marsden_online: (write)
This is very much not what I am supposed to be doing today, but I got sidetracked. Submissions close 27-04-2025 (two days from post).
The COVID-19 Inquiry is assessing key decisions made by the New Zealand Government in 2021 and 2022 in the following areas:

* Vaccines, including mandates, approvals, and safety
* Lockdowns, especially the lockdowns of late 2021
* Testing and tracing technologies (like RATs or the COVID-19 Tracer app), and public health materials (like masks).

In relation to these topics, we need to hear from you about your COVID-19 experiences and how you think the Government should respond to pandemics in the future.


My household got off relatively lightly during the lockdowns - I continued to be able to work from home (although at reduced efficiency) and we were able to keep track of our family and social circles via the internet. My wife has a weakened immune system and she was able to get the vaccine early, about the 3rd tranche if I recall correctly. We had no concerns about the safety of the vaccines. I recall some public debate about the time it took to get vaccines approved for use in New Zealand when they were already in use in other countries, but I also understand that those responsible were trying to follow the official, legal processes as best they could.

In my view the government did the best it could with the information and resources it had. In hindsight of course mistakes were made - mistakes will always be made in a novel situation - but these can be taken on board for future emergency planning. Strictly speaking some legal powers were stretched to/past breaking point; this showed up weaknesses in our system which can be fixed. That these were able to be called out through the courts and acknowledged after the fact I consider a good sign of the strength of our political and legal systems.

Between my wife and several immunocompromised friends we had good reason to try and keep on top of what was known about the virus at any given time. I feel that our distance as a country from the rest of the world and the relatively small impact here has led to many New Zealanders believing that the worldwide pandemic, which is technically ongoing, "wasn't that bad" overall and a sense of complacency. It might have helped had numbers from elsewhere been held up more for comparison with our own numbers.

Closing the borders and extensive isolation measures until vaccines could be rolled out was very much the correct thing to do, I believe that had the previous National government still been in power they would have been "relaxed" about the risks to New Zealand and this would have led to many more deaths. While our household is fortunate in that only one relative has died with Covid as a contributing factor, many of our friends, especially those with relatives overseas, were not as lucky and we share their grief.

I was surprised to learn via events during the pandemic that NZ health workers are not required to be fully vaccinated as a matter of course (something which should be easy to remedy), and at the sheer amount of anti-vaccination, anti-science, anti-government bile which was loudly spilt from some quarters. I understand that these people were and are very much a minority but I am not sure what can be done about it in a future event without the media voluntarily refraining from amplifying their disinformation. It may take an educational campaign on a multi-generational time scale to shift the baseline of New Zealanders understanding of medical science upwards.

Re-reading the submission brief it strikes me that "how the government should *respond to pandemics in the future*" is placing the emphasis in the wrong place. The government needs to be responding to the *possibility of a future pandemic* right now, taking the weaknesses that were exposed in our preparedness and remedying them, fine tuning the tools that were of necessity wielded bluntly this time so that they can be invoked more delicately next time.

There needs to be massive investment in our health system in particular so that it has spare capacity available both for preparing (practising) for the event of another pandemic or similar event, and for responding to an actual event. This includes raising public awareness and mainstreaming of personal health activities like masking and keeping vaccinations up to date. Broader free or very subsidised access to mask, vaccinations and tests (especially the useful all-in-one Covid/RSV/Flu ones), and strong support for employees, especially public-facing / health / food workers taking leave from work while sick, and a culture of not having to work until your body is so run down that it can't effectively fight an exposure.

In the case of an actual event future governments need to be willing to invoke the big guns (border closures, lockdowns, quarantines, vaccine mandates) early and hard. Citizens need to be prepared to "buy into" those actions.

One last thing that sticks in my head from this pandemic was people trying to get back to New Zealand. Next time there needs to be a plan to bring people home ASAP, whether that is purchasing commercial tickets for those who can't afford it or running entire government chartered flights empty out and occupied back, and sufficient quarantine space available.
marsden_online: (write)
In brief, the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill attempts to establish a 4-year term between national government elections, in exchange for giving non-government MPs a greater presence on select committees. This would come into effect should it pass a referendum to be held at one of the next two national elections.

And the official online submission form. Submissions close 1.00pm Thursday, 17 April 2025

If you want to draw on mine as inspiration for your own personalised submission go right ahead, but please write something unique, don't cut and paste from this without making it clear that you are quoting from another submission :)

ExpandSubmission )
marsden_online: (write)
Before we get to my submission, here are some guides to writing your own.

* Emily Writes: How to make a submission against the Treaty Principles Bill
* No Right Turn: Submit to defend te Tiriti!
* Green Party:
Make a submission - Treaty Principles Bill

* NZCTU: How to make a submission on the Treaty Principles Bill
* PPTA: How to make a submission on the Treaty Principles Bill
* Greenpeace: Treaty principles bill submission guide
* Honour The Treaty: Submissions

And the official online submission form.

If you want to draw on mine as inspiration for your own personalised submission go right ahead, but please write something unique, don't cut and paste from this without making it clear that you are quoting from another submission :)

ExpandSubmission )
marsden_online: (write)
Emailed to Mr Peters and CCed to the other elected members of the NZ First party after the 2017 election
-----
Dear Mr Peters,

I fear it has taken me too long to find the time to write to you. Nevertheless as in modern times democracy is considered to be a one man, one vote system and right now in New Zealand you are that man and you have that vote so I am writing to you as my representative under the circumstances to express my preference in the matter of the forming the next government.

I urge you please to not go with National. We have had 9 years of men and women who to all appearances view the business of government as one of rulership not representation. This attitude is boldly reflected in their insistence that having the largest minority of a vote somehow entitles them to continue to "govern". As you yourself have stated this is not how things (are supposed to) work under a proportionally representative system such as MMP, and it saddens me that our national psyche and in particular our media continue to maintain an abusive relationship with the idea of "winner takes all" in our political system.

While my ideal would to be to see a fully functioning coalition of NZ First / Labour / Greens working together to re-establish and repair the social safety net New Zealand could once rightly claim to be proud of, I also believe that my second option of a minority Government, Labour simply supported by your party and the Greens from the cross-benches on supply and confidence issues would in the long term be better for the maturity of our political system and our whole country's understanding of politics. Let every piece of legislation be debated thoroughly and stand/fall on it's merits rather than because it's proponents happen to be able to whip an unassailable majority into line.

Please step up to demonstrate government by consensus instead of by fiat and tribal opposition to the policies of others; please do not give more fuel to those who loudly proclaim the idea that one party must dominate over the idea of visible representation for those who most dearly need it and can least afford it.

But please also bring decisions and debates out into the open. Put an end to negotiations and horse-trading behind closed doors, the outcome to be revealed as a fait accompli (or rammed through as such under urgency) when the final vote happens. I would not have mentioned this except for the disquiet raised by recent reports that this decision which will set the fate of our country for at least the next three years is being made behind closed doors by people we quite possibly did not elect to be our representatives in this matter. You and your fellow NZ First MPs are those we have elected and while I certainly expect you to seek counsel from others; I also believe the credibility of the next government of NZ hinges on the those who are ultimately making the decision being visible and accountable; with the sort of transparency you yourself have so often argued for in our politics.

But to come back to my main point: I would much rather have a mostly deadlocked government which made slow progress or at least made things no worse than another 3 years of those who have proven to be very good at further disenfranchising the least well off in this country to their own benefit. I have seen the effect of National's policies among my own friends Mr Peters, and I do not believe that even you can convince them to manifestly reverse or even halt the harm they are doing. That sort of change withing the party will require will require some time out on the, and you may correctly surmise from my above comments that I strongly dislike the continued use of this term post FPP, "opposition" benches and the same sort of generational change within their ranks as Labour has seen.

We are now seeing the possibility for the first time in my life of a "prime minister" younger than I, and I would also love for this to become a reality. Youth are our future.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I am also taking the liberty of of publishing it openly in my journal which can be found at https://marsden-online.dreamwidth.org

Due regards etc etc,

[Contact information redacted]
marsden_online: (write)
Submissions to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) close tomorrow (March 11) barely two months after the treaty was signed and text made available. About 3am on Monday morning my brain decided it was time to write something, but Ithen got distracted by actually reading MFATs National Interest Analysis (NIA) (the better to make an informed submission. It of course paints a far rosier picture of the expected outcomes.

This post has three parts:
1. Useful links
2. The text of my submission (done through the online form)
3. Other rant triggered by reading the NIA (this was going to be rants but I have run out of time :( )

~~~
Online submission form (very limited life expectancy) (you will need to complete the verification at the bottom of the page and then click the "Make an online submission" button below to actually get to the form)
The NIA (pdf)
MFAT TPPA subsite

~~~
I felt it best to make a measured submission just highlighting a few points of concern.
As a member of the public who has been following the no TPPA actions but has also found the time to read the NIA (but not the earlier published fact sheets) I would still like to express some some concerns about the process and implementation of this treaty.

1. I understand that there is always an element of confidentiality required in trade negotiations but the secrecy surrounding this one - and indeed continuing for years after ratification seems to have be unprecedented. Combined with the very short amount of time allowed for public, expert, and opposition party representative examination of the text and consultation I find it difficult to have confidence in the benefit to New Zealand of any legislative changes which may be required.

2. Speaking of benefits it is not at all clear from the NIA /how/ the people of NZ generally benefit from the signing of this treaty. "Economic growth" and a forecast boost to GDP are presented as as self-explanatory benefits without justification; but this would only be the case if the wealth generated flows to those who are less-well off.

As it stands this treaty would appear to deliver the most benefit to
- those who are /already/ established enough to partake in international trade and
- a small minority of future SMEs producing exportable goods/services who manage to become established against the now-increased competition from our trading partners.

In short this treaty seems to offer no great benefit for the majority of NZ citizens and business while exposing them to economic attack by better-resourced established competitors from abroad.

