Info message
Successful operation message
Warning message
Error message

Justmarried

250 comments · +8,889 / −1,350 · rank #13 of 40,276

All through the election I thought Tracy was pro Adern. This piece only reinforces my impression. This extra 80K 757 trip for a one day photo op is 1) completely unnecessary 2) hypocritical because Labour criticised the Nats in Govt for airforce diversions and 3) contrary to their claims of being a green Govt.

+282−29

Sorry Stuff, but this piece is a disgrace. The PM has made a very bad decision and your political editor is trying to turn it into a sexism issue. It isnt a sexism issue, it is a credibility issue and the PM has damaged her own credibiity. She doesnt need your political editor to jump in for her.

+278−31

The Vice Chancellor should go. What is emerging in NZ is that people use safety, security etc. as an excuse to stymie opinions they dont agree with. Whether the V-C knowingly did this, or whether she was manipulated by the anti Brash brigade, she needs to go. Don Brash isnt preaching Nazism and it is completely unacceptable for a public university to ban him for what can only be described as centre right views.

+184−3

This piece is so biased its not funny. In a poll 84% criticised the Nauru flight but Tracey defended the PM. Now you say she isnt weak! Her handling of curran was undoubtedly weak. I appreciate complexities of being in coalition but that wasnt the reason for her curran performance (or lack of).she was simply weak and indecisive with curran.

+190−16

Handley said he got the job 4 weeks ago. PM said two weeks ago govt was still prepared to consider him as an applicant. BUT ACCORDING TO HANDLEY HE HAD AKREADY HAD JOB FOR 2 WEEKS! So has the PM mislead NZ again? She knew this was coming is that why she is unavailable this weekend?

+123−6

I agree that all governments have bad patches. However, I cant remember the last new government that had such a bad patch within its first year. There seems to be a lack of talent in this govt and it extends to the PM. She is nowhere as competent as Helen Clark or john key. I didnt mention bill english as I never rated him as PM. He was a good deputy PM though. Labour dont even have that.

+117−17

Again we are having the same discussion. Did the PM lie, or mislead us, or just forget the full details? Again it is hard not to think she is being tricky with her words. You may say just like any politician so what? My answer to that is she said, she and this government would be different. So there is an unusually high level of hypocrisy involved when they are caught out again and again.

+98−1

Remember how she said labour knew it had numbers to elect speaker but it was important that national also voted for speaker? Or how she never thought trump mistook her for trudeaus wife, but some one else there thought that, and she was just passing on what the other person thought? Wake up NZ she has never been particularly honest and is just another typical politician. expect more of the same from the most transparent govt in NZ history....not!

+98−6

I completely agree we have enough rose tinted history and we should teach it properly. As well as the NZ land wars we should teach the musket wars. They occurred prior to 1840 and the estimated death toll ranges from 20,000 to 40,000. They had it all genocide (or attempted genocide), large scale slavery and cannibalism. I have always marvelled how we see media reminders of Captain Cook shooting a modest number of Maori, yet the media almost ignores the large scale massacres that Maori inflicted on each other at places like Mt Wellington, Kaiapoi, Akaroa Harbour, the Chathams etc. Teach it all and people should stop complaining about not teaching selective parts that suit their interests (hopefully). I half expect Stuff not to publish this comment as they seem focused on Crown wrongs only. Prove me wrong Stuff!

+99−9

I wrote last time that PM made a mistake in not sacking her and would be embarrassed by her again sooner rather than later. It was politics 101 dont keep a weak link as a minister.. Yet the PM made another bad call (like the election tax policy, the Russian spies, the Nauru flight). There is a pattern being established and it should be obvious to any fair minded person I.e. she is an inconsistent performer as PM.

+94−4

Lets assume the umpire did over react. How come whenever a man makes a mistake to the detriment of a woman there must be an element of sexism involved? Why cant it be the same sort of mistake a man makes towards anor man or a woman makes towards anor woman (or towards a man). IE just a mistake with no hidden agenda,

+96−7

Leaving her as a Minister outside cabinet was a mistake. She is clearly not ministerial material and sooner or later (my money is on sooner) she will embarras the PM again. After the second incorrect written answer she should have lost all portfolios. John Key and Helen CLark wouldnt have kept her as a Minister outside cabinet. They knew the dangers of a weak link in a Ministerial role.

+86−3

Winston expertly gamed system. By election time he knew he would go labour but still got votes from people wanting a national coalition. During negotiations he extracted a huge price from a desperate labour by playing off both parties.So full points for this term, but what happens at next election? NZF will not get votes from nat leaning supporters next time so may struggle to reach 5%. My prediction is this govt will try to reduce 5% threshold for election and/or try to entrench some legislation in case they lose next election. Both acts would be unconstitutional and would cause a huge controversy.

+85−6

I cant believe people who comment on the nats to defend PM. She stands or falls on her own record. They on theirs. In my view she has badly handled whole Pacific forum thing. While she was on her 80k photo OP another one of her mistakes popped up again namely min Curran. So a bad week for PM. So who cares what the nats did or what bridges did. Their actions dont hide the fact that PM is making bad calls.. judge her on her actions.

+91−15

I think some people try too hard to find offence. The PM is a mum with a baby. This means alot of the news about her, good or bad, will be seen in this context. Its inevitable. The real story about suffrage to me was 2 female cabinet ministers not being up to scratch. Does equality mean we sometimes appoint women because of their sex and not competence? I strongly suspect both this women wouldnt have been ministers at all if Male.

+81−6

I think the handling of this minister seems to be appropriate by the PM. However, it doesnt solve the wider issues of lack of talent in the Govt, the PMs propensity to put her foot in her mouth and whatever it is in Currans emails when they are released. On the last point our transparent govt is definitely trying to delay things.

+83−8

I dont know if previous Govts have allowed Crown agencies to borrow directly, but I dont like it. It is a ruse. It is now undeniable that the Govt cant afford all its promises. If it could, it wouldnt need this neat trick whereby Housing NZs new borrowing is outside core Crown debt. How can anyone defend this?

+65−4

I thought our new young PM was overhyped but had potential. Over the last two weeks Ive decided she isnt PM material. Its not just her mistakes its also how she defends them. Not sacking curran for 2nd offence, Nauru flight and misleading us yest morning. All examples of poor judgment. But the way she spins to defend them just digs her deeper e.g Nauru flight no additional cost as budgeted for! What? Is that the test for spending our money??

+71−13

Umm dude....Massey university is censoring him by not letting him speak on their property. The fact he can speak elsewhere is irrelevant to masseys censorship.

+57−1

What rubbish! Because 40 Sqn has a fixed budget the flight didnt cost the taxpayer anything additional!!! When the navy fails every year to do enough patrols in their inshore patrol craft they underspend their fixed budget. Why dont the sailors spend the left over money on a big party because it Wont Cost The Taxpayer Anything Because It Was Already Budgeted For.

+76−20

The coalition always had a credibility problem finding enough competent people to fill their very large executive (e.g. Ministers inside and outside Cabinet). NZ First and the Greens Ministers have probably delivered what the public expected (i.e. a mixed bag). However, it is the Labour Ministers who have been most disappointing. Only paid employees of the Labour Party (and their immediate family) would disagree that the Labour Ministers are largely disappointing with only a small number doing the heavy lifting and a long tale of semicompentent or incompetent Ministers. Of course all Goverments have some of these, but Labour have an unusually large proportion and the PM isnt managing them well so far.

+62−11

Like all ongoing polls i think it is the trend , over time, that matters. We have a trend here and in my opinion it is probably caused by three things. World situation. Traditional anti labour sentiment in business. A dithering govt with uncertain policies. The govt needs to do better in the third area.

+60−10

Mike Bushs eulogy at Mr Huttons funeral was disgraceful. At the time I thought, well hell never be Commissioner now. To my surprise, National appointed him and their solution was to make him apologise for the eulogy first. A neat solution maybe, but it did nothing to restore my faith in Mr Bushs judgment. This current mess is a further example that Mike Bush lacks the requisite judgment to be the Commissioner of Police. He never should have recommended Mr Haumaha for promotion. He (Mike Bush) may have served well in lower roles but Commissioner was one promotion too far for him.

+50−1

Nothing like bad press to get the govt moving. An interesting dichotomy yet again. We have the PM doing the superficial pr stuff well as usual. Yet we have her tripping up on the detail and on transparency as usual. She looks and sounds good until some scrutiny is applied. Then we see a person out of theur depth.

+53−4

Whether it is lying or misleading, the PM has been caught out twice in a week. The first time was when she said she wasnt cutting curran loose or firing her. The second was when she referred to handley as a candidate and implied recruitment process ongoing. So can we please stop hyping her up to be something special. She is just another tricky politician. If anything her point of difference is her blatant hypocrisy.

+57−9

A further thought. Has everyone realised yet that this is just another government and, despite their claims to be transparent, transformational etc, it is acting like most Governments do? It is misleading us with tricks (e.g. HNZ lending), it is misleading us with lies (i.e. claiming they knew they had the numbers all along when the Speaker election debacle went down in the house). Its claims of transparency are absolutely shredded because their Minister for Open Government misled parliament with two separate dishonest answers to written questions. The only thing previously missing was a sense of entitlement to taxpayer funded perks. We can now tick that off too, thanks to the ridiculous and expensive decision to fly the PM to Nauru and back for one day of photo ops.

+50−3

I accept there may be an issue with the judiciary possibly not wanting to follow the three strikes law. However, it is too early to tell if the law is working or not. It takes the time for enough criminals to get through to their third strike for us to assess the law. Not enough have got there yet. Anyone who says now that the law is or isnt working is guessing. In 1-2 years, we should know for sure and I support keeping it in place until we can do a meaningful review.

+50−4

Im happy with the approach so far, however, if any of these defendants is proven to have leaked the story etc they could no longer claim to be acting as Ministers. We arent at that point yet, and may never get there, but if we do that person (or persons) should receive no more public money for the case and should pay back what they have already received.

+46−6

That claim is the joke that keeps giving. The first Minister for Open Govt. was caught providing misleading answers to written questions twice and lost the portfolio (all within eleven months!). Their claim to be the Greenest will be the next joke (I reference the unecessary and separate 757 trip for the PM to fly return to Nauru for a photo op)

+40−3

Lets see 1) embarrassed herself gossiping about trump mistaking her for someone else 2) embarrassed herself saying we had no russian spies 3) misled us about curran 4) misled us saying Handley was only a candidate 5) got confused about GDP...Yep an excellent PM!

+42−5

Acc is insurance cover that covers all nzers for personal injury by accident. Since 1972 or whatever we no longer sue each other for personal injury by accident. It doesnt discriminate against illness. It was never intended for illness so doesnt cover it. Now I see it is sexist too. Tomorrow it will probably be racist. Where does all this stupidity come from?

+47−11

I come from a criminal justice background. While I have time for some Govt. policies I always thought the Labour/Greens criminal justice position was pure idealism. In my experience, it did not reflect reality. NZ First has done them a favour. If their ill advised repeal went ahead, it was inevitable that a released criminal, who would still have been inside under the old law (i.e. the current law), would hurt someone badly. At that point the Govt. would have been dog tucker! They should keep this in mind while they think further about relaxing bail and parole.

+36−2

A three way coalition is more difficult, particularly one with Winston Peters involved. That is agreed. However, where I believe the analysis goes wrong is the PMs woeful handling of the Curran/Handley affair. That had nothing to do with coalition politics. That was just weak and indecisive leadership combined with a disturbing tendency to mislead. We saw same thing when she defended Nauru. She said she would have been first NZ PM in almost 50 years to miss forum. I checked and PM English missed it only last year,

+37−5

Its called legitimate expectation. You may not have signed the contract but the employer has made it clear you have the job and the signing will come later. If the employer pulls the rug out from under you you can take a claim based on legitimate expectation. Its very clear the govt gave him the job even if the paperwork hadnt been completed.

+31−0

Te reo is not going extinct and I hope it never does. As long as enough people voluntarily learn and use it I dont see a problem. I am very much against making it compulsory as that is unnecessary and will distract some people from other learning. I respect the argument in article but disagree. Finally I do not see a brand association between Maori and environmental caring. Humans are humans and the suggestion Maori are generally more environmentally caring than other NZers is a myth.

+38−7

I think refugees are a success story (or not) on a case by case basis. Pro refugeee people roll out positive stories and anti refugee people roll out negative stories. Frankly, there are plenty of both. I doubt they are a wise economic investment, but that isnt the point of taking refugees. What is lost in these discussions is another statistic. That is for each individual refugee NZ accepts, something like three family relatives also come here under family reunification. Any discussion on refugee numbers and their benefits/liabilities needs to take into account these other people. Talking about only the refugees themselves is only part of the story. We need to assess the impact of their whole family (if their family came in on their coat tails).

+31−2