Posts by Mikaere Curtis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
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.
-
As others in this thread have pointed out better than me, viable export industries are hard to create in the outback. If it's an irrigated oasis that pulls in the punters, so be it.
What it is matters less than who owns it and who makes the money out of it.
And what is this"viable export industry" based around ? Encouraging tourists to trample on the mana of the local people by climbing all over their sacred mountain, Uluru.
Fucking awesome.
-
and i'm not interesting in any pissing contest on treatment of indigenous people by respective colonists. many parts of australian history are a complete disgrace. but for the grace of god (tm) it could just as well have happened here.
The experience here was different, even though the colonising power was the same.
Here's the fundamental reason for a different colonising experience: Maori had agriculture and domesticated animals.
There were no domesticable plant species in Australia, the nearest were in the Papuan highlands. The closest that the Austronesians got (I much prefer Jarred Diamond's name for indigenous Australians), to my knowledge, was a weir system where seasonal fish could be more easily caught. I'm not sure if Austronesians had domesticated animals, but the typical fauna (roos, emus, dingos), don't appear to be particularly suited.
As a result, it was no particular stretch to see that the local Maori village was essentially the same as a village in rural Europe. This lead to a high propensity for integration.
Because Austronesians lived differently, the propensity for recognition of their culture as being on the same spectrum as the colonisers was reduced.
What pisses me off is that the bastards who run Australia today should know better, and look what they do.
I predict that once we've gone post-colonial in Aotearoa (getting closer, but not there yet), then the next Big Project will be to enlighten our Pakeha Australians regarding the benefits of civilisation. I, for one, think we have a responsibility in that regard: whatever the benefits may be of the colonisation of Aotearoa, it could not have happened without a concomitant colonisation of Australia. That is, we're all beneficiaries, to some degree, of the wholesale dispossession, oppression and wholesale murder that occurred in the West Island.
-
Quite. Meanwhile we appear to losing our war on drugs
Short of universal, compulsory, and frequent blood tests, the authorities will never realise their wetdream of a pharmacologically compliant society.
With regards ecstasy, methamphetamine, LSD and the like, it's less of a War on Drugs and more of a War on Staying Up All Night & Having a Good Time. Unwinnable.
I suspect that the best option is to make (relatively) safe ecstasy available via pharmacies. Getting high-quality ecstasy from a known supplier would likely result in a collapse of the P market (as well as that of the less-than-great BZPs) and probably a drop in alcohol-related crime.
-
Key is rather cleverly playing on the Kiwi psyche. The so-called "underclass" is the shadowy nemesis of our much-vaunted egalitarianism.
"Underclass" is unmeasurable, it eats away at our concept of Fair Go. He uses the typical straw men of sensational, horrifying crime stories to illustrate his flawed thesis.
When he attempts to provide a geographical locus for his claims, it turns out that the main identifiable problems are drunk teenagers smashing glass and harranging users of the local park.
Fucksakes ! Freed access to alchohol is a "benefit" of the market system. So are the concommitant problems.
The focus on "underclass" draws attention from the real issues facing ordinary Kiwis i.e. the shift of wealth from the middle and working class to the upper class - an artifact of the Rogernomics/Ruthanasia and an era that I suspect Key longs to replicate and progress.
Clever, but easily dismantled. Unlike Brash, Key appears to lack any kind of conviction. He looks like the product of the last National-sponsored focus group.
Finger on the pulse, but is the heart beating ?
-
But we do have warring racial gangs; it's just that it's on a smaller scale. I'm pretty sure if we had the same population and as OZ we would see much the same occurring. I don't think we in NZ should be taking too much credit for what is a fluke of demographics.
We also have warring gangs that are of the same race, a feature that is not apparent in media reports about Australian gang violence.
I don't think we have a "fluke of demographics" at all. Instead, we have an ongoing and determined project by Maori to deal with institutionalised racism in Aotearoa. It has taken generations to achieve, but we now have the foundations for a bicultural society - in which Maori and Pakeha approaches are beginning to be incorporated into the State.
This was not achieved by some kind of political takeover, it was developed after years of research and dialogue. The key mechanism was discussion, not confrontation (although confrontation was used as a mechanism to spur disccussion).
Unlike Australia, we have a mainstream acknowledgement of our historical deeds and misdeeds. And the State is able to say sorry for past wrongs, which appears to be politically unthinkable in Australia.
It's not that we have fewer racists here, it is that we have an entirely different social context - one in which racist comments much more likely to be seen for what they are.
-
Unfortunately the gay video has been removed by YouTube "due to terms of use violation". Bugger.
I have a theory about Australian racism, which boils down to:
a) unlike in Aotearoa, the Austronesians (to use Jared Diamond's term for indigenous Australians) had a culture that was largely unrecognisable to Europeans so there were no natural attractors towards social integration (instead, the history could be viewed as a drawn out race war). Ergo, cultural tolerance and diversity is not intrinsic, as it is here.
b) Which has helped develop what appears to be overwhelming requirement to "fit in" (i.e. assimilate). I know heaps of Kiwis that adopt an Aussie accent after moving to Aussie because it makes life a lot easier. They call their southern/eastern European immigrants "wogs", a term that, AFAIK, is not commonly used here (we call the same groups Greeks, Croats, Serbs etc - whatever name they use for themselves).
c) And there seems to be a fondness of cognitive heurism, whereby complex issues can be reduced to simplistic paradigms. Try talking to an Australian about their indigenous population...the usual result is that a complex situation is reduced to simplistic "blame the victim" rhetoric.
Add in opportunistic political leadership that seeks to make mileage out of "Australian-ness", and you've got an environment where antipathy thrives.
-
It also appears that any amount of illicit substance in your blood sample will be seen as evidence of impairment. So, if you smoked a joint two weeks ago, and it was detected in your blood, you could still face a charge of "drug driving".
Given that it sampling is required at what amount's to a police discretion, I foresee fishing expeditions based on prejudicial profiling e.g. why not get a sample from that young dreadlock, what's there to lose.
But unless the police record data about who is given the roadside assessments (i.e. demographics), and what the results are we'll not be able to determine whether certain groups (Maori, youth etc) are being unfairly targeted.