What was remarkable about today’s TPB submissions was the contrast between the highly qualified opponents and their steady stream of facts, versus the amateurish bluster and reckons of the bill’s supporters
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Watching the Hobsons Pledge muppets talk about constitutional issues was rather like watching a bunch of Neanderthals walk around a nuclear reactor, hitting it with sticks and smearing it in mud, whilst telling each other they sure as shit know how this thing works
Bluster and reckons is right wing politicians today. It’s a new method channelling Trump the would-be oligarch. After all, he did win again so what politicians wouldn’t be inspired? Politicians who are actually good people who understand the purpose of democracy.
The Select Committee itself quite impressed me - clearly listening, mostly asking reasonable questions, not too much ideological numptiness - the sole exception being Rima Nakhle taking a swipe at Ganesh Nana. Even Todd Stevenson was pretty respectful of submitters
Yes. I have once done an oral submission and found the committee to be listening and responding thoughtfully. But this bill nevertheless is an empty culture war tool and hopefully the committee will listen and recognise this
On the one hand: constitutional lawyers and academics arguing from the perspective of their professional experience and qualifications; on the other hand, a Professor whose speciality is fish, telling us about his vibes
Given that these oral submitters were selected by both sides, that doesn't say much about the options for the pro-bill side, or about the people who did the picking. Must have been some amateur historians who could have at least pretended to be qualified?
Also on that first hand was social workers, health care providers, religious leaders and a host of other people who live te Tiriti in the work they do for communities across Aotearoa.
Despite all the hype and hand-waving, the supporters didn’t come with a single decent argument. It was awesome watching @vomalley.bsky.social just demolish the stupider arguments in a couple of sentences - he presented a master class in yeah nah
And Ani Mikaere just sliced and diced both the bill and the Crown misbehavior, and both Marilyn Waring and Jane Kelsey called out the toxic politics and deliberate misrepresentation. In comparison, Hobsons Pledge sounded like whiners
I listened through this afternoon’s pro-bill lineup and thought, is that it? Is that genuinely their A Team presenting the strongest arguments they have? If that’s the case, this is a travesty - an even bigger waste of time than we all assumed
It's a metaphor for the whole exercise at large though - fuck experts, fuck indigenous rights, fuck the greater good. Just a bunch of white people circle-jerking their shitty ideas about how society should be according to them.
As Prof Kelsey pointed out though, officials have been told to work on a referendum regardless of the bill not proceeding. She suggested that ACT's tactic may be to promote a Citizen Initiated Referendum at the next election sidelining law, philosophy, and expertise.
It was great that she named that particular game - and it does mean we all have to keep piling the pressure on National in particular to kill this attack on Te Tiriti
Case in point ex-Mps anti the bill Marilyn Waring, Chris Finlayson & Andrew Little seemed a little more into facts than pro-bill Gerry Eckhoff going all Bob Katter about the Privy Council.
Looking forward to that - I missed the morning session so didn’t see @graemeedgeler.bsky.social strut his stuff nor Chris Finlayson explain the constitutional basis of our nation. Will be an interesting binge watch
Comments
Like the actual truth value behind them is just irrelevant to these consequentialist boors
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/scl/justice/news-archive/watch-public-meetings-of-the-justice-committee/