in ... a TOP ACT if both parties are there , breathing a little sanity into our parliament ... after 6 years of rainbows , unicorns & pixy dust ...

by PocketAces | 19th Dec 22, 2:49pm 1671414582

I swear, I could almost believe you think ACT and ToP would make a good match. They are poles apart.

by Pragmatist | 19th Dec 22, 5:07pm 1671422866

which is why it would be so entertaining if the main party in the coalition had to try to kow-tow to both without pissing the other half off enough to take a hike.

Entertaining, but possibly rather bad for the country.

by Carlos67 | 18th Dec 22, 9:00am 1671307224

People should start planning for a National lead government, if that makes any difference to you at all.

by Brock Landers | 18th Dec 22, 9:11am 1671307872

One thing I've learned over my life is that just when you think the next government can't possibly be any worse...

They are.

by Carlos67 | 18th Dec 22, 10:17am 1671311832

JA must have pegged you pretty hard Brock.

by Brock Landers | 18th Dec 22, 1:00pm 1671321602

What does pegged mean Carlos? Is it a Tauranga thing?

by IT GUY | 18th Dec 22, 1:16pm 1671322586

TTP may be able to help here.

That new business must be taking off.

by Carlos67 | 18th Dec 22, 2:53pm 1671328394

Google is usually your friend, maybe not in this case, could be more of a pain in the arse.

by Brock Landers | 18th Dec 22, 5:11pm 1671336707

It doesn't seem to come up with safe search enabled. It must be something sick that you yokels do to each other for fun.

Perhaps keep it to yourself next time.

by taimaiakka0 | 18th Dec 22, 9:11am 1671307877

What is Democracy? "Of the people, by the people, for the people" Abraham Lincoln.

BUT TODAY OCRACY = VOTE BANK POLITICS.

Many (Mostly everyone) are and will sell their soul to get power and the art is in justification that are actually doing to serve the people.

by bw | 18th Dec 22, 10:08am 1671311299

Quote frankly, if ever there is going to be an election that will be good to lose, it's the one coming up.

The 'winner' will likely be the party(s) that have the luxury of being on the Opposition benches, as the incumbents battle what will likely be an economic and social disaster on a scale we haven't seen for 100 years.

by IT GUY | 18th Dec 22, 10:18am 1671311902

Even more reasons to have experienced Business people in charge, NZ cannot be rebuilt on benefits and koha.

by Noncents | 18th Dec 22, 10:31am 1671312664

Except it is not a business - it is a country, and based on business failure rates, it seems even more pointless putting a business person in charge.

Governance is an entirely different skillset to business. A skill which very few understand and even less have.

by Yvil | 18th Dec 22, 3:13pm 1671329585

Rubbish, governance and business is exactly about the same, it's all about PEOPLE. The only way to run a successful business is to provide people a service or product that is good for them (or they won't buy it) and in in the process you need to organise and work together with people (employees) whom you treat well enough so that they want to work for you and do a good job. Exactly the same applies to running a successful government!

by Noncents | 18th Dec 22, 3:46pm 1671331598

Yes, it is all about the PEOPLE. But Businesses tend to prioritise the other p-word... PROFIT.

Our whole country is in the sh!t, precisely because we have screwed the PEOPLE for the sake of PROFIT.

by Pa1nter | 18th Dec 22, 4:07pm 1671332850

If someone is able to manage a business with a degree of success and continuity, then that is usually indicative of them possessing a base level of critical thinking, organisational and strategic skills. Sound morals is also good, but if someone is lacking the former then the latter becomes largely irrelevant.

by kiwikidsnz | 18th Dec 22, 5:09pm 1671336558

The inconvenient truth is that funding for Govt & public service salaries & the socialist welfare system depends ultimately on the taxes on the profits, jobs, income taxes & GST paid for by capitalism.

