Posts by Matthew Hooton
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Polity: Why did the TPP fail?, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
it would probably already have been in place and showing benefits by now
It is already in place and showing benefits.
-
Legal Beagle: The law to make it easier…, in reply to izogi,
Does the process actually require Nuk Korako to have even read the Bill with his name on the top?
No. Even in this case, when it is only four clauses.
-
Legal Beagle: The law to make it easier…, in reply to izogi,
“a number of locals” talked to (Mr Korako) about the issue.
Presumably people running airports on the Port Hills.
-
This is a reasonable summary of a fascinating piece of legislation that I have also carefully analysed for tomorrow's NBR. But, in this post-9/11 world, shouldn't all lost property at airports just be destroyed by the bomb squad?
-
Hard News: On the Clark candidacy, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
That is deeply cynical. And pretty much exactly right!
-
Hard News: On the Clark candidacy, in reply to Joe Wylie,
The Foreshore and Seabed Act was Clark’s solution to having drawn the short straw in the deliberately poisoned post-election race relations atmosphere.
You have your timing wrong on this. Clark announced her intention to legislate in 2003 when English was still National leader. The Bill was passed in 2004. Here is a history of the issue one of my staff wrote in 2010 for a newsletter:
http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/Hooton%20paper%20Foreshore%20and%20Seabed.pdf -
Hard News: On the Clark candidacy, in reply to Bart Janssen,
I don’t like the way The Maori Party pretends to represent all Maori
I haven't seen actual data on this, but looking at overall results it seems very likely to me that more Maori people give their party vote to the National Party than to the Maori Party - and of course overwhelmingly more Maori people give their party vote to the Labour Party than to either National or the Maori Party.
-
Hard News: On the Clark candidacy, in reply to Russell Brown,
As Tim Watkin notes, Closing the Gaps was worked into a race issue by National
I don't see Tim saying that. I see him saying that Helen Clark ditched Closing the Gaps, at least as a slogan. One of the reasons for the slogan being dropped is that many Maori leaders saw it as based on a deficit model - "why do you think our kids only want to be as good as your kids?" was one way it was put to me when I was working for the Treaty Tribes Coalition at the time.
Particular offence was caused when Margaret Wilson - one of the appallingly arrogant ministers to serve in any government, red or blue - wrote new principles for settling historic treaty claims that included:
The settlement of historical grievances also needs to be understood within the context of wider government policies that are aimed at restoring and developing the Treaty relationship - for example, the Government's "Closing the Gaps" programme and the development of policy to address contemporary claims.
This was seen as outrageous because it delegitimised historic grievances - that if a particular iwi's children were doing well at school or in health statistic etc this would somehow mean the historic injustices were less worthy of being addressed by the Crown.
I really don't think the Helen Clark had the same sort of natural connection with Maori (at least those with a more traditional outlook) that Jim Bolger had, and which John Key has developed or at least learned to fake. I think this may have something to do with the fact that the place of Maori in New Zealand doesn't really fit into Clark's European social democratic outlook.
In contrast, I think a conservative provincial Catholic farmer like Bolger can think "so what you're talking about is your connection with the land, family values, spirituality and property rights" - and while this is far from being a full account of Maori beliefs it is an easier starting point than European social democracy.
Anyway, these are just some reflections from the time. I just wouldn't assume that Closing the Gaps was on one side of the ledger from the perspective of all Maori and the Foreshore & Seabed and "haters and wreckers" on the other.
-
As flawed as it was in some ways, the government’s 2010 super-city legislation laid the ground for that by requiring the oversight of an independent panel rather than council-appointed commissioners.
This is an interesting comment and one I broadly agree with. But isn't it interesting that not only don't we want councillors making long-term decisions about Auckland, we don't even want council-appointed commissioners making decisions about Auckland?
What does this say about our confidence in local government democracy? Is there any real point in all this voting nonsense for a bunch of candidates who are mostly overwhelmingly uninspiring muppets and/or has-beens? Maybe we should follow Singapore and just abolish local government altogether. There are major geographical differences obviously but not a major population difference (Singapore has a few hundred thousand more people than NZ.
Twenty-plus years working with politicians at both levels, and I have greater confidence in even the most middling MP to at least try (or feel they should ay least pretend!) to act in the public interest than I do in any local councillor or board member. I find it difficult to think I could be more cynical about anything or anyone than I am about the the Wellington political class but, on reflection, it turns out I am.
If this perspective seems radical refer back to Russell's comment that I have highlighted.
-
Speaker: A Disorderly Brexit, in reply to John Palethorpe,
The point is, Labour MPs are desperate to smear Corbyn and are resorting to desperate stuff like this,
Why do you think they are so desperate to smear him?