Pages

Showing posts with label Tipa Mahuta. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tipa Mahuta. Show all posts

Sunday, November 6, 2022

Mike Butler: Three Waters constitutional racism


Now that we know that Three Waters is about power not water services, now is the time for the National Party to unite with ACT to block a constitutional change by stealth that would embed race-based governance.

A prompt reaction from iwi leaders on Wednesday to an alternative proposal for Three Waters from four mayors is evidence that the water services proposal is about power and not water quality.

The reaction came from Waikato-Tainui chair Tukoroirangi Morgan, who said "I don't know which world they belong to. This is 2022 Aotearoa New Zealand. This is about partnership."1

Friday, June 10, 2022

Graham Adams: Sister Act - Just how powerful will Tipa Mahuta be?


The response by Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson last week to questions about four members of Nanaia Mahuta’s family — including her sister — being appointed to taxpayer-funded positions was so lame it was impossible not to feel embarrassed on his behalf.

When David Seymour asked in Parliament if the appointments met the standards set out in the Cabinet Manual relating to ministers’ real or apparent conflicts of interest, Robertson resorted to the old chestnut, beloved by his leader, of rejecting the “premise of the question”.

He insisted that Nanaia Mahuta, the Minister of Local Government, had scrupulously followed official advice — ignoring the fact the Cabinet Manual makes it clear that following the rules won’t prevent apparent conflicts of interest from being damaging.

Friday, May 27, 2022

Graham Adams: Mahuta’s serious credibility problem


A response emailed from Nanaia Mahuta’s office to The Platform on Tuesday made it impossible not to think of the cynical quip reputedly made by German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck: “Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.”

On Tuesday, in a four-point response, Mahuta’s office denied she had any conflict of interest over the appointment of members of her family to government roles.

The first point was unequivocal: