has NZ gone batshit crazy?

Ab · 15th September 2010, 13:27

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/...LM3233004.html

So, I see that Gerry Brownlee is now Dictator of New Zealand and was accorded this power with the unanimous support of every MP in the House.

What the fucking fuck?

Ab · 15th September 2010, 13:36

analysis

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL100...hquake-law.htm

ChaosWulf · 15th September 2010, 13:45

WTF??!

Saladin · 15th September 2010, 13:52

If you don't support this law you're unpatriotic and hate Cantabrians!

(In before Godwin)

Ab · 15th September 2010, 13:54

I like 6(3): "The recommendation of the relevant Minister ... may not be challenged, reviewed, quashed, or called into question in any court."

Awesome. Those sorts of laws always turn out so well.

fixed_truth · 15th September 2010, 14:11

What was the alternative? Have Christchurch fucked for the next 12months +?

A Corpse · 15th September 2010, 14:16

Even if that was the only alternative (and it obviously isn't) then yes, that would be preferable.

Spoon1 · 15th September 2010, 14:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

What was the alternative? Have Christchurch fucked for the next 12months +?

Clearly the legislation and the above are the only two options.

fixed_truth · 15th September 2010, 14:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Corpse

Even if that was the only alternative (and it obviously isn't) then yes, that would be preferable.

Why would it? The bill was unanimously passed be the House. No one seriously believes that any abuse of power will happen. And my question if genuine you care to answer it. If the desired outcome is CHCH fixed quickly, then what else could have enabled this?

Ab · 15th September 2010, 14:35

Dear Gerry,

Boyracers. Act of attainder.

You know you want to.

ChaosWulf · 15th September 2010, 14:38

fixed_truth - surely Chch could be fixed without handing over unequivocal & unchallengable power to a sole person though? We all dislike committees and endless meetings, however I dislike dictatorships far more.

fixed_truth · 15th September 2010, 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosWulf

fixed_truth - surely Chch could be fixed without handing over unequivocal & unchallengable power to a sole person though?

One would think so. But the fact that not even one MP objected to the Bill says to me that in practice bureaucracy really could delay the rebuilding process for 'years'.

ChaosWulf · 15th September 2010, 14:48

Or that a long winter and Seasonal Affective Disorder have destroyed what remained of our poor politicians minds?
Maybe not, but I'd be more likely to put the clean sweep vote down to a) MPs not wanting to look like they're impeding the recovery process in any way, and b) basically handing it over because they don't want to deal with it.

crocos · 15th September 2010, 14:49

^^^
Pretty much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Why would it? The bill was unanimously passed be the House. No one seriously believes that any abuse of power will happen. And my question if genuine you care to answer it. If the desired outcome is CHCH fixed quickly, then what else could have enabled this?

Wow you're facepalming hard today.

How about adding limitations to the remit of what this bill covers? That would be an excellent start.

Canterbury's recovery doesn't require the minister in charge to have the power to (EG) repeal the Treaty, grant or revoke citizenship, implement new laws via fiat, declare war on other nations, need I go on?

How about a requirement to make any orders public? There is no requirement for that (Except via OIA enquiry) at the moment.

Will it really take until April 2012 to get things fixed? A limitation on the bill for this to apply for a shorter period with a review period for extending it if needed would make sense.

There is a LOT of history for things enacting wide-ranging powers put in-place with good intent being used for abuse.

fixed_truth · 15th September 2010, 14:50

Or maybe the Labour & Greens are giving Gerry the chance to abuse his role and thus killing National

crocos · 15th September 2010, 14:53

Dude: No. No one should have this extent of power. I know you think you're trolling, but it's so moronic a concept that I refuse to treat it as a troll.

fixed_truth · 15th September 2010, 14:55

How long would it have taken to decide on what bills to have or not, or even having to go back & add more later etc?

Why do you think support was unanimous if there were other more 'democratic' avenues?

edit: I'm not trolling, I'm just examining whether the bill as it is was necessary to get things done or not.

ChaosWulf · 15th September 2010, 14:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Or maybe the Labour & Greens are giving Gerry the chance to abuse his role and thus killing National

Altogether possible

crocos · 15th September 2010, 14:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Why do you think support was unanimous if there were other more 'democratic' avenues?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosWulf

... I'd be more likely to put the clean sweep vote down to a) MPs not wanting to look like they're impeding the recovery process in any way...

fixed_truth · 15th September 2010, 15:13

Hmmm, it seems that this is the case http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/09/14...e-bill-passes/

Quote:

And then after all that we had to decide how to vote on it. We decided to vote for it to support Canterbury’s recovery. But it was with a heavy heart given all our reservations about the act.