Half NZ households pay no net income tax after subsidies and social repayments.

by Fossil Lover | 18th Dec 22, 10:32am 1671312764

Experienced businesspeople in charge. Like Donny and Johnny. Experienced businesspeople get elected to serve their own self-interests, how about electing someone that only wants to serve the people. Now that's a novel idea.

by Yvil | 18th Dec 22, 3:16pm 1671329814

Rubbish again, this comes from the narrow-minded, short sighted and preconceived idea that business people are greedy bad people. I suggest you try to run a business with the motto of ripping your customers off and treating your employees badly, see how far you go… Your business will go broke faster than you can think

by Zen20 | 18th Dec 22, 6:13pm 1671340419

I know what, lets get Zuckerberg in to run things or hold on maybe the big fat guy in Qtown who likes young students ...

by dollar_bill | 19th Dec 22, 3:12pm 1671415962

Elon for Prez. Trump, the return.

by ex agent | 18th Dec 22, 10:41am 1671313265

Yes next year is probably going to be our worst year since 1987. A lot of businesses are going to fail and many jobs will be lost. People are going to struggle to keep their homes and pay for the basics such as food and power. It's not Labour's fault. If anything it is the Reserve Banks fault. Interest rates went too low for too long. People got cocky and greedy. You could buy and sell anything as long as you could borrow the money. Last June a car dealer gave me a $47,000 trade in on my 7 year old SUV and a ten per cent discount on my replacement vehicle. In hindsight they cocked up as they sold my trade in at a loss after several months on the market. It was dumb last year. Now we are paying for it. Next year is going to be very interesting and I am not just talking about the election. One thing is certain many Labour MPs are going to lose their seats and will also fall off the list.

by HW2 | 18th Dec 22, 11:37am 1671316629

A lot of businesses are going to fail and many jobs will be lost. People are going to struggle to keep their homes

All because of int rates affecting a few first home buyers? Many of those new minted homeowners have greatly increased their incomes.

by IT GUY | 18th Dec 22, 12:10pm 1671318624

All because of int rates affecting a few first home buyers?

All because of int rates affecting EVERYONE who has a mortgage.

‘I would be nervous right now’: Settlement shock for new-build buyers

https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/42829

‘Baked bean budgets’ on the cards as mortgage test rates set to hit 8.6%

https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/42772

'Brutal' first bid at mortgagee sale: Clifftop home on rich lister street flops

The three-bedroom bungalow on a 531sqm section at 84a Vauxhall Road in Devonport, which has a 2021 CV of $5.25 million, collected 10 bids during the Barfoot & Thompson auction this morning before pausing at $1.8m

Just prior to pausing the auction so further negotiations could be carried out, Barfoot & Thompson auctioneer Murray Smith told the room: “We can’t sell at $1.8m.”

Bidding for the shell of the house that doesn’t even have ceilings started at what Smith described as a “brutal” $1m before steadily rising in $100,000 increments to reach $1.7m. Those increments then halved to $50,000 between $1.7m to $1.8m.

The auction then resumed at $2.1m with Smith saying that at that price “we will not be selling; we will be passing in”. With no further bids placed the property was then promptly passed in.

https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/brutal-mortgagee-sale-clifftop-home-on-r…

Apartment auctions: Desperate seller flicks Auckland pad for $95,000

by Snow | 18th Dec 22, 2:28pm 1671326906

It would be interesting to know the data on how many SME owners have mortgaged their own homes for their businesses.

by ex agent | 18th Dec 22, 12:29pm 1671319785

Where I live a lot of $1 to $2m homes on the market. Some nearly brand new. Many non FHBers borrowed too much also. When rates were low. Now they are worried and so they should be.

by ex agent | 18th Dec 22, 12:57pm 1671321472

HW I thought you were brighter than that. People from all walks of life and age groups borrowed too much. Not just FHBers. They need to reduce it before it gets impossible to keep the payments going. Even oldies were buying their first rental last year as bank deposit rates were too low. Ouch they must be hurting now.

by IT GUY | 18th Dec 22, 1:23pm 1671323022

An 8.6% interest rate stress test is going to be as effective as DTI's would be.... That's a significant reduction in FBHer bid capability. Another Late 2023 call - home-brew shops do very well

by interesting1234 | 19th Dec 22, 4:20pm 1671420056

Hahaha couldn't agree more! Always happy for more folks to join me in the home brew hobby!

