Is Luxon lying, incompetent, or hiding agreements with ACT?

[Rich80105]

From Stuff:

'No risk of civil war in NZ,' Luxon says

Labour leader Chris Hipkins has challenged Prime Minister Christopher
Luxon in the House on his support for the Treaty Principles Bill to
first reading, asking if he agreed with former prime minister Dame
Jenny Shipley's warning that politicizing the Treaty could "invite
civil war".

Luxon firmly rejected the claim, responding, "No, we are not at risk
of civil war in New Zealand. That is inflammatory language."

Hipkins pressed further, questioning why the Government had directed a
select committee to spend the next six months on the issue, to which
Luxon responded, "Because it is part of our coalition agreement."

Hipkins then accused the Government of putting political interests
ahead of the country, reiterating Shipley's warning: "This sort of
malicious, politically-motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to
politicize the Treaty in a new way should raise people’s voices,
because it is not in New Zealand’s immediate interest."

Luxon rejected the accusation, stating, "I don't believe it's linked
to fundraising."

Now the coalition agreement is able to be seen on the3. National Party
website, and it does not say that the select committee must get six
months on the issue - so the question is whether Luxon is lying,
incompetent, or hiding details of his cave-in to ACT.

Tough call, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt and
that the likely answer is incompetence . . .

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105
'No risk of civil war in NZ,' Luxon says
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has challenged Prime Minister Christopher
Luxon in the House on his support for the Treaty Principles Bill to
first reading, asking if he agreed with former prime minister Dame
Jenny Shipley's warning that politicizing the Treaty could "invite
civil war".
Luxon firmly rejected the claim, responding, "No, we are not at risk
of civil war in New Zealand. That is inflammatory language."
Hipkins pressed further, questioning why the Government had directed a
select committee to spend the next six months on the issue, to which
Luxon responded, "Because it is part of our coalition agreement."
Hipkins then accused the Government of putting political interests
ahead of the country, reiterating Shipley's warning: "This sort of
malicious, politically-motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to
politicize the Treaty in a new way should raise people’s voices,
because it is not in New Zealand’s immediate interest."
Luxon rejected the accusation, stating, "I don't believe it's linked
to fundraising."
Now the coalition agreement is able to be seen on the3. National Party
website, and it does not say that the select committee must get six
months on the issue - so the question is whether Luxon is lying,
incompetent, or hiding details of his cave-in to ACT.
Tough call, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt and
that the likely answer is incompetence . . .

The answer is neither, you are just desperate.

[Rich80105]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 06:21:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
'No risk of civil war in NZ,' Luxon says
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has challenged Prime Minister Christopher
Luxon in the House on his support for the Treaty Principles Bill to
first reading, asking if he agreed with former prime minister Dame
Jenny Shipley's warning that politicizing the Treaty could "invite
civil war".
Luxon firmly rejected the claim, responding, "No, we are not at risk
of civil war in New Zealand. That is inflammatory language."
Hipkins pressed further, questioning why the Government had directed a
select committee to spend the next six months on the issue, to which
Luxon responded, "Because it is part of our coalition agreement."
Hipkins then accused the Government of putting political interests
ahead of the country, reiterating Shipley's warning: "This sort of
malicious, politically-motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to
politicize the Treaty in a new way should raise people’s voices,
because it is not in New Zealand’s immediate interest."
Luxon rejected the accusation, stating, "I don't believe it's linked
to fundraising."
Now the coalition agreement is able to be seen on the3. National Party
website, and it does not say that the select committee must get six
months on the issue - so the question is whether Luxon is lying,
incompetent, or hiding details of his cave-in to ACT.
Tough call, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt and
that the likely answer is incompetence . . .

The answer is neither, you are just desperate.

There are three options - which one did you leave in play, tony?

Certainly many (probably including David Seymour) appear to believe
that all three are true . . .

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 06:21:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
'No risk of civil war in NZ,' Luxon says
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has challenged Prime Minister Christopher
Luxon in the House on his support for the Treaty Principles Bill to
first reading, asking if he agreed with former prime minister Dame
Jenny Shipley's warning that politicizing the Treaty could "invite
civil war".
Luxon firmly rejected the claim, responding, "No, we are not at risk
of civil war in New Zealand. That is inflammatory language."
Hipkins pressed further, questioning why the Government had directed a
select committee to spend the next six months on the issue, to which
Luxon responded, "Because it is part of our coalition agreement."
Hipkins then accused the Government of putting political interests
ahead of the country, reiterating Shipley's warning: "This sort of
malicious, politically-motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to
politicize the Treaty in a new way should raise people’s voices,
because it is not in New Zealand’s immediate interest."
Luxon rejected the accusation, stating, "I don't believe it's linked
to fundraising."
Now the coalition agreement is able to be seen on the3. National Party
website, and it does not say that the select committee must get six
months on the issue - so the question is whether Luxon is lying,
incompetent, or hiding details of his cave-in to ACT.
Tough call, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt and
that the likely answer is incompetence . . .

The answer is neither, you are just desperate.

There are three options - which one did you leave in play, tony?

Neither.