Maybe NZ is going batshit crazy. First time I've seen the Greens not vote on principle

CCS · 15th September 2010, 15:20

BUT THE BILL WAS UNANIMOUSY PASSED! BY THE HOUSE! No one seriously believes that any abuse of power will happen! BY THE HOUSE@#!!!

Ab · 15th September 2010, 15:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greens

We decided to vote for it so that we didn't look unpatriotic

xor · 15th September 2010, 15:24

Don't think anyone votes greens down there anyway

Dirty hippy breed only exists in the 04 and 09

fixed_truth · 15th September 2010, 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

BUT THE BILL WAS UNANIMOUSY PASSED! BY THE HOUSE! No one seriously believes that any abuse of power will happen! BY THE HOUSE@#!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I'm not trolling, I'm just examining whether the bill as it is was necessary to get things done or not.

And btw, judging by the blogs no one does think that there will be any abuse of power, just that Gerry shouldn't have that power in the first place.

Ab · 15th September 2010, 15:30

It's THE LAW OF COMMON SENSE, BITCHES! ANNETTE KING IN THE HOUSE!

CCS · 15th September 2010, 15:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

And btw, judging by the blogs no one does think that there will be any abuse of power, just that Gerry shouldn't have that power in the first place.

blynk · 15th September 2010, 17:13

Labour voted for it because if they get into power next time, they will have a short period to be able to use the law as well

fixed_truth · 15th September 2010, 17:19

Labour will be in power before 1 April 2012?

blynk · 15th September 2010, 17:55

After reading that section. Can someone please confirm -
The minister makes the recommendation and the Governor General makes the decision to do it or not?

So isn't there still 2 people in the process?

chubby · 15th September 2010, 19:46

cyc · 15th September 2010, 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Why do you think support was unanimous if there were other more 'democratic' avenues?

edit: I'm not trolling, I'm just examining whether the bill as it is was necessary to get things done or not.

If you aren't trolling then you really need to stop being so naive.

Ab · 15th September 2010, 20:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by chubby

^^^ unfortunately that's totally appropriate.

fixed_truth · 15th September 2010, 20:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyc

If you aren't trolling then you really need to stop being so naive.

I don't think that I'm being naive. Like I said, this is the only time I can think of where the Greens have voted for a Bill that is against their principles. They are the 'party of principle'. So of course I would initially assume that the outcome of their decision aligned with their core values. There move here has astonished a great many green supporters.

Beccara · 15th September 2010, 21:05

A real question here, What laws need to be side stepped and why?

My uninformed belief was that the EQ would give money to building owners or pay for rebuilds/repairs to bring the building back to they pre-quake state. I could understand something like the RMA being ignored but why do we need to ignore some laws to rebuild

GRiM ReeFer · 16th September 2010, 10:18

"In her book, "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism," Naomi Klein explores the myth of free market democracy, explaining how neoliberalism dominates the world with National/Act its main exponent exploiting security threats, terror attacks, economic meltdowns, competing ideologies, tectonic political or economic shifts, and natural disasters to impose its will everywhere.

As a result, wars are waged, social services cut, public ones privatized, and freedom sacrificed when people are too distracted, cowed or in duress to object. Disaster capitalism is triumphant everywhere from post-Soviet Russia to post-apartheid South Africa, occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, Honduras before and after the US-instigated coup, post-tsunami Sri Lanka and Aceh, Indonesia, New Orleans post-Katrina, and now heading to New Zealand full-throttle after its greatest ever catastrophe. The same scheme always repeats, exploiting people for profits, the prevailing neoliberal idea that "there is no alternative" so grab all you can.

On Her web site, Klein headlines a "ChCh Disaster Capitalism Alert: Stop Them Before They Shock Again," then quotes the extremist Heritage Foundation saying:

"In addition to providing immediate humanitarian assistance, Natoinal's response to the tragic Christchurch earthquake offers opportunities to re-shape Christchurch's long-dysfunctional local government and economy as well as to improve the public image of the John Key in the region."

leadinjector · 16th September 2010, 10:31

THE JOHN KEY!

fixed_truth · 16th September 2010, 11:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by chubby

It wasn't that long ago that that our only threat to democracy was the Govt. limiting how we can spend on election advertising. Ahh the good old days

chubby · 19th September 2010, 10:35

Quote:

My position remains constant ...

piss-weak farrar.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/09/post_no_4_on_the_canterbury_earthquake

ill.html

and this was him defending against accusations of bias based on earlier posts on the topic.
sad.

15th September 2010, 13:27	#1
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	has NZ gone batshit crazy? http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/...LM3233004.html So, I see that Gerry Brownlee is now Dictator of New Zealand and was accorded this power with the unanimous support of every MP in the House. What the fucking fuck?