by HW2 | 18th Dec 22, 1:24pm 1671323048

I dont think you ever thought that. As I see it there are too many wheels within wheels in the whole economy to make a simple call such as the one you made (Im not calling you simple). Like my old car that when one cylinder failed to fire the other one did and the car kept running amazingly well.... yes it only had two cylinders.

by ex agent | 18th Dec 22, 1:35pm 1671323706

It is not just interest rates going up. Food, rates , insurances and car running costs among other daily basic costs. People from all walks of life are suffering from financial stress. Hence the current mortgagee sale of multi million properties. And some sales will not be outwardly mortgagee sales but the mortgagee is pressing and giving the mortagagor the chance to sell before the Bank does it.

by HW2 | 18th Dec 22, 1:41pm 1671324071

Did you hear about the guy who begged to differ when he heard that he should not worry. "Worry works for me. Everything I worry about never happens" he said

Lets eat drink and be merry!

And stop turning this column into another property debate.

by ex agent | 18th Dec 22, 2:21pm 1671326500

Next years election for many people will be about their rent or mortgage payments. It is probably their biggest weekly expense and throw food and other basic daily costs on top it means many New Zealanders including the middle class are hurting financially. Labour happens to be in power and are therefore to blame. As the cost of living gets worse next year as mortgage, rent and other daily costs rise it will get worse for them.

by solardb | 18th Dec 22, 1:43pm 1671324211

Possible Teal type candidate = Nikki Kaye. Not tihs time round though ,

by Harvey W | 18th Dec 22, 2:25pm 1671326758

Was my view of Chris Trotter as a rabid socialist incorrect, or is he moderating over time...?

by kiwikidsnz | 18th Dec 22, 2:56pm 1671328581

"If you're not a Socialist by the time you're twenty you have no heart, but if you're not a conservative by the time you're forty you have no brain"

by Cobolt24 | 18th Dec 22, 2:57pm 1671328641

He's left wing but is free to criticise parties that lean towards his beliefs as well, as anyone of any affiliation should.

by IT GUY | 18th Dec 22, 3:16pm 1671329802

Both Chris and Bryce Edwards are happy to call a spade a spade.....

Bryce Edwards: Labour needs Nanaia Mahuta to go, but she’s too powerful

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bryce-edwards-labour-needs-nanaia-mahuta-…

by solardb | 18th Dec 22, 3:32pm 1671330756

Both Anglo older white men , as i would say the majority of our posters are.

by kiwikidsnz | 18th Dec 22, 5:02pm 1671336124

Your conscious bias is showing.

by solardb | 18th Dec 22, 7:47pm 1671346057

I'm a older White Anglo male, my mate and I refer to ourselves as dinosaurs. Possibly my views are moderated now because my kids are 1/2 Maori.

But the world has changed, the domination of politics and business by older white males is passing ,and as a group we generally don't like it.

When I ask older men of their hatred of "Cindy", they can't give any reason, and just descend into "horse", and"teeth".

by kiwikidsnz | 18th Dec 22, 8:10pm 1671347439

My reason is because this Govt lead by Jacinda has secretly developed & then implemented racist seperatist political policies that they never put to the voters for any mandate; that undermine the fundamental democracy that previous generations of NZdrs of all ethnicities fought & died to protect.

Its got nothing to do with being Maori/European/Asian or even green Martians at all.

by solardb | 18th Dec 22, 8:31pm 1671348662

Is that since the last election?

by kiwikidsnz | 18th Dec 22, 9:21pm 1671351671

Yes of course, Winston constrained Labour the previous term.

BTW, I voted for Labour both those elections.

by PocketAces | 19th Dec 22, 10:27am 1671398846

The only racism being displayed is that by those who think honouring the treaty, finally, is racist

by kiwikidsnz | 19th Dec 22, 1:45pm 1671410741

You mean the Treaty that excluded any specific statement on Partnership, Principles or Co-Government & included the explicit statement that everyone gained "the Rights & Privileges of British subjects" ?

That Treaty.

by PocketAces | 19th Dec 22, 3:02pm 1671415349

I will ask again

"Do you think Maori would have willingly signed up for what they got?".

Only the Te Reo version of the treaty should have any weight, and even then there would have been things in there Maori of the day would not have interpreted as the English thought them. E.g. they had no concept of land ownership as the Europeans did.

I am very tired of people who continue to close their minds

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 3:11pm 1671415914

You say they had no concept of land ownership, then why do you earlier claim THEIR land was stolen? Why is anyone even talking about giving land back, they never owned it.

by PocketAces | 19th Dec 22, 3:29pm 1671416953

I can't even think where to start that someone so bereft of understanding of this would begin to understand.

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 4:02pm 1671418937

Maybe Maori did have a concept of ownership, and that argument is just a poor attempt at minimizing their culpability for their poor bargaining skills.

Otherwise, what the hell does "Rohe" mean? What would happen if Rangitāne were caught waltzing onto Ngāi Tahu land?

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 4:38pm 1671421090

In the late 1830s some Māori realised that, to the settlers, these transactions meant absolute and sole ownership.

Under the second article of the Treaty of Waitangi, Māori were guaranteed ‘the full, exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates’, and only the Crown could purchase land from them. The Crown set up a land commission to investigate previous land transactions. No title of ownership would be valid unless granted or confirmed as genuine or fair by the Crown.

The Treaty was signed, previous land transactions were overturned, and yet Maori still didn't understand the concept of ownership despite first cottoning on to it in the 1830s?

https://teara.govt.nz/en/land-ownership/page-1

by PocketAces | 19th Dec 22, 6:26pm 1671427594

Again, and answer this please, do you think Maori would have willingly signed up for what they got?

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 7:12pm 1671430333

Yes. They did. Can you provide any commentary or otherwise that might support your view?

Because all you've done is present your opinion and then thrown a hissy fit at any commentary that challenges your opinion. Maybe they were held at gunpoint and forced to sign it, who knows, but there's no basis for your claims except that it fits within the whole victim narrative that you're trying to uphold.

by blobbles | 19th Dec 22, 3:40pm 1671417614

Their version was centred around the idea of kaitiaki, guardianship, protection, environmental enhancement, shared ownership for the benefit of future generations, allowance for people to traverse any land (think Queens chain) etc. Thats what they thought they were being sold. Instead they got exclusion, extraction, pollution, sole corporate ownership, i.e. a Western model enforced upon them. Their land was stolen because it was removed from their model and transferred to the Western model of land ownership, where the land owners could exclude who they like and do whatever was best for the short term, screw the future.

Imagine, if you will, that we sign a contract for the leasing of Stewart Island to an alien race that just came down to see us. We believe they will maintain the island to some standard and help us restore the island by ridding it of pests. The aliens have high technology and instead, transport the island to their home world instantaneously, remove all pests, then build a massive theme park on it with only little bits of nature remaining. We couldn't even bring ourselves to believe this was even possible as it's completely outside our frame of reference of possibilities, so signed the treaty under our understanding of what was sensible/possible. That's kind of what the pakeha (my ancestors) did to the Maori and pointed to an ambiguous treaty that they signed as proof of ownership.

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 3:54pm 1671418489

Understand there was land that was confiscated (roughly 15% of NZ land mass?), but due to article 2 of the ToW the Crown had pre-emptive land purchase rights as well. Did Maori think they could trade the land and then still keep the land?

It would be like my Grandfather selling his 4 bedroom on 1/4 acre for 20% below market value in 1970, and then me claiming he was duped into selling because the house is now worth $1.2m and going after the current owners for compensation.

by blobbles | 19th Dec 22, 4:04pm 1671419060

If you refuse to understand the framework they operated under regarding what "ownership" and "trading" meant/means to them, then you will never understand why there is an issue.

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 4:34pm 1671420857

I read this and I do understand there was a misinterpretation between the 2 parties.

