Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: No Bills

119 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

  • Russell Brown,

    I believe I am the first blogger to capture and re-use video from the Parliamentary webcast that launched this afternoon

    Now in OurTube

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22754 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Beard,

    "I guess I count myself as an "urban techno-greenie" . . ."

    Sounds like what's known in Australia as a plastic wombat.

    That's not a phrase I've come across before. I think I get the vague gist of it (perhaps implying a level of hypocrisy), but would you care to elaborate?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1040 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    I believe I am the first blogger to capture and re-use video from the Parliamentary webcast

    Will you also be the first to record your own satirical voiceover to such video?

    =)

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3202 posts Report Reply

  • kmont,

    I hope so

    Live dangerously

    wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 485 posts Report Reply

  • Nat Torkington,

    Anyone going to archive the footage? If nobody else will take it, I'm sure the Internet Archive folks will save a copy if you upload it. Failing that, I bet the CityLink people would be approachable ...

    Ti Point • Since Nov 2006 • 100 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Will you also be the first to record your own satirical voiceover to such video?

    Don't you dare. The last thing I need is a reason to watch Parliament.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10633 posts Report Reply

  • Mikaere Curtis,

    Watching some Labour luvvies get apoplectic over the fact that the Greens have got spine, principle and the numbers is really quite entertaining, but it's time to inject some facts into your jaded diatribes.

    Sure, the Bill would have imposed order on what is presently the Wild West. No arguments from Greens on this, regulation is the way forward. It's whether we get it via a vehicle that we own and operate, or through a joint venture with the Aussies where we are on the same level as one of their states, with its potentially draconian powers and that is not accountable to our parliament.

    That choice is a value judgment, and one that the Greens have been consistently declaring through the development of the Bill. Such as here.

    Should the Greens vote for a what they consider to be a half-pai Bill ? No they shouldn't. They should vote it down and put up something better. Instead of putting out a press release that amounts to a gloat-a-thon, Sue could have described the Way Forward. She hasn't so here it is, quoted from the Green Health Policy (which has been ratified for 23 months, pity it never occurred to you to actually read it before passing condemnation).

    6. Complementary Health Care
    At least one in four New Zealanders uses complementary therapies, and Aotearoa/New Zealand has an extensive network of complementary healthcare practitioners. The Green Party wants to see better integration of complementary health providers in primary and secondary care, to improve safety and meet the health needs of New Zealanders.

    The Green Party will:

    1. Establish a Complementary Health Care Unit within the Ministry of Health to facilitate the integration of selected complementary health practices and therapies into the public health system.
    2. Provide District Health Boards with resources to integrate complementary health therapies and practitioners into PHO and hospital care, to provide multidisciplinary health services.
    3. Encourage complementary health practitioners to form strong self regulation to standardise peer review and training, and encourage statutory regulation of complementary health practitioners through the Health Professionals Competence Assurance Act where relevant.
    4. Implement the recommendations of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Complementary and Alternative Health (MACCAH).
    5. Expand funding for the Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) database to further develop researcher and practitioner understanding of the role and safety of complementary therapies in the treatment of illness.
    6. Facilitate access to a wide range of safe and effective dietary supplements.
    7. Ensure Aotearoa/New Zealand retains regulatory control of the dietary supplements industry and does not proceed with government plans for restrictive trans-Tasman regulation of dietary supplements.

    See, Greens want regulatory control (and more besides), just not the one that the last National government passed on to Labour. Unlike Idiot/Savant at NRT, I do not believe that we'll just be able fix it all up later. Not with us having to horse-trade with all the Australian State governments, not by a long shot.

    As for these claims that the Greens are basically protecting their own interests, I say bullshit. FYI, the Green Party policy process is conducted by the members. All members can be involved in drafting the initial discussion document and draft policies, commenting on these and basically get as involved as they want. There are mechanisms in place to ensure that all policy development is widely commented on and there's a central committee that is distinct from caucus that is responsible for the policy development programme.

    And all decisions are made by consensus, which has a fallback of voting should a consensus not be able to be reached. Slow, yes. Painful, sometimes. Able to be co-opted into someone's personal agenda ? Highly unlikely.

    Don't you think some of us "techno-urban-greenies" would notice if someone was basically trying to corrupt a policy ? Unlike the other parties, perhaps with the exception of the Maori Party, the Green's policy process is transparent and accessible.

    You don't have to vote for the Greens, but it would certainly help if you all showed some journalistic mettle and checked your facts before spouting off.

    Heio ano.

    Tamaki Makaurau • Since Nov 2006 • 528 posts Report Reply

  • nic.wise,

    So, via hysteria on the one hand (and yes I do think that's a fair description of some of Kedgley's rhetoric)

    Does she ever do anything ELSE?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 87 posts Report Reply

  • kmont,

    Thanks for that Mikaere, those details were informative. I don't follow politics that closely but I though that the greens had been fairly consistant on this one. I don't see how it is a "hippie thing" to want to retain control over regulations. I am interested to know why people who generally support the greens have a parting of ways on this issue.
    Is it because Sue Kedgely is off-putting?

    wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 485 posts Report Reply

  • Michael Stevens,

    Is it because Sue Kedgely is off-putting?

