Labour spin 100 day achievements

Slight irony here, but journalist Lloyd Burr (Newshub) is annoyed about Labour’s 100-day embellishment

It’s not a revelation that politicians embellish their achievements. It’s less usual to see journalists criticising rather than repeating their PR.

An email arrived into my inbox a few days ago with the subject line “We did this!”. It was from Labour, about its 100-day plan.

 

The email claimed the plan had been completed. And it mostly has. Mostly.

But the subject line didn’t read ‘We mostly did this!’. It shouted from the rooftop how Labour had proven itself in government.

It talked about how it had done what it had promised to do. It used words like “delivered”, “achieved” and “commitment”.

That’s called spin. It has massaged the truth. Massaged its promises. Embellished what has really happened in 100 days.

Burr details What Labour Has Not Achieved:

1. “Ban overseas speculators from buying existing houses”

It hasn’t banned them yet. It has just introduced a Bill that will ban them, but that Bill is months off from becoming law.

2. “Introduce legislation to make medicinal cannabis available for people with terminal illnesses or in chronic pain”

It has introduced changes to the law regarding medicinal cannabis, but those changes are minor and conservative. It won’t make products available to terminally ill and chronically ill patients. It will just prevent them from being prosecuted. The Prime Minister admits she would’ve liked more changes – but New Zealand First’s conservatism meant she couldn’t change the law properly.

3. “Hold a Clean Waters Summit on cleaning up our rivers and lakes”

This never happened. Winston Peters vetoed it.

4. “Set the zero carbon emissions goal and begin setting up the independent Climate Commission”

The target has not been set and it hasn’t begun setting up the independent Climate Commission. All that’s been announced is a period of public consultation on what the target should be and how the commission would be structured.

Other claimed ‘achievements’ are also debatable – the Government has set up inquiries and commissions as listed in  Taking action in our 100 day plan:

  • Begin work to establish the Affordable Housing Authority and begin the KiwiBuild programme
  • Set up a Ministerial Inquiry in order to fix our mental health crisis
  • Establish the Tax Working Group
  • Establish the Pike River Recovery Agency and assign a responsible Minister
  • Set up an inquiry into the abuse of children in state care

The Government has done what they said what they would do, but these are only starting points and there is no guarantee they will achieve much if anything in this term of government.

Some of those issues were promoted as needing urgent attention when Labour was in opposition. Now they have to wait until the Authority/Inquiry/Working Group/Agency report back to the Government, then the Government needs to decide what they will do, then they have to do it (if they can get it through Parliament).

Nine of the seventeen pledges are either not achieved or far from being achieved.

 

38 Comments

  1. PDB

     /  February 3, 2018

    Farrar has an alternative 100 days achievement list here: https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2018/02/the_achievements_of_the_governments_first_100_days.html

    *Announced a target for reducing child poverty that would be less than National achieved since 2011
    *Killed off the Kermadecs marine sanctuary
    *Delayed fishing monitoring which protects Maui’s dolphins
    *Jeopardised EU trade deal with move towards a deal with Russia
    *Introduced a law to allow party leaders to expel MPs from Parliament
    *Refused a law change to allow parents to share paid parental leave
    *Appointed fewer women Ministers than under National
    *Undermined Stats NZ neutrality
    *Upset Australia on Manus Island
    *Gossiped about Trump creating global headlines
    *Lied over the Speaker’s election
    *PM said capitalism was a blatant failure
    *Appointed a Minister for Children who is pro smacking
    *Appointed a Minister of Defence who wears unauthorised medals, even after being told not to
    *A Deputy PM who is suing media for exposing his welfare overpayments
    *Police Minister announced then backtracked on recruiting foreign police
    *Revenue Minister announced then backtracked on GST on small imports
    *Government claimed credit for ISDS exemption in TPP which actually were negotiated by National
    *An Acting PM unable to answer questions in House, and who is now hidden from public view
    *A Government that had to filibuster their own bills as they have no legislation ready

    • More like it.

