And we really need to stop professing shock when well-known people observe, off the back of their own experience, that racism remains a blight in Aotearoa New Zealand.
I agree completely but it's also part of a wider pattern than just shock about someone calling out racism. It's also about the sense that someone overseas might have a whiff of it.
When the lynch mobs wanted to string up Mike Joy as an unpatriotic traitor because he dared to talk about NZ having environmental problems, it wasn't so much about whether the problems existed. It was also about the fact that he was a qualified expert attracting international publicity, and so letting the team down by not keeping our problems hidden and contradicting the non-negotiable 100% pure marketing slogans, as if to avoid talking about it could possibly have made sense.
Even when people reckon NZ's not a perfect place, some are terrified that someone might find out we're not all perfect down here... and racism is a really ugly badge to be wearing.
I haven't seen it but the synopsis sounds comparable with a (fairly light-hearted) episode of The Orville that was on TV a few months ago.
If you can tolerate satire of Star Trek TNG and are within NZ, TVNZ OnDemand still has it up: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/the-orville/episodes/s1-e7
...a video sting carried out on Cambridge Analytica's senior management. First, them talking about the full range of dirty tricks their company could offer in foreign elections. And then, bragging about what they depicted as the company's comprehensive involvement in the Trump campaign, including what appear to be illegal activities and the destruction of material communications.
How does one go about arguing to the majority that this is a significant and serious thing which needs to be addressed?
I've been watching much of the fallout from the US election result, as many people have. The whole thing's so polarised, I guess because a lot of people who are strongly convinced of something do not want to accept or acknowledge that there's a chance they might have been manipulated through nefarious means.
In the end, we're not talking about someone secretly changing people's votes at the ballot box. We're talking about targeting people's specifically identified weaknesses, on a mass scale, to psychologically manipulate them into thinking something and then voting a certain way. If and where manipulation occurred, it seems to be of a sort where masses of people simply can't imagine that they'd ever have wanted anything different. Suggesting to people that they're not capable of independent thought is, understandably, quite an embarrassing thing, even though it's probably more about human nature than specific individuals.
Plus even the Green Party arguably only remained in parliament, after splitting from the Alliance, because Helen Clark effectively asked Coromandel Labour supporters to vote for Jeanette Fitzsimons in '99.
Without that support it's highly unlikely that she would have won Coromandel with a 250 vote majority. Without the realistic possibilty of her being able to do so, it's also unlikely that 5.16% of voters nationally would have been encouraged to vote Green. But they did, the Greens built on that success, and (IMHO) we've had a better and more representative Parliament because of it.
Has any new party ever entered parliament under MMP without either a defecting MP or benevolent (but really strategic) help from a big party that's more interested in gaming the system?
Yeah, sure. I'm not trying to defend imperfect methods of getting new parties into parliement any further than the fact that I think we can't seem to be bothered improving the mechanism of MMP -- even as far as seriously considering the report which came after the referendum to keep it. (I'm still waiting for Andrew Little to pull it out of Judith Collins's shredder, but there's apparently no interest.)
As long as we're intent on keeping a less perfect electoral system, we shouldn't be attacking the hacked mechanisms which enable it to produce and retain a parliement that has any realistic diversity of parties at all.
Aw crud. I was going to submit on this and had it half written a month ago, yet life intervened and I only just noticed that submissions closed yesterday.
Anyhow, thanks for putting in such a clear and concise submission. The problem with component parties hadn't even crossed my mind.
One of my own big gripes is that I believe it seriously threatens the ability for new parties to emerge... particularly given the 5% MMP threshold seems very difficult if even possible for new parties to reach. Until now, virtually all new parties under MMP have needed some kind of help whether it comes from a rebelling MP from elsewhere or from a big party unlocking the door from inside. I hope there's sufficient representation of this issue from other submissions.
Just following my earlier comment, David Parker seems to have had another go with the same or similar Bill early last year, but it apparently didn't even reach the First Reading.
That would be reasonable, wouldn't it? But reasonableness is only easily enforceable on entities subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, who are therefore already (with a couple of exclusions) subject to the OIA.
And even then it so often seems necessary to fight for it, as if certain agencies have strategies of making things hard in the hope someone's just going to give up.
I still think it's a shame that Shane Jones' Cost Recovery Amendment Bill (2012) was laughed out of Parliament before it had a chance to get serious consideration.
Fundamentally it would have allowed the Ombudsman to invoice costs back to agencies for sorting out their bad judgement. Ideally it would have made it necessary for agencies to either budget directly for the OIA objection fallout, and justify to their Minister, or do things lawfully in the first place.
So a news story about a citizen's arrest for dangerous driving (an offence with a maximum penalty of three month's imprisonment) is really a story about the possible kidnapping of a tourist.
In this specific case it doesn't sound as if they actively tried to arrest the driver (though I'm unsure about the legal definition) as opposed to parking their cars in a way that prevented her from driving her vehicle away, then arguing with her while someone fetched a Police Constable.
Could that ever amount to kidnapping under the Crimes Act or would it be more like a traffic offence?
It doesn't really seem like Dirty Politics, though, at least in the sense of what Nicky Hager described.
More like highly irresponsible broadcasting involving a highly partisan idiot and a public broadcaster that's strongly profit-driven at the expense of public service. Sure we could argue that government Ministers are responsible for the context which enabled Hosking to thrive (and just happened to work out in their favour), but it's not the same type of thing as subversive leaks and direct coordination between top level Ministerial officers and sewer dwellers like Cameron Slater.