3. Following on from that if the NIA is accurate the ISDS clauses have been well ring-fenced to protect "public-good" issues but it still seems to be a risk that if a local company were to come up with a disruptive technology or process which could challenge established players but would require tweaks to our - or our treaty partners - legislation to implement effectively (a recent examples from the news might be the taxi service Uber) the established players would be able to use the ISDS or the threat thereof to hinder implementation in an anti-competitive fashion.

I am hopeful that the government of the day would have the fortitude to support our business and accept the costs required to set an example which would prevent this happening a second time; if nothing else this would quantify "the actual costs of responding are unknown" (NIA p55)

~~~
Nevertheless as it seems that the implementation of the legislative changes required is a foregone conclusion I

- would strongly support a clause which only brings the changes into /effect/ at the point the treaty comes into force in a form substantively like it's current form, rather than incurring the front-loaded costs and "giving away the farm" the having nothing to negotiate with should other parties decide /not/ to pass it through their respective legislatory procedures in it's current form.

- look forward to the strengthening of NZ's environmental protection, labour protection and transparency legislations to bring them in line with the treaty obligations as explained in the NIA.


~~~
Rant time.

The NIA is very bullish about the amount of consultation carried out

9.2 Public consultation process
The consultation process for TPP has been among the most extensive a New Zealand Government has undertaken for any trade negotiation. Throughout the negotiation process the MFAT, together with other government agencies, has been active in engaging with a wide spectrum of stakeholders on TPP.
...
Throughout the negotiation there were two public calls for submissions. MFAT invited initial public
submissions in October 2008 on entering into negotiations with the US to expand the P4 agreement.
A second invitation for public comment was made in 2011 following the expressions of interest from other countries to join the TPP negotiations (Canada, Japan and Mexico) to better understand the views and interests of New Zealanders with regards to these three economies.
MFAT received 65 responses to the initial invitation for submissions, which expressed a diverse
range of views on the TPP
...
Following the second invitation for public comment in 2011, MFAT received fifteen responses. Thirteen were from business (including business councils) and industry organisations. Two were from other governments - Canada and Mexico.
...
Extensive public outreach and consultation took place throughout the negotiation of TPP, using printed, emailed and website information, supported by extensive briefings, discussions and correspondence with key stakeholders on New Zealand’s negotiating objectives and process.

A primary portal of information on the negotiations was the MFAT website, and dedicated internet column, “TPP Talk”. TPP Talk was regularly updated with the status of negotiations. Both the website and column
encouraged feedback on TPP from the public. In seeking views on TPP, the Government sought to encourage debate on the issues, including links to groups holding a range of views on the MFAT website.
...
Hundreds of meetings took place, including with business groups, iwi, local councils, health sector
representatives, unions, NGOs, Members of Parliament and individuals to seek input on the TPP and
to help ensure a high quality outcome that reflects stakeholders’ interests.
...
In a new initiative that reflected the level of public interest in TPP, MFAT also made provision for
stakeholder engagement with regard to the two TPP negotiating rounds held in New Zealand. With
regard to the round of negotiations held in Auckland in December 2012, the Ministry organised a
stakeholder programme attended by 72 New Zealand participants as well as other stakeholders from overseas.

... and so on.

Strangely I do not recall /any/ of the relevant ministers or officials saying in response to the noTPPA movement and media coverage "Hey, here is where you can go to get more information and to have your say." Apparently the broader public of New Zealand (or other parties) are not considered "stakeholders" in our international treaties.

We know who other treaty partners considered stakeholders from the mega-companies and lobbyists who got to peek at the proceedings and drafts. I wonder who in NZ our government actually considered important enough to be a stakeholder?

I'm going to be generous and assume whoever produced this analysis is so blinkered that they actually believe this number of submissions is a reasonable outcome rather than a failure to communicate.

Moreover I believe that an organisation believing in or proactive about public consultation would have opened another round more recently than five years ago, given the increased public profile of opposition to the matter under consideration.
marsden_online: (write)
Last week the Government released "The first in a series of government discussion documents looking
towards a better tax administration system for New Zealanders".
NZ Herald article
The Government is floating the idea of businesses paying their tax on a pay-as-you-go (PAYE) basis, like individual taxpayers, in the biggest proposed shake-up of one of the building blocks of the income tax system since its introduction in 1957.

Revenue Minister Todd McClay announced the proposal to introduce a form of "business PAYE" among a raft of other possible reforms contained in a green paper seeking public submissions by May 29 ahead of a rolling maul of public consultation documents he plans to publish over the next three years to modernise and simplify the tax system, while improving the rate and accuracy of tax collection.

Expandsnip )

I've made comments in a few other places too (all pending moderation).
marsden_online: (write)
Environment Canterbury is currently seeking submissions on their Long Term Plan for 2015 - 2025. Locals may have found a print version in their mailbox over the past week or two. You can download the document and make submissions online at the Ecan Website

This is my first time being motivated enough to make such a submission. It may be a little wordy but I felt it important to convey a little of my personal perspective and background rather than a relatively context-less set of bullet points (which I couldn't have arrive at without writing all this out anyway).

Expandlong )

Expand Cut Tags

Expand All Cut TagsCollapse All Cut Tags

Most Popular Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios