this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
4 points (100.0% liked)

NZ Politics

607 readers
28 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other kiwi communities here

 

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Dave@lemmy.nz
RaoulDuke@lemmy.nz
4
Fifty things I learned from nearly 80 hours of submissions on the Treaty principles bill (thespinoff.co.nz)
submitted 5 days ago by Dave@lemmy.nz to c/politics@lemmy.nz
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Some interesting parts that caught my eye:

  1. If the hearings are a good indicator of overall submissions, most submitters oppose this bill.
  1. Most of us can generally agree that the principles laid out in the Treaty principles bill do not accurately reflect what was written in the Treaty or te Tiriti, or the likely intention of those signing it.
  1. Just because it’s your bill, doesn’t mean you have to show up – Act Party Justice Committee members were no-shows for most of the subcommittee hearings into the Treaty principles bill.
  1. Being on the conservative side of politics doesn’t necessarily mean this bill will appeal to you, as displayed by submissions in opposition from Chris Finlayson and Dame Jenny Shipley.
  1. Media interest in these things can wane pretty quickly. On the first day of hearings, essentially every media outlet was in Room 3. In the final week, only Whakaata Māori and The Spinoff remained.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360565270/ideological-trojan-horse-regulatory-standards-bill

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/538784/regulatory-standards-bill-slammed-as-dangerous-call-for-alarm-bells

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The first one was paywalled or something (unspecified "you can't read this" message) but I read through the second one. Do we know to what extent this is in the coalition agreement? Is it pre-determined to become law or is it one of those things where it's been agreed to get it past the first reading into a select committee?

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

That's weird. The first one works just fine for me.

The first paragraph on that page says

"The coalition Government has agreed to pass a Regulatory Standards Bill, proposed by the ACT Party, which will further tilt the political playing field to advantage vested interests."

So yea it's a done deal even though it's not even though the draft hasn't been submitted. They used the treaty bill as a distraction to push this one through. Well planned and executed by David Seymour. He knows how to play this game.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Ah ok, that sucks. Maybe with some luck it will get diluted through the select committee process.

The site has this message for me:

screen shot of message "Error: We’re unable to display the article or subscription options because of your network settings. Click here for more details"

The more details link goes here: https://stuffcustomercare.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/43634195444505-Why-can-t-I-access-articles-Fix-Network-or-Browser-Issues

I assumed ad blocker was the issue but maybe it's something else. There are half a dozen potential reasons and I'm kinda sick of Stuff's shit 🤷

Edit: I discovered I can just use the reader mode in firefox and it shows me the article.

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 2 points 4 days ago

The only way it will get diluted is if the press puts it out front and the public get outraged.

So what I am saying is slim chance of that happening.