    No, it's because she's stark raving bonkers. But she's not the only one in the House, so she feels at home there.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 230 posts Report Reply

  • Don Christie,

    Watching some Labour luvvies get apoplectic over the fact that the Greens have got spine, principle and the numbers is really quite entertaining, but it's time to inject some facts into your jaded diatribes.

    Didn't notice much apoplexy on the list. Disappointment in Green's political management maybe.

    The fact is Kedgely did put out that press release which contains the following quote:

    It is a humiliating defeat for the Minister, who has badly mishandled this contentious piece of legislation. Clearly, the Bill is dead in the water, and I wish the Government would take the only sensible step and remove it from Parliament's Order Paper altogether

    You can't be pure as the driven snow and put out that sort of shit at the same time.

    The point isn't that the Greens are wrong, the point is where they and their supporters and potential supporters want to spend political capital. That's not a bottomless bucket.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1645 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    "Ensure Aotearoa/New Zealand retains regulatory control of the dietary supplements industry and does not proceed with government plans for restrictive trans-Tasman regulation of dietary supplements."

    Wow, an annoyingly smug politically correct sentence (Aotearoa/New Zealand) that manages to also contain xenophobia (restrictive trans-Tasman), and a dissembling use of language (dietary supplements) within its broad walls.


    That, folks, is in one sentence why everyone finds the Greens, more than anything else, just plain irritating.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2213 posts Report Reply

  • Mikaere Curtis,

    I am interested to know why people who generally support the greens have a parting of ways on this issue.

    I think it's partially the way the campaign was waged - basically the approach was to bag the Bill and generate support for defeating it rather than promote a better alternative.

    I think Sue could have more successfully promoted the fact that the Greens were pro-regulation. "Anti-Bill" could be conflated with "anti-regulation", as is quite plainly demonstrated on this forum.

    Is it because Sue Kedgely is off-putting?

    Yes, I think there are some who just don't like Sue Kedgely. Personally, I've got time for her, she's an earnest campaigner. Not that I think she'll ever live down the DHMO snafu...

    Tamaki Makaurau • Since Nov 2006 • 528 posts Report Reply

  • kmont,

    The point isn't that the Greens are wrong, the point is where they and their supporters and potential supporters want to spend political capital. That's not a bottomless bucket.

    Well I suppose you do have a point about spending political capital, it might not be the best thing strategically. I just think the bill was flawed and am happy it didn't go through. Maybe that makes me politically naive but I can live with that.

    wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 485 posts Report Reply

  • stephen walker,

    I totally agree with Mikaere's two posts.

    and all the ad hom attacks on Kedgley are really boring and pointless. does anyone want to provide non-urban-legend evidence re: Kedgley and water?
    (an email reply apparaently from someone in Kedgley's office saying: "I know Sue would be absolutely supportive of the campaign to ban this toxic substance in NZ" just doesn't cut it. please see Hard News 26/10/01 for something closer to the truth: "The little stunt this week - in which an unfortunate temp in Sue Kedgley's office replied to a letter...")

    another thing: why does not wanting to hand control over to an Australian agency = xenophobia?

    nagano • Since Nov 2006 • 645 posts Report Reply

  • Mikaere Curtis,

    That, folks, is in one sentence why everyone finds the Greens, more than anything else, just plain irritating.

    I hereby invite you to use your power of Omniscient Generalisation for Good and not Evil by joining the Greens to help us lower our Irritation Factor.

    Or maybe we'll just get a net gain ?

    Tamaki Makaurau • Since Nov 2006 • 528 posts Report Reply

  • Don Christie,

    Maybe that makes me politically naive but I can live with that.

    It really depends on what you think the main agenda should be. If it is anti-smacking, the right to sell quack medicines, votes for 16 year olds, repeal of the foreshore legislation, anti-vaccination then you are certainly not being naive. You are bang on message and achieving heaps. Well done.

    However, keep in mind that in 1992 the USA agreed to reduce its carbon emissions to 1990 levels. Gosh that seems so easy 15 bloody years later when we are still hearing those same commitments made.

    It just so happens I feel there is a bigger picture out here, away from your transparent policy making circles and whatever next floats into Kedgley & co. minds. If they cannot get traction on these issues today, when the public has probably never been more focused on climate change, and get their vote well above 5% they might as well fold up and go home.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1645 posts Report Reply

  • Heather Gaye,

    I think Sue could have more successfully promoted the fact that the Greens were pro-regulation. "Anti-Bill" could be conflated with "anti-regulation", as is quite plainly demonstrated on this forum.

    Yes. The rhetoric I heard was of the "stop attacking our enlightened naturopaths!" variety. Granted, considering the fine state of MSM in NZ, that may not be Kedgley's fault.

