Hard News: The file-sharing bill
340 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 Newer→ Last
-
Yes, it would be worse law, but not “due to [Labour] voting against it”; due to National introducing it and garnering enough support to have it passed.
True. But I suspect there's a lot of people who get into parliament to make things better. And they might not be going the right way about it all the time, but their party is in a hole and they're looking at another three years in opposition so they're probably going to take what they can get at some stage so they can go back and say "we made this better than it was going to be, but not perfect".
If they hadn't done it, there'd probably be just as many people saying "why the hell did you stand on principle when you could have been practical and made it better. now look at this even crappier law we're stuck with". It's an age old principles vs practicals in politics game.
It's more unusual here with strong whipping, but in the USA this sort of horse trading happens all the time as people can vote how they want. I don't see that as always a bad thing, here it's just been a caucus-wide decision.
-
There’s something that really gets my goat about Labour opting to pass with amendments/compromise rather than fighting a bill outright:
I just have no idea if this is just because the dialogue here trends left, but all the opinion expressed or implied here about the Christchurch bill seems to be that it’s appalling policy, and very bad news for the people of Christchurch (and, presumably, could have been worse). If it’s true that the policy is really that bad, then conflicting political ideology aside, why the fuck do we have to rely on the opposition to make all the compromises to prevent our own government from screwing up their own constituents?
-
Maybe rather than conspiring with National behind closed doors to pass amendments (Which ones - we aren't being told?) Labour could table the amendments, argue for them and decide whether the final bill deserves their support.
Their current actions just show that they have almost as much contempt for open parliamentary democracy as National.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
why the fuck do we have to rely on the opposition to make all the compromises to prevent our own government from screwing up their own constituents?
This. And surely Labour has to worry about the ambiguity it casts over its positions.
But I think it speaks to a larger issue as well. There was something that a woman (forget the name, sorry) from a disabilities advocacy association said on Morning Report today about the ministry of health appealing a high court decision that recognises the right of compensation of families who look after severely disabled adult children. Quizzed by Geoff Robinson on the fact that there is an unfortunate bipartisan agreement on this particular piece of inequity, the woman rather exasperatedly mentioned the fact that Labour said it "would take some sort of look at it". I feel like this has been going for the past two years - the sense that Labour will take some sort of look at things, instead of stating quite clearly its position on most issues.
-
Sacha, in reply to
You'd be thinking of Wendy Neilson of the Disabled Persons Assembly. This morning, Radio NZ featured a few stories (here's the main one, 5 minutes streaming) about the long-running case of parents of disabled people fighting the Misery of Health for the right to be paid like any other suitable person to provide round the clock support. ACC have managed to do this for years but the Ministry seems to believe they're special and fundamentally that their clients are not to be trusted.
I've met several of the families involved in the lawsuit and they're not the type to complain unless they're backed into a corner. This has dragged on so long that one of the mothers has literally died waiting. After nearly a decade of legal wrangling where every stage has found against the government, they still refuse to get on with improving their policy and practices. Instead they have spent over $1.2m of your tax money to keep on saying NO. The Human Rights Commission has been consistently supportive and is appalled by that course of action.
The current Minister, Tony Ryall, has proclaimed that any change would set a broader precedent than the context of the case and cost a huge amount across all government services. You may recognise this argument from the parallel case about sleepover shifts, along with the same exaggerated numbers and scaremongering. It is probably all too similar to hand-wringing about the 'unreasonable' cost of ending slavery back in the day.
This government have been all too keen of course to reach into the public purse to subsidise big polluters via the ETS, investors in dodgy finance companies, corporate farmers and wealthy yachties.
It is a classic example of the contrast between what governments - of all persuasions - have said they believe and what they actually do for disabled New Zealanders and our families.
How hard is it for someone to stand up and say forcefully and clearly that this is wrong and we will fix it?