      • PDB

         /  February 3, 2018

        Not to mention the amount of backtracking on election campaign policy in the first 100 days which has to be a record for a new govt.

    • Corky

       /  February 3, 2018

      *Appointed a Minister for Children who is pro smacking.”

      I like the sound of that. Just what little brat…i mean, kids, need. Surely not…common sense before PC?

  2. Blazer

     /  February 3, 2018

    hardly any of chrome domes assertions withstand any objective scrutiny….smacks of desperation…and a definition of ‘achievement’ that is ludicrous.

    • PDB

       /  February 3, 2018

      Apply the same logic to Labour’s 100 day claims and you just might be on to something Blazer…

  3. David

     /  February 3, 2018

    Good on Burr, we get the honeymoon period but Tracey Watkins and Claire Trevett almost look like they are trying to get the chief press secretary,s job when Munro steps down, the comments section are near universally scathing on Stuff which is hardly known for a right wing audience.
    I dont expect or really want a new inexperienced government to go hell for leather in the first 100 days especially when the economy has been rocking along quite nicely. The tertiary policy was rushed and didnt leave enough time given the number of education providers to negotiate properly. Families package is relatively straightforward but they havent really done anything else, well certainly not enough to call Ardern the second coming and not putting a foot wrong.

  4. robertguyton

     /  February 3, 2018

    Labour! Sitting in the seats of power, governing!! With NZFirst!!! And The Greens!!!!!

    Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Gezza

       /  February 3, 2018

      Wait’ll she has the baby & that clown is acting PM, & starts blthering all sorts of nonsense at Question Time that causes all sorts of embarrassments, arguments & problems for Labour & the Greens.

    • PDB

       /  February 3, 2018

      Robert: “governing!”

      Is that what it’s meant to be??

  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  February 3, 2018

    No worries, Robert. So long as Jacinda keeps doing nothing things won’t get too bad too fast. Be a bit of a worry if she lets Grant do anything though but I don’t think Winston will allow it.

  6. robertguyton

     /  February 3, 2018

    weka said:
    Minister for Climate Change and Green party leader James Shaw said his party was seeking to repeal the 2013 Amendment to the Crown Minerals Act which prohibits protest activities that interfere with seismic-blasting vessels.

    “The Green Party has always supported people’s right to non-violent protest,” he said on Thursday.

    “We’re absolutely seeking to repeal what we call the ‘Anadarko Amendment’. At the time we argued strongly that the existing trespass law be adequate and we would argue that continues to hold.”

    https://nz.news.yahoo.com/greens-seek-repeal-anti-oil-023101232.html

    • Gerrit

       /  February 3, 2018

      Wonder then if the Green party would like to see sections 21 and 22 removed from the Summary Offences Act. As well as the relevant sections 29 and 31.

      Remembering that a ship is the crews home and be considered as an invasion of privacy on private property.

      21 — Intimidation;

      (2) Every person commits an offence who forcibly hinders or prevents any person from working at or exercising any lawful trade, business, or occupation.
      (3) Every person who commits an offence against this section is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000

      22 — Obstructing Public Way

      (1) Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who, without reasonable excuse, obstructs any public way and, having been warned by a constable to desist,—
      (a) continues with that obstruction; or
      (b) does desist from that obstruction but subsequently obstructs that public way again, or some other public way in the same vicinity, in circumstances in which it is reasonable to deem the warning to have applied to the new obstruction as well as the original one.

      29 — Being found on property, etc, without reasonable excuse

      (1)Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 who is found without reasonable excuse—
      (a) in or on any building; or
      (b) in any enclosed yard or other such area; or
      (c) in or on board any aircraft, hovercraft, or ship or ferry or other vessel, train, or vehicle.

      (2) It is not necessary in a prosecution under this section for the prosecutor to prove that the defendant had an intention to commit any other offence, but it is a defence if the defendant satisfies the court that he had no such intention.