    ..although WRT:

    7. Ensure Aotearoa/New Zealand retains regulatory control of the dietary supplements industry and does not proceed with government plans for restrictive trans-Tasman regulation of dietary supplements.

    I thought half the point was that NZ doesn't really have any regulatory control? What's there to retain?

    Morningside • Since Nov 2006 • 532 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    & I think that may be one problem the Greens have - the hippie element have more time & resources to invest in party politics, or at least are more willing to make it a priority. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a silent (perhaps narrow) majority in the party's support that believe in green ideals, but don't have any time to inject some rationality into more specialised platforms

    Well, that's really interesting - and I've long suspected there's always been a division in most Green parties between the (for want of a better way to put it) hard-core true believers and 'Mercury Mums' vs, those who don't think the 20th century has been an unmitigated disaster, or science is a hegemonic white corporate discourse, but still think nautre is really nice and worth preserving. Interesting tension - and one Rod Donald actually understood better than most - but I'm glad it's not one I have to resolve one way or the other.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Mikaere Curtis,

    You can't be pure as the driven snow and put out that sort of shit at the same time.

    Hence my comment about it being akin to a gloat-a-thon. There's no need for these kind of media releases, especially when Morning Report are doing a nice job of it for you. I much prefer positive, Way Forward style releases.

    The point isn't that the Greens are wrong, the point is where they and their supporters and potential supporters want to spend political capital. That's not a bottomless bucket.

    Something I forgot to mention in my original post, the MPs are bound by our policy (there is a way to be unbound, but it has to be upfront when they apply for candidate selection). They can't vote or act against our policy, but they can promote legislation that partially progresses the policy.

    The fact remains that it is part of ratified policy, ergo there was a party-wide consensus for this policy. Sue has every right to campaign on this issue. Anyone who thinks otherwise just hasn't read the policy.

    I agree, it's not a bottomless bucket, but it is policy. I suspect that potential supporters would be dismayed if our MPs ditched policy on some kind of finite-bucket theory.

    Tamaki Makaurau • Since Nov 2006 • 528 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    I think it's partially the way the campaign was waged - basically the approach was to bag the Bill and generate support for defeating it rather than promote a better alternative.

    Exactly. It was wholly destructive, hysterical and contradictory. Kedgley's repeated invocation of the US FDA's model as some sort of gold standard was nonsensical - and also put her on the side of some pretty odd people, including manufacturers who line Republican Party pockets to safeguard their interests.

    I wasn't very surprised to find that the Kiwiblog comments brigade is largely on the Greens' side.

    Yes, I think there are some who just don't like Sue Kedgely. Personally, I've got time for her, she's an earnest campaigner.

    This speech on vaccination she gave in 2004 gives me the creeps. She chucks in any old fear she can lay her hands on, including claims that are specifically debunked by our own Ministry of Health. I think it's extremely reckless.

    I'm also very dubious about her claim in the speech to have personally procured the withdrawal of thiomersal from child vaccines in New Zealand. The MOH has been quite clear about the rationale for that decision, taken in the first months of Kedgley's time as an MP.

    Not that I think she'll ever live down the DHMO snafu...

    One thing I definitely don't hold against her, for reasons outlined above by Stephen.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22754 posts Report Reply

  • kmont,

    Well the discussion got all interesting. I guess it is fun to participate rather that lurk. I probably am somewhat politically naive, more likely to be reading a novel than a political press release................

    Interesting perspective Don. Food for thought.

    wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 485 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Jenkins,

    I think it's partially the way the campaign was waged - basically the approach was to bag the Bill and generate support for defeating it rather than promote a better alternative.

    I think that goes for both sides of the debate, as presented by the media - on the one hand, heaps of time given to Kedgely and Rankin attacking, and on the other, Annette King defending.

    I don't think I've actually heard a single conversation between anyone, anywhere, trying to establish common ground and figure out what the best policy would be.

    And that includes this comment thread, and of course this post too ;-)

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 13 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Hang in there Kowhai. We had a pretty good discussion about the issue last time I wrote about it.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22754 posts Report Reply

  • Mikaere Curtis,

    This speech on vaccination she gave in 2004 gives me the creeps. She chucks in any old fear she can lay her hands on, including claims that are specifically debunked by our own Ministry of Health. I think it's reckless.

    I suppose this is one of the reasons that I desperately want the Greens to be part of the government - to move them out of opposition, where FUD is a constant temptation, and into a role where they can sink their teeth into some proactive policy delivery.

    There seems to be a "They shouldn't be worried about that <insert topic>" meme that surrounds the Greens whenever there's some kind of policy win. The cure, I hope, is to get some Green Ministers and Associate Ministers. Then they'll be seen as doing real government work, as opposed to being in constant liberal/environmental rearguard action.

    Tamaki Makaurau • Since Nov 2006 • 528 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.