Post by Rich80105
Certainly many (probably including David Seymour) appear to believe
that all three are true . . .

No he doesn't. that is a lie.

[Crash]

Post by Rich80105
'No risk of civil war in NZ,' Luxon says
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has challenged Prime Minister Christopher
Luxon in the House on his support for the Treaty Principles Bill to
first reading, asking if he agreed with former prime minister Dame
Jenny Shipley's warning that politicizing the Treaty could "invite
civil war".
Luxon firmly rejected the claim, responding, "No, we are not at risk
of civil war in New Zealand. That is inflammatory language."
Hipkins pressed further, questioning why the Government had directed a
select committee to spend the next six months on the issue, to which
Luxon responded, "Because it is part of our coalition agreement."
Hipkins then accused the Government of putting political interests
ahead of the country, reiterating Shipley's warning: "This sort of
malicious, politically-motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to
politicize the Treaty in a new way should raise people’s voices,
because it is not in New Zealand’s immediate interest."
Luxon rejected the accusation, stating, "I don't believe it's linked
to fundraising."
Now the coalition agreement is able to be seen on the3. National Party
website, and it does not say that the select committee must get six
months on the issue - so the question is whether Luxon is lying,
incompetent, or hiding details of his cave-in to ACT.
Tough call, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt and
that the likely answer is incompetence . . .

Rich - you are posting nonsense. Your predecessor was one-eyed and
stooped low on occasion but never this low. Your whole post is pure
conjecture that has no skerrick of logic or fact.

Luxon is a political novice - that much is true - but he is making a
better fist of it with the coalition partners he had thrust on him by
the electorate. Hipkins on the other hand was in a hopeless position
when he was appointed PM by Labour - his 'policy bonfire' could not
include the political poison his predecessor had legislated before he
took over.

[Gordon]

Post by Rich80105
'No risk of civil war in NZ,' Luxon says
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has challenged Prime Minister Christopher
Luxon in the House on his support for the Treaty Principles Bill to
first reading, asking if he agreed with former prime minister Dame
Jenny Shipley's warning that politicizing the Treaty could "invite
civil war".
Luxon firmly rejected the claim, responding, "No, we are not at risk
of civil war in New Zealand. That is inflammatory language."
Hipkins pressed further, questioning why the Government had directed a
select committee to spend the next six months on the issue, to which
Luxon responded, "Because it is part of our coalition agreement."

It is also part of democracy. ACT had this in its menafesto, it got into the
coalition. Not it has/is being done.

The procedures are being followed, tossing them aside is starting on the
slippery slope.

This grievance is not going to go away, it needs to be addressed now.

Post by Rich80105
Hipkins then accused the Government of putting political interests
ahead of the country, reiterating Shipley's warning: "This sort of
malicious, politically-motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to
politicize the Treaty in a new way should raise people’s voices,
because it is not in New Zealand’s immediate interest."
Luxon rejected the accusation, stating, "I don't believe it's linked
to fundraising."
Now the coalition agreement is able to be seen on the3. National Party
website, and it does not say that the select committee must get six
months on the issue - so the question is whether Luxon is lying,
incompetent, or hiding details of his cave-in to ACT.
Tough call, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt and
that the likely answer is incompetence . . .

[Rich80105]

Post by Gordon

Post by Rich80105
'No risk of civil war in NZ,' Luxon says
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has challenged Prime Minister Christopher
Luxon in the House on his support for the Treaty Principles Bill to
first reading, asking if he agreed with former prime minister Dame
Jenny Shipley's warning that politicizing the Treaty could "invite
civil war".
Luxon firmly rejected the claim, responding, "No, we are not at risk
of civil war in New Zealand. That is inflammatory language."
Hipkins pressed further, questioning why the Government had directed a
select committee to spend the next six months on the issue, to which
Luxon responded, "Because it is part of our coalition agreement."

It is also part of democracy. ACT had this in its menafesto, it got into the
coalition. Not it has/is being done.
The procedures are being followed, tossing them aside is starting on the
slippery slope.

The six month sitting of the select committee may be in an ACT
manifesto, but it was not in the coalition agreement published by the
National Party, despite Luxon claiming that he has agreed to it
because it was. Very few bills need six months before they are either
passed or abandoned - this is merely a way in which Seymour can ignore
the wishes of a large majority of parliamentarians and of the public
to foment dissent in the hope that by following that part of Trumps
policies he may get a boost in votes for the next election. Why Luxon
is damaging the reputation of the National Party is not at all clear.

Post by Gordon
This grievance is not going to go away, it needs to be addressed now.

Grievances for actions contrary to the treaty have taken many many
years, and not all are yet resolved. Somebody claimed that the total
redress under those claims where wrings have been acknowledged is less
than the current government gifted to landlords in a tax change.

Post by Gordon

Post by Rich80105
Hipkins then accused the Government of putting political interests
ahead of the country, reiterating Shipley's warning: "This sort of
malicious, politically-motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to
politicize the Treaty in a new way should raise people?s voices,
because it is not in New Zealand?s immediate interest."
Luxon rejected the accusation, stating, "I don't believe it's linked
to fundraising."
Now the coalition agreement is able to be seen on the3. National Party
website, and it does not say that the select committee must get six
months on the issue - so the question is whether Luxon is lying,
incompetent, or hiding details of his cave-in to ACT.
Tough call, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt and
that the likely answer is incompetence . . .

[Crash]

Post by Rich80105

Post by Gordon

Post by Rich80105
'No risk of civil war in NZ,' Luxon says
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has challenged Prime Minister Christopher
Luxon in the House on his support for the Treaty Principles Bill to
first reading, asking if he agreed with former prime minister Dame
Jenny Shipley's warning that politicizing the Treaty could "invite
civil war".
Luxon firmly rejected the claim, responding, "No, we are not at risk
of civil war in New Zealand. That is inflammatory language."
Hipkins pressed further, questioning why the Government had directed a
select committee to spend the next six months on the issue, to which
Luxon responded, "Because it is part of our coalition agreement."

It is also part of democracy. ACT had this in its menafesto, it got into the
coalition. Not it has/is being done.
The procedures are being followed, tossing them aside is starting on the
slippery slope.

The six month sitting of the select committee may be in an ACT
manifesto, but it was not in the coalition agreement published by the
National Party, despite Luxon claiming that he has agreed to it
because it was. Very few bills need six months before they are either
passed or abandoned - this is merely a way in which Seymour can ignore
the wishes of a large majority of parliamentarians and of the public
to foment dissent in the hope that by following that part of Trumps
policies he may get a boost in votes for the next election. Why Luxon
is damaging the reputation of the National Party is not at all clear.

Submissions close January 7th 2025. To all intents and purposes what
happens after that is irrelevant as the Bill will be voted down at 2nd
reading no matter what the Select Committee comes up with. There may
be some useful material that comes to light if any political party
wants to revisit this issue in the future. National certainly will
not - they don't have the courage to do this.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Gordon
This grievance is not going to go away, it needs to be addressed now.

Grievances for actions contrary to the treaty have taken many many
years, and not all are yet resolved. Somebody claimed that the total
redress under those claims where wrings have been acknowledged is less
than the current government gifted to landlords in a tax change.

Who was that somebody? Returning to the status quo of before the last
Labour government imposed a targeted tax surcharge on landlords is not
a gift but putting right an injustice.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Gordon

Post by Rich80105
Hipkins then accused the Government of putting political interests
ahead of the country, reiterating Shipley's warning: "This sort of
malicious, politically-motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to
politicize the Treaty in a new way should raise people?s voices,
because it is not in New Zealand?s immediate interest."
Luxon rejected the accusation, stating, "I don't believe it's linked
to fundraising."
Now the coalition agreement is able to be seen on the3. National Party
website, and it does not say that the select committee must get six
months on the issue - so the question is whether Luxon is lying,
incompetent, or hiding details of his cave-in to ACT.
Tough call, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt and
that the likely answer is incompetence . . .

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105

Post by Gordon

Post by Rich80105
'No risk of civil war in NZ,' Luxon says
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has challenged Prime Minister Christopher
Luxon in the House on his support for the Treaty Principles Bill to
first reading, asking if he agreed with former prime minister Dame
Jenny Shipley's warning that politicizing the Treaty could "invite
civil war".
Luxon firmly rejected the claim, responding, "No, we are not at risk
of civil war in New Zealand. That is inflammatory language."
Hipkins pressed further, questioning why the Government had directed a
select committee to spend the next six months on the issue, to which
Luxon responded, "Because it is part of our coalition agreement."

It is also part of democracy. ACT had this in its menafesto, it got into the
coalition. Not it has/is being done.
The procedures are being followed, tossing them aside is starting on the
slippery slope.

The six month sitting of the select committee may be in an ACT
manifesto, but it was not in the coalition agreement published by the
National Party, despite Luxon claiming that he has agreed to it
because it was. Very few bills need six months before they are either
passed or abandoned - this is merely a way in which Seymour can ignore
the wishes of a large majority of parliamentarians and of the public
to foment dissent in the hope that by following that part of Trumps
policies he may get a boost in votes for the next election. Why Luxon
is damaging the reputation of the National Party is not at all clear.

That is not what he is doing, he is honouring an agreement. Simple really.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Gordon
This grievance is not going to go away, it needs to be addressed now.

Grievances for actions contrary to the treaty have taken many many
years, and not all are yet resolved. Somebody claimed that the total
redress under those claims where wrings have been acknowledged is less
than the current government gifted to landlords in a tax change.

Somebody is an idiot then.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Gordon

Post by Rich80105
Hipkins then accused the Government of putting political interests
ahead of the country, reiterating Shipley's warning: "This sort of
malicious, politically-motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to
politicize the Treaty in a new way should raise people?s voices,
because it is not in New Zealand?s immediate interest."
Luxon rejected the accusation, stating, "I don't believe it's linked
to fundraising."
Now the coalition agreement is able to be seen on the3. National Party
website, and it does not say that the select committee must get six
months on the issue - so the question is whether Luxon is lying,
incompetent, or hiding details of his cave-in to ACT.
Tough call, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt and
that the likely answer is incompetence . . .