15th September 2010, 14:16	#7
A Corpse talkative lurker	Even if that was the only alternative (and it obviously isn't) then yes, that would be preferable. __________________ Broke my addiction! Bye bye Eve, hello Minecraft. Wait... >_<

15th September 2010, 15:20	#21
CCS Stunt Pants	BUT THE BILL WAS UNANIMOUSY PASSED! BY THE HOUSE! No one seriously believes that any abuse of power will happen! BY THE HOUSE@#!!! __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

15th September 2010, 13:36	#2
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	analysis http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL100...hquake-law.htm

15th September 2010, 13:45	#3
ChaosWulf Don't worry, be harpy	WTF??!

15th September 2010, 13:52	#4
Saladin Nothing to See Here!	If you don't support this law you're unpatriotic and hate Cantabrians! (In before Godwin)

15th September 2010, 13:54	#5
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	I like 6(3): "The recommendation of the relevant Minister ... may not be challenged, reviewed, quashed, or called into question in any court." Awesome. Those sorts of laws always turn out so well.

15th September 2010, 14:11	#6
fixed_truth	What was the alternative? Have Christchurch fucked for the next 12months +? __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

15th September 2010, 14:35	#10
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	Dear Gerry, Boyracers. Act of attainder. You know you want to.

15th September 2010, 14:38	#11
ChaosWulf Don't worry, be harpy	fixed_truth - surely Chch could be fixed without handing over unequivocal & unchallengable power to a sole person though? We all dislike committees and endless meetings, however I dislike dictatorships far more.

15th September 2010, 14:48	#13
ChaosWulf Don't worry, be harpy	Or that a long winter and Seasonal Affective Disorder have destroyed what remained of our poor politicians minds? Maybe not, but I'd be more likely to put the clean sweep vote down to a) MPs not wanting to look like they're impeding the recovery process in any way, and b) basically handing it over because they don't want to deal with it.

15th September 2010, 14:50	#15
fixed_truth	Or maybe the Labour & Greens are giving Gerry the chance to abuse his role and thus killing National __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

15th September 2010, 14:53	#16
crocos	Dude: No. No one should have this extent of power. I know you think you're trolling, but it's so moronic a concept that I refuse to treat it as a troll. __________________ Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية

15th September 2010, 14:55	#17
fixed_truth	How long would it have taken to decide on what bills to have or not, or even having to go back & add more later etc? Why do you think support was unanimous if there were other more 'democratic' avenues? edit: I'm not trolling, I'm just examining whether the bill as it is was necessary to get things done or not. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. Last edited by fixed_truth : 15th September 2010 at 14:58.

15th September 2010, 15:24	#23
xor	Don't think anyone votes greens down there anyway Dirty hippy breed only exists in the 04 and 09

15th September 2010, 15:30	#25
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	It's THE LAW OF COMMON SENSE, BITCHES! ANNETTE KING IN THE HOUSE!

15th September 2010, 17:13	#27
blynk	Labour voted for it because if they get into power next time, they will have a short period to be able to use the law as well

15th September 2010, 17:19	#28
fixed_truth	Labour will be in power before 1 April 2012? __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

15th September 2010, 17:55	#29
blynk	After reading that section. Can someone please confirm - The minister makes the recommendation and the Governor General makes the decision to do it or not? So isn't there still 2 people in the process?

15th September 2010, 19:46	#30
chubby	__________________ "Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way."

15th September 2010, 21:05	#34
Beccara	A real question here, What laws need to be side stepped and why? My uninformed belief was that the EQ would give money to building owners or pay for rebuilds/repairs to bring the building back to they pre-quake state. I could understand something like the RMA being ignored but why do we need to ignore some laws to rebuild

16th September 2010, 10:18	#35
GRiM ReeFer	"In her book, "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism," Naomi Klein explores the myth of free market democracy, explaining how neoliberalism dominates the world with National/Act its main exponent exploiting security threats, terror attacks, economic meltdowns, competing ideologies, tectonic political or economic shifts, and natural disasters to impose its will everywhere. As a result, wars are waged, social services cut, public ones privatized, and freedom sacrificed when people are too distracted, cowed or in duress to object. Disaster capitalism is triumphant everywhere from post-Soviet Russia to post-apartheid South Africa, occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, Honduras before and after the US-instigated coup, post-tsunami Sri Lanka and Aceh, Indonesia, New Orleans post-Katrina, and now heading to New Zealand full-throttle after its greatest ever catastrophe. The same scheme always repeats, exploiting people for profits, the prevailing neoliberal idea that "there is no alternative" so grab all you can. On Her web site, Klein headlines a "ChCh Disaster Capitalism Alert: Stop Them Before They Shock Again," then quotes the extremist Heritage Foundation saying: "In addition to providing immediate humanitarian assistance, Natoinal's response to the tragic Christchurch earthquake offers opportunities to re-shape Christchurch's long-dysfunctional local government and economy as well as to improve the public image of the John Key in the region."