How does it relate to Maori's framework of ownership and trading today?

https://teara.govt.nz/en/land-ownership/page-1

In the late 1830s some Māori realised that, to the settlers, these transactions meant absolute and sole ownership.

Under the second article of the Treaty of Waitangi, Māori were guaranteed ‘the full, exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates’, and only the Crown could purchase land from them. The Crown set up a land commission to investigate previous land transactions. No title of ownership would be valid unless granted or confirmed as genuine or fair by the Crown.

So any further land sales (not confiscations) post Treaty should be within a well understood ownership and trading framework?????

by kiwikidsnz | 19th Dec 22, 6:26pm 1671427585

I am also very tired of people who continue to close their minds. Historical revisionism with a contemporary lens & perspective over the last 50 years doesnt change history made by dead people.

I've referenced this a couple of times before, you may have missed it.

Sir. Apirana Ngata, 100 years ago.

https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NgaTrea-t1-g1-t1.html

by Nzdan | 19th Dec 22, 7:37pm 1671431830

Thank you for sharing this, I have not seen this before. Quite a long read, but a good one.

by dollar_bill | 19th Dec 22, 3:45pm 1671417939

Why can't Maori just be like the rest of us? What's so special about them? What's in it for me? Maori interests have been sidelined for centuries and now when those interests are finally being advocated for, it's suddenly a bad thing. The bigotry and hypocrisy is nauseating.

by PocketAces | 19th Dec 22, 6:35pm 1671428141

Indeed, why can't the rest of us be like Maori?

by Von Metternich | 18th Dec 22, 9:55pm 1671353705

That is an incredibly cuckolded way to view the world. Rush to the grave.

by Hans Brink | 18th Dec 22, 10:19pm 1671355159

I am in the same mind solardb, I can't believe the animosity toward Jacinda. It almost makes me want to vote Labour just to piss off the haters.

by Gummy Bear Hero | 18th Dec 22, 11:04pm 1671357845

... the animosity is because people are waking up to the fact that she's a faker ... and , not terribly bright ...

So you want to reward her for that with your vote ?

... c'mon ... you are smarter than that ...

by IT GUY | 18th Dec 22, 5:02pm 1671336177

Balanced by old white females Jane Clifton and Fran O'Sullivan.

by Gummy Bear Hero | 18th Dec 22, 11:00pm 1671357641

... woweeeeee ! ... I have seen some ugly racist comments slip past the moderator around here , but crikey Dick & Jane , that takes the cake : well done you ...

by vman | 18th Dec 22, 5:45pm 1671338758

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11527157/When-houses-Australia…

by IT GUY | 18th Dec 22, 6:29pm 1671341380

You know there is trouble ahead, when a Devonport (5.1mil cv) house only gets a bid of 1.8m at "mortgagee" sale. It's cliff top and needs work, but wow, everyone said the crash would not impact the top end, maybe they where all full of sh*t.

by Pa1nter | 18th Dec 22, 6:59pm 1671343188

I think you used another sale a week or so ago that was also a significant project. They're like the absolute least attractive properties in this environment.

When they're giving 60%+ discounts on completed turnkey properties let me know.

by IT GUY | 18th Dec 22, 8:37pm 1671349042

Yes same place , i saw bidding get to 2.1 but Oneroof says only 1.8, I thought Barfoot's did not allow vendor bids ?

It doesn't matter what you call them, they aren't real bids, which is why we do not allow that practice at Barfoot & Thompson. Check out some of the other reasons why you should auction your home with us.

Arkward.

by Pa1nter | 18th Dec 22, 8:49pm 1671349756

Wasn't the last one a potential 4 or 6 unit site in Glendowie or something?

But yeah, massive discounts on any projects in this market, because lending on projects becomes difficult, expensive, and build costs are a big question mark.

by PocketAces | 19th Dec 22, 6:38pm 1671428294

Who, in their right mind, would hand over the best part of $2m on a clifftop property that climate change is likely to destroy?

by interesting1234 | 19th Dec 22, 7:22pm 1671430953

There will always be fools in society who think they can polish a turd

by vman | 18th Dec 22, 5:58pm 1671339539

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/obscene-wealth-greens-propose-troph…

by Faivo | 18th Dec 22, 7:03pm 1671343401

I remember a discussion on here a while ago suggesting national should have name changed to international. I think labour needs a new name too. The names of the parties don't have to summarize who they stand for but labour certainly don't stand for working class or labourers. There's bound to be people that, based on the name, think they do.

by Jethro | 18th Dec 22, 7:43pm 1671345839

Chris Trotter - come into the tent

Previously only read Chris Totter’s pieces - often not too impressed. Gareth’s and Chris’s discussion changed my mind. It was well balanced and fair. I felt it was light on a key area for many New Zealanders - co -governance.

Racist politics have no place in a democracy.

by IT GUY | 18th Dec 22, 9:40pm 1671352833

I love a good tent party!!!!!

He did mention co-governance , thinks it may be a bridge that JA has to cross to win back trust of the people. Can you imagine her crossing that bridge?

Its a very very rocky road that they are going to have to traverse before they reach the Broad Sunlii Uplands

It would be just like those three waters ads Mahuta ran, but it would be Jacinda dropping the Manus

by Grattaway | 18th Dec 22, 9:47pm 1671353242

Personally I think its actually tribal politics as there does appear to be a power grab by a couple of the larger iwi

Tainui, Ngai Tahu and Tuhoe come to mind

by IT GUY | 19th Dec 22, 7:34pm 1671431656

I think all of NZ would like some transparency around how various Iwi make up Maori? is it one Maori one vote inside an Iwi? Are future "benefits" based on the size of the tribe now or back when the Treaty was signed?

How does this all work, was it frozen back when the treaty was signed?

by vman | 19th Dec 22, 7:22am 1671387732

https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2022/12/18/why-national-are-performing-so-po…

DESPITE Labour being sh*t at getting things done, National can’t crack 40.

There are three reasons for that.

The first is that while many are angry at Labour’s failure to be transformative, we are still grateful that Labour stepped up and saved us from a Covid pandemic that could have been far more damaging to us. Yes, many of the things we had to do in the spur of the moment have had costs, but so would tens of thousands dead so playing the hindsight game and claiming these current problems somehow eclipse the public health emergency response.

The first responsibility of the State in a Democracy – protect the people.

Jacinda did that, she has earned another term and if that means eating some dead rats, so be it!

The second reason National haven’t cracked 40 is the naked reality that all they are coasting on is the animosity towards Jacinda that Covid has provoked. National have no plans what so ever to get us out of the crisis we are in.

All they have are putting ankle bracelets on children, punitive welfare reform, mass immigration to pump up houses and ripping up everything Labour have achieved that will deal to the structural problems we face.

To wilfully destroy 6 years of Government with no real solutions to the problems that they were built to solve.

National have no vision, just ‘we hate Jacinda too’. That just isn’t good enough to justify winning power.

Our problems are too big for bs political theatre!

National have no solutions, only condemnations, that’s never going to get over 40%.

The third reason they can’t crack 40% is because of the intense polarisation of politics. ACT went from .7% in 2018 to 12% in 2022.

That level of political dislocation represents a radicalisation and polarisation of political debate in NZ. ACTs vision is hard right with a vastly reduced capacity of State.

And that is what this entire debate is really about.

What we saw during Covid was the desperate need for the State to have capacity to honestly deal with the problems we have.

The neoliberal experiment in NZ stripped the State down to its bare bones and the political Right have continued to strangle off revenue so people can’t expect the State to provide the basic services a liberal progressive democracy demands.

We need more capacity at our schools, our hospitals, our police force, our welfare infrastructure, our social housing even our armed forces!

We need MORE capacity, not less, and we need this extra capacity to be funded by a tax system that targets Banks, Corporates and speculators, which hilariously are always the biggest donors to the political right.