Quizzed by Geoff Robinson on the fact that there is an unfortunate bipartisan agreement
His FPP line of questioning pissed me off, actually. Like several other matters, the Greens have provided the most effective party political opposition about this lately, spearheaded by Catherine Delahunty in this case. Robinson had interviewed her about the case no more than an hour earlier. And yet couldn't resist asking Wendy Neilson about what the "two parties" were doing about it.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Labour could table the amendments, argue for them and decide whether the final bill deserves their support.
Which is great if the government needs Labour's votes to pass the Bill. Except that, well, it doesn't. So Labour could table amendments that would end global poverty and hunger for no cost and, for good measure, bring about world peace, make the world's greatest arguments EVAR!!!! in their support, and still have them fail to be adopted by the House because National's "principled" position is to vote down amendments posed by other parties. Whereas if they'd negotiated with National they might've got an end to poverty into the Bill, with the certainty that their combined vote with National would push it over the line even if Act took objection to the serfs being fed.
Obviously this is completely hyperbolic, but it's intended to illustrate how such an inflexible position as yours can lead to very sub-par outcomes that could be made rather less sub-par through some application of flexibility. And when the government of the day cares as little for democracy and democratic principles as does the current government, you're going to get nowhere by trying to table amendments that are for something less than guaranteed alleviation of global poverty.
-
I happen to believe that having a National government is a "sub-par outcome" per-se, and that moderating their stupidity just makes the continuance of their rule more attractive.
If a change that Labour managed to get through *was* so attractive as to seriously reduce the impact of the act (for instance, introducing real accountability, or limiting Henry VIII powers to specific laws like the RMA) I might be more convinced. (I can't actually see the amendments to the bill as the Parliament and legislation.govt.nz appear to delete them when a bill passes).
In the case of the Copyright Act, I think it would have been *better* had the law been passed in its original form and Big Media allowed to start laying into Pt. Chev mums with filesharing offspring. That would have at least created a reaction against further such measures including ACTA, TPPA and the like,
-
nzlemming, in reply to
In the case of the Copyright Act, I think it would have been *better* had the law been passed in its original form and Big Media allowed to start laying into Pt. Chev mums with filesharing offspring. That would have at least created a reaction against further such measures including ACTA, TPPA and the like
I'm coming to believe this would have been the best option. I have no doubt that National WILL enact the clause allowing termination, but they'd rather not allow too much time before the election for it to bite them.
-
Maybe the tide is turning? David Cunliffe lays out a clear Labour position about the cost of living on Radio NZ's Morning Report show (5 mins streaming) - h/t Te Standard.
-
Seeing as this is the nearest to a copyright thread we have at present, here's a tidbit that's just been unearthed by Jamie Love at Knowledge Ecology International:
Homeland Security's 2008 letter to USTR: ACTA is a threat to national securityIn 2008, DHS was concerned that:
"some possible outcome of the ACTA negotiations may harm national security and the ability of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to exercise managerial discretion in setting priorities for intellectual property right (IPR) enforcement."As Love notes:
The 2008 DHS concerns about ACTA are relevant today, both as regards ACTA, and as regards the new proposals on the same issues presented in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, which is designed as a binding enforceable agreement.
-
I happen to believe that having a National government is a “sub-par outcome” per-se, and that moderating their stupidity just makes the continuance of their rule more attractive.
I agree with the former. The second is a pretty hard question to know yes or no, and I have no doubt that it's keeping Labour Party strategists up late at night as well.
-
"Labour Party strategy" basically amounts to waiting another two or three elections for the public to finally decide that it's "time for a change". Since the Labour party has maybe 30% sheeplike "tribal" voters who will never desert them, they'll then get to be the government for a few terms.
-
Pretty much sums up the political system and the way people vote in all western democracies.
National didn't so much win the last election as the voters got sick of Labour. They sure as sh*t haven't brought anything new and refreshing to the table with the same old tired stable of ideological dinosaurs coming back with a plain face leader.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Those are both achievements, and neither would’ve been possible had Labour previously acted in bad faith towards National over votes on legislation.
