'How can I trust that there will be impartiality and balance in the reporting of news?'
Bad law for a good reason
Many New Zealanders are probably unaware of the fact that we have a Bill of Rights Act. Those that are probably imagine that it provides protection for our individual democratic rights.
From the outset, however, that bill stated that no other legislation past or present could be overridden by it. In other words, any right you think you have can be taken away by a single Act of Parliament passed by simple majority in our unicameral House of Parliament.
Which is how we have anti-gang legislation that explicitly takes away some people’s individual democratic rights. Now because it is directed at gangs, which are organisations running drug production and distribution and which require violence and lawlessness from their prospects to procure membership, it is widely considered a good law.
Unfortunately, that is the altar on which democratic rights are sacrificed. What is seldom mentioned in discussions about this legislation is that there is no legal definition of what constitutes a gang. Instead, there is a list of 35 groups the law will apply to.
Now consider how a law like this could be reasonably extended. There has already been a call for a ban on the use of Nazi symbols and language. Why not take away rights of expression to neo-Nazis in the same way as we have the gangs? Who could complain about that? How would we define the targets of this law? Well, we would make a list.
White supremacists? Sure. Ultra nationalists? I guess so. Anti-immigration groups? Hang on. Transphobic groups? Wait this is going too far.
History tells us that our friends on the Left, given the opportunity to define rights by identity, are even more dangerous than our friends on the Right.
There can be no doubt that police need appropriate powers to combat gang criminality. Recent police successes need to be built upon, and they need whatever tools we can provide them. This shouldn’t mean that we have to make bad law.
John O’Neill, Dargaville.
TVNZ and transparency
A TVNZ senior executive who is believed to be the frontrunner to take on the broadcaster’s role of new chief news and content officer has taken leave to join the hīkoi (Weekend Herald, Nov 16).
Three months ago, TVNZ released a policy touting its “transparency” and was inspiring us to have trust in its news. The senior executive’s joining of the hīkoi does not instil a perception of neutrality.
For many people perception is reality. While the executive is free to join the hīkoi in a show of support, it is a most unwise move. When one has a senior position in a government organisation, especially one that espouses neutrality and balance, one has to be very aware of one’s actions and words.
The same senior executive appeared to be living it up in LA earlier this year while TVNZ staff in NZ were grappling with the prospect of losing their jobs. Again a lack of wisdom was displayed.
I have not watched TV1 News for well over a year, and the behaviour displayed by the senior executive is doing nothing to persuade me to return to TV1. How can I trust that there will be impartiality and balance in the reporting of news?
Janet Boyle, Ōrewa.
Sexist word
Erica Stanford should step down as Minister of Education after calling her Opposition counterpart Jan Tinetti a “stupid bitch” in Parliament.
Bitch is a vile, sexist word for which there is no male equivalent. Health professionals who work with children from dysfunctional, abusive families that require government intervention report that in the majority of cases the men routinely call the women that terrible word bitch.
What example does it set to children from homes such as these when the minister in charge of their school also uses that word? It was disappointing, therefore, to see the TV3 newsreader treating the matter lightly, referring to it as “naughty” with a smile.
A friend told me that the only time his father gave him a hiding was when he called his mother a bitch. Without condoning smacking, perhaps as a consequence he never used language that was disrespectful towards women.
There needs to be more serious consequences for Stanford than the slap on the wrist, the standard parliamentary apology, because she was caught out.
Demotion by losing her education portfolio would send a signal to young people in particular that such language is unacceptable.
Raewyn Maybury, Tauranga.
Treaty interpretation
“Principles bill a disturbing waste of time” by Vivien Fergusson is judged to be letter of the week (Weekend Herald, Nov 16).
The past injustices alluded to have to a great extent been remedied and that process continues. But injustices visited upon Māori do not justify condemning the Treaty Principles Bill, which is an attempt to establish a consensus as to how the Treaty should be interpreted.
Name-calling by Fergusson is petty, and her claim that the bill “will undermine our society by pretending we are all equal” is illogical. Would she really prefer a government of day that does not treat all citizens equally?
There is a compelling argument that Māori conceded sovereignty by signing the Treaty, a contrary finding by the Waitangi Tribunal notwithstanding. Tino rangatiratanga, a clause in the Treaty that allowed Māori chiefs to retain control over their own affairs, has caused debate.