Capacity of the State to do the things we need it to do is the true political argument next year and the left keep it up because they are too busy playing bureaucratic semantics rather than making the argument to tax the mega rich to fund urgently needed expansions of the State!

Why is the political debate in this country just so stunted and tiny?

The current debate is beneath the challenge in front of us.

by Carlos67 | 19th Dec 22, 8:58am 1671393502

National are going to romp in next election. Expect a high vote for ACT as well.

by vman | 19th Dec 22, 9:20am 1671394833

More than likely,who ever was in power through the last few years was always going to be on a hiding to nothing...going to be interesting as we get closer to the election to see how the Nat / Act vote plays out....I'm guessing no future government will be as successful as this government in getting to lead the country without needing to form a coalition.

by solardb | 19th Dec 22, 11:29am 1671402580

Yes , given drop in house prices , inflation etc , lately , National should be 10 points ahead at least .

National and Labour will fight for the middle , leaving the minor parties to fight for the further left or right.

That could make it interesting , The Greens , TOP , and Te Pati Maori (on seats, not %) could form a block that could wag the tail , and at least consider going with either major party.

by PocketAces | 19th Dec 22, 6:41pm 1671428483

Why didn't you put ACT on that list

by solardb | 19th Dec 22, 11:22pm 1671445358

Noe of the 3 parties that I mentioned would want to work with a governemnt that included them .

by interesting1234 | 19th Dec 22, 7:31pm 1671431500

whilst i agree National have no plan whatsoever, the state has grossly overreached itself by exercising unprecedented powers and quickly approving legislation to allow them to do this again. The courts have already dictated MIQ breached human rights yet the beehive pushes through legislation to allow them to do it again while taking no responsibility whatsoever for the people trapped overseas.

What we need is actual and rapid responsibility and accountability for this government, we are tiresome of them washing it off and smiling for the camera. Any other government would have heads roll and resignations for what the public and courts have deemed irresponsible, we have seen no accountability at all. This complete lack of accountability shows we do not have true leadership at the helm

by PocketAces | 19th Dec 22, 9:49am 1671396590

Whenever anyone attempts to sort the injustices, rorts and outright thefts that occurred since the signing of the ToW, out come the racists, accusing the government that is trying to put all the wrongs to rights, of being the racists.

Ask yourselves (you know who you are), do you think Maori would have willingly signed up to what they got?

Co-governance is what will save this bloody country from itself. BRING. IT. ON!

by IT GUY | 19th Dec 22, 10:04am 1671397480

But Co-Governance stands between Jacinda and the Broad Sunlit Uplands

by PocketAces | 19th Dec 22, 10:25am 1671398754

I could not care less, it's the right thing to do regardless.

by IT GUY | 19th Dec 22, 11:17am 1671401845

Maybe but the wider electorate would have liked a bit of public consulation on it........

In November 23 they will submit their opionions.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr

by PocketAces | 19th Dec 22, 2:47pm 1671414433

If you think co-governance is about the colour of a person's skin then you need to go all the way back to 'go' and try again

by IT GUY | 19th Dec 22, 3:41pm 1671417703

It's hard to know what to think about Co-Governance as Jacinda and the Labour party have never released a full explanation of how it would work. Seems to be make it up as they go along. Most parties have all their polices on a website, here is Labour - Maori - but not any mention of Co-Governance

Māori Manifesto 2020 - NZ Labour Party

Can you send me to the policy link please

by PocketAces | 19th Dec 22, 6:13pm 1671426799

To get an idea of how co governance works have a look how it is with the Waikato River, that is one example as it is already being managed under a co-governance model

by IT GUY | 19th Dec 22, 8:58pm 1671436693

No I want to know what Labour policy they stood on at the last election.......

I don't care about the Waikato River this is about all of NZ

And as Chris says, they lost the trust of the people and off they go.......

by Whakatiki27 | 19th Dec 22, 12:23pm 1671405814

I don't think there will be any rebound for Liabour if they ditch 3 waters and co-governance. The trust is irrevocably broken. The 1st 15 will see the writing on the wall and double down while they still can.