Both parts of that statement are assertions without a shred of evidence to back them. Perhaps they achieved nothing that National would not have done anyway, as soon as Labour proposed it because the amendments made sense. Perhaps Labour acting in "bad faith" would make no difference to anything National does. If Labour is as powerless as you make out on the one hand (while on the other hand claiming that they achieved a lot for file sharers and Christchurch), then they have nothing to either gain or lose from National by voting as they see fit. They do, however, have a lot to lose in terms of credibility with the people who might vote for them in the next general election on the basis of offering an alternative to National.
Obviously this is completely hyperbolic, but it's intended to illustrate how such an inflexible position as yours can lead to very sub-par outcomes that could be made rather less sub-par through some application of flexibility.
Yes, it's hyperbolic and could well have had the diametrically opposite outcome to your projections without the slightest inconsistency. You haven't done anything to show that the sub-par outcome we did get isn't also a result of too much "flexibility". I'm not offering any other evidence myself, other than "how's it working out for Labour at the moment?"
-
3410,
And since when does voting against legislation that you don't support constitute "bad faith"?
-
Sacha, in reply to
It does count if you have agreed not to.
-
3410,
It does count if you have agreed not to.
Good point. How could Labour possibly have avoided being forced into that position?
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
By taking the position that many of the posters in here apparently wish they had, and simply voted against the Bill, knowing it would pass anyway, rather than trying to moderate some of its greatest excesses.
An Opposition is meant to try and limit the government-of-the-day's power, and that's what Labour has achieved, at least in theory.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
They have achieved that. The dispute is about whether alternative courses might have achieved more. You don't seem to be able to accept that an Opposition with a clearly articulated dissenting alternative can be more of a moderating influence than meekly settling for tiny amendments. Or you don't think Labour has a real alternative. If so, I agree.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
You don’t seem to be able to accept that an Opposition with a clearly articulated dissenting alternative can be more of a moderating influence than meekly settling for tiny amendments.
If I thought the current government gave the teensiest, tiniest shit what anyone outside (or even everyone inside!) the caucus thinks, I might be more inclined to accept this proposition. But National clearly don't give a fuck for anyone's opinions unless they confirm their own biases; the same things of which Labour was being accused by the end of their last term.
It's possible that a clearly-articulated strategy from Labour could make a difference, but that only helps if you've got time on your side with which to articulate. Urgency changes the equation, because no matter how good your arguments the only people to whom you're preaching are the implacable foe seated on the benches opposite. You cannot sway the proletariat into making their views known, because there's no time.Or you don’t think Labour has a real alternative.
On this issue, I'm not sure that they do. Hell, even the Greens aren't against the bill in principle; they just object to some of the rules around what to do with infringing downloaders.
-
Sacha, in reply to
But National clearly don't give a fuck for anyone's opinions unless they confirm their own biases
Mining national parks?
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Mining national parks?
Not convinced that that's completely off the agenda, though. It was also 18 months ago, and the "Our way or the highway" attitude has become a lot more obvious in the intervening period.
-
Also: Compare with the deep-sea oil prospecting that’s just been green-lighted.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Not convinced that that’s completely off the agenda, though. It was also 18 months ago, and the “Our way or the highway” attitude has become a lot more obvious in the intervening period.
Their way IS the highway, according to RadioNZ this morning.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
If I thought the current government gave the teensiest, tiniest shit what anyone outside (or even everyone inside!) the caucus thinks, I might be more inclined to accept this proposition.
I'm pretty damned sure they're concerned about what opinion polls say, and therefore Labour's message should not be pitched at National, but at the people. Both to influence National, to garner support for themselves, and because this is meant to be a democracy.
On this issue, I'm not sure that they do.
I'm seldom sure these days on any issue.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.