No reasonable person would deny Māori the right to be consulted over issues that concern them, but it is not accepted by most that this clause enables co-governance. It should be for Parliament alone, led by a referendum, to define the contemporary meaning of the Treaty. That said, opposing opinions are so entrenched achieving a consensus is unlikely.
Bruce Anderson, Christchurch.
Laboured comparison
Steven Joyce’s article on Donald Trump is on the money when he talks about the American tradition of isolation and the importance of the economy in the recent election, but then he gets lost in his National Party need to attack Jacinda Adern’s economic policy (Weekend Herald, Nov 16).
To state that this Labour policy has many strands in common with Trump’s economic policies is ridiculous. Trump’s policy is based on tariffs, ignoring climate change, reducing immigration and reducing any restrictions on American industry and especially the mining and oil industry.
Labour was a great supporter of free trade and recognised the importance of overseas workers as any visit to a rest home, hospital or orchard will show. Labour believed that we had to actually do something about reducing our emissions, rather than simply talk about it and do nothing as the current Government does.
Trump wants to let American industry/commerce fly and will get rid of much of the legislation that protects people from the perils of unfettered capitalism. Adern may have continued too long with her policy of supporting the economy through the Covid fight, but to suggest that this compares with the Trump policy makes a mockery of political commentary.
John Lipscombe, Whangamatā.
“People moaning about hīkoi traffic shouldn’t have voted for the coalition” – a letter in the Weekend Herald. The letter is ridiculous because it oversimplifies a complex issue. Traffic disruptions caused by hīkoi are not directly related to voting for a particular political coalition. People vote for various reasons, and it’s unreasonable to blame them for traffic issues resulting from protests. Additionally, the letter dismisses legitimate concerns about traffic disruptions without addressing the underlying issues or the reasons behind the protests. It’s important to engage in thoughtful dialogue rather than making sweeping generalisations.
Ian MacGregor, Greenhithe.
David Seymour has made a mistake in addressing Māori issues through a Treaty of Waitangi lens and name. What he has exposed is a deep desire of New Zealanders to have a “New Zealand Equal Rights Bill”. As Winston Peters said in Parliament, “We stand for one people, one country, one flag, united as one – Māori and non-Māori.” No cogent argument to that is there?
Gary Carter, Gulf Harbour.
It was a credit to the hīkoi organisers that they made their voice known well along the path to the triumvirate in Wellington at the home of political power. And they did that march civilly and peacefully with no violence to others. It’s democracy in action in a modern NZ and sets us apart from such riots as the storming of the US Capitol on January 6 2021 and even the recent Amsterdam protest. Let’s keep it this way.
Rob Buchanan, Kerikeri.
While I read Winston Peters was dismissive of the protest at the Treaty Principles Bill, I can find no reference to him going out to meet members of the hīkoi. I find this surprising based on his previous enthusiastic engagement of crowds protesting in Parliament grounds.
Alan Johnson, Papatoetoe.
Millions of dollars spent on upgrading to contactless payments on Auckland public transport but I still can not register or top up my AT Hop Card online using the AT app because my Gold Card details are registered on it. This is caused by a “glitch in the system”. Not good enough.
Judith Price, Epsom.
Those against the Treaty Principles Bill have the loudest marches and are the loudest voices in Parliament. But to what degree are their views supported by the silent majority of New Zealanders? How will we answer that question without a referendum? Or has our democracy devolved to a state where the loudest voices rule?
Andrew Tichbon, Green Bay.
Does this Government listen to anyone of intellect? The reintroduction of live exports will be devastating to these beautiful and sensitive animals. As I have said before, let the advocates of this cruelty take the same voyage. See how you enjoy the “gold standard” travel.
Fiona Helleur, Milford.
Why don’t the police target the gangs' bikes as well as their patches? None of the gangs' bikes would pass a WOF as they are all far too loud and most of the structural modifications would not be “properly“ certified. It astounds me that no action has been taken against the gangs' noisy motorbikes. Most don’t even have a semblance of a muffler. Like the patches, the noisy bikes are just another way of the gangs thumbing their noses at society.
Jock Mac Vicar, Hauraki.
The comment “totally unacceptable” uttered by police, Members of Parliament and others in authority, is fast becoming “totally unacceptable”. So do something.
Ian Doube, Rotorua.
'Police cannot rule out further arrests and charges.'