      (3) If any constable finds a person in any place referred to in subsection (1), without reasonable excuse but in circumstances that do not cause the constable to suspect an intention to commit any other offence, the constable may, instead of arresting him for an offence against subsection (1), warn that person to leave that place and, if the person refuses or fails to do so, he is liable to a fine not exceeding $500.

      31– Trespass on a ship

      Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $500 who (not being a member of the crew or a passenger or a person duly authorised by law to be on board), having been warned by the master or an officer of any ship or by any constable to leave the ship,—
      (a) refuses or fails to do so; or
      (b) leaves the ship, but returns or persists in attempting to return on board.

      http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0113/latest/whole.html#DLM53569

      • robertguyton

         /  February 3, 2018

        “Wonder then if the Green party would like to see sections 21 and 22 removed…?”
        Why not research what they are saying, Gerrit, rather than speculating wildly?
        In any case, their views are around protest and that’s a special set of circumstances.

        • Gerrit

           /  February 3, 2018

          Why don’t you enlighten us what the Greens are saying. I quoting the law as it stands in regards intimidation, obstruction, entering a confined area and trespass.

          Greens want a law repealed? Which one?

          Is protesting an activity above the law?

          • robertguyton

             /  February 3, 2018

            Gerrit asks:
            “Greens want a law repealed? Which one?”
            ‘Minister for Climate Change and Green party leader James Shaw said his party was seeking to repeal the 2013 Amendment to the Crown Minerals Act which prohibits protest activities that interfere with seismic-blasting vessels.’
            Did you not do any research yourself, Gerrit?
            Are you not interested in understanding the Green’s position?

            • Gerrit

               /  February 3, 2018

              The protesters were charged under the trespass section of the Summary Offences Act (section 29 and 31).

              “The five Greenpeace activists have been charged with unlawfully being on a ship and trespassing in New Plymouth District Court.”

              Read your own link, it is there in black and white.

              So claiming repeal of the 2013 Amendment to the Crown Mineral Act is going to do diddly squat.

              The Greens position is they want protestors to be able to break any number of laws irrespective of the rights of other people to go about their lawful business or protection from invasion of the private spaces.

              I understand the Greens position and dislike it immensely.

              No one is above the law. If you don’t like the law change it in parliament.

              Greens are wearing big boys pants now and sitting one row back from the throne (not quite in the door) so show some respect and knowledge of the law.

        • Gerrit

           /  February 3, 2018

          Mixed messages as expected from James Shaw. He wants the “draconian” anti protest law removed from the Crown Mineral Act. He claims that the trespass laws (as explained above) are more than adequate;.

          “We’re absolutely seeking to repeal what we call the ‘Anadarko Amendment’. At the time we argued strongly that the existing trespass law be adequate and we would argue that continues to hold.”

          Does he not understand that the law specifically mentions trespass on a ship not once but twice (sections 29 and 31)

          He is either ignorant of the law or obtuse in his press release.

          I guess the Green voter takes his word as gospel.

          • Gerrit

             /  February 3, 2018

            The Greens just dont understand the law. Section 101 of Crown Mineral Act 1991 refers to;

            101B– Interfering with structure or operation in offshore area

            (1) A person commits an offence if the person intentionally engages in conduct that results in—
            (a) damage to, or interference with, any structure or ship that is in an offshore area and that is, or is to be, used in mining operations or for the processing, storing, preparing for transporting, or transporting of minerals; or
            (b) damage to, or interference with, any equipment on, or attached to, such a structure or ship; or
            (c)i nterference with any operations or activities being carried out, or any works being executed, on, by means of, or in connection with such a structure or ship.

            http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0070/latest/whole.html#DLM246795

            Note that it specific refers to the vessel being in an offshore area.

            As the occupied vessel was in port the Summary Offences Act is used to prosecute offenders.

            The Greens might also like to review the UN convention for SOLAS (safety of lives at sea).

            Especially chapter 5 (Safety of navigation) and the new Chapter XI-2 – (Special measures to enhance maritime security).

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLAS_Convention.

  7. namron

     /  February 3, 2018

    I try very hard to agree with something [anything] in Robert Guyton’s comments, but find little logic, reasoning or sensible understanding of any situation in his prolific comments.
    With my Western Southland heritage I do a daily cringe as I know his views are not representative of the greater majority of other Rivertonians.
    namron

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  February 3, 2018

      I was concerned to discover he is an elected regional council member until I checked and found there are enough farmers there to provide the logic, reasoning and sensible understanding his output lacks. Mostly it is quite safe to ignore him, namron.

      • Blazer

         /  February 3, 2018

        if he’s elected it gives a lie to normans contention that his views are not…popular.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  February 3, 2018

          I presume the electorate is bigger than Riverton.

          • PartisanZ

             /  February 4, 2018

            Why would farmers necessarily “provide logic, reasoning and sensible understanding …”?

            Nothing against farmers per se, but they are surely a vested interest group par excellence, providing the economic only logic, business only reasoning and biased understanding of a central pillar of the ‘wealth & power’ contingent of NZ politics?

            • robertguyton

               /  February 4, 2018

              PartisanZ – good question and you’ve not even used the word “conflict”.

    • robertguyton

       /  February 3, 2018

      Norman, don’t be silly, of course you understand what I’m saying!
      Blazer – thanks for your perceptive comment – if fact, I’ve been elected to the role of councillor 3 times now! Incredible! What are Southlanders thinking ???
      Oddly enough, my support increases as time goes by and I’m not backward in expressing my views in public. Alan, good point; Riverton is not where I draw my political support from; that said, I have many friends here and they are excellent people, all.

    • robertguyton

       /  February 3, 2018

      “I try very hard to agree with something [anything] in Robert Guyton’s comments”
      In any case, namron, thanks for trying.

  8. Jacinda handles press with aplomb up North with smooth but vague answers & a tuff question. See video clip.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/101152780/jacinda-ardern-welcomed-by-hundreds-in-kretu–10-years-after-helen-clark-visited

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  February 3, 2018

      Pity Jacinda didn’t continue on to the next marae, Waikare. She would have discovered that Karetu is the end of the sealed road and that the alternative to taking the ferry to Russell is still a corrugated, windy and hilly shingle road. Perhaps she would really have taken on board the need for decent roading infrastructure north of Auckland.

      • Gezza

         /  February 3, 2018

        Well she may do Al. Looks to me like she’s taking the time to have a good look around & a fair bit of listening. Dunno if you watched the video but I think it’s dawning on her the task of delivering jobs & development for Maori up there is bigger than she anticipated. She’s very non-commital at this stage, beyond agreeing there might be some jobs in forestry & tourism.

        But at least she’s taking the time to check the place out.

      • robertguyton

         /  February 4, 2018

        Is she wearing a tiki-on-a-stick t-shirt and dragging a young Maori boy around with her?

        • Gezza

           /  February 4, 2018

          Didn’t see one on the video. Why? Do you think she should?

          • robertguyton

             /  February 4, 2018

            Works for some…in the short-term.

            • Gezza

               /  February 4, 2018

              You could email her your suggestion maybe, but I don’t think she’ll go for it, personally.

            • robertguyton

               /  February 4, 2018

              Mine wasn’t a suggestion, Gezza, it was a question and in any case, she’s not so flakey.

          • Pickled Possum

             /  February 4, 2018

            Arvo Gez I have a chit hat to Jacinda when I go over to Waitangi I’ll ask her if she needs a token Maori could I be in the running. I will hunt out my tiki tane tee shirt, just in case😉

            • robertguyton

               /  February 4, 2018

              Did you start out life in McGehan Close, Pickled Possum? It’d give you a head-start on any ambition to accompany a Prime Minister to Waitangi.

      • Blazer

         /  February 4, 2018

        would a sealed road right to your door…suffice?