When populists cannot be tamed
On June 3, the right-wing populist Geert Wilders destroyed the government he helped create just 11 months ago. His Party for Freedom withdrew support.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
15 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Leary dignified as sun sets on her Bill — and gains unlikely fan
Ingrid Leary. Photo: RNZ Taieri Labour MP Ingrid Leary is proud of her Dutch heritage. On Wednesday she must have had a feeling akin to that which the Netherlands rugby team might have if it were ever to line up against the All Blacks ... knowing that you have to run out on the field but that you are going to get absolutely pummelled. At which point, you either fold up or fight your darndest — and Leary opted for the latter. Back on July 16, during the most recent Members' Day, the House managed to sneak in the first couple of speeches on Leary's Property Law (Sunset Clauses) Amendment Bill. This Bill, if passed (spoiler alert ... things did not go well for Leary) would have amended the Property Law Act so that house buyers would have to give their consent if vendors wanted to rescind their sale and purchase agreement under a sunset clause. Despite it being a well-intentioned and arguably sensible layer of added protection for people buying homes off the plans, it become all too apparent that all three governing parties were going to vote against it. But things were not all doom and gloom for Leary. As well as the sunset clauses Bill, Leary also has the Retirement Villages (Fairer Repayments) Amendment Bill in the Members' Bill ballot, which — if drawn and enacted — would require retirement villages to greatly accelerate the timeframe to repay residents or their families any money owed to them if the resident moved to higher care levels or died. This proposed law change is not a million miles away from what the government is eventually going to do in this space anyway ... and the reason why we know that the government is likely to enact a law like Leary's in the future is because last week someone leaked One News a recording of Tauranga National MP Sam Uffindell speaking at an unspecified time and place in a manner which seemed to endorse Leary's endeavours in this space. "Ingrid Leary ... has quite cunningly put forward a members' Bill which would address some of this. And she's savvy enough to have garnered up a lot of attention around retirement villages," Uffindell said. "And so that's in the pipeline as well. We need to arrest or take the key parts out of that [which] are workable and make sure we build that into something." Uffindell then revealed — over pizza and Pepsi Max — that Prime Minister Christopher Luxon had raised issues concerning retirement villages with a group of backbench MPs, including himself. He further offered some electoral spice to the mix by adding: "Importantly, it needs to go through the House before the end of this term, because if it hasn't, we're going to have a whole bunch of disgruntled people and retirement villages who all vote and all talk to each other about it. Who will go, 'oh, National hasn't actually delivered and Labour was going to do this'." Oh dear. And just to add hot sauce to an already piquant piece of audio, One News asked Uffindell, and the PM, about his backbencher's reckons the other Thursday, while Luxon was on a visit to Tauranga. Back to this Wednesday, when a somewhat embarrassed government made little effort to defend itself for not backing Leary's sunset clauses Bill, National sending out first-term backbenchers Rima Nakhle and Hamish Campbell to take up 10 minutes of our lives that no-one is ever getting back in speaking on the Bill. Nakhle did at least say that she understood that Leary was trying to protect consumers from bad-faith developers, before taking a wide tangent to extol the natural beauties of her Takanini electorate; but who knows what Campbell was on about in a, frankly, incoherent offering which had very little to do with Leary's Bill — or anything else. Labour, knowing it was beat, opted to make the most of it and have some fun with the government's discomfiture on the subject of Leary's other Members' Bill. "This Bill introduced by Ingrid Leary, who I want to actually acknowledge — she's doing tremendous work in this area," Labour Housing spokesman Kieran McAnulty extolled. "She's doing tremendous work in the area of retirement villages. Sam Uffindell is a fan. Sam Uffindell recognises that Ingrid Leary is doing tremendous work. "I think deep down, Sam Uffindell recognises that Ingrid Leary is doing tremendous work in the area of sunset causes. I have a suspicion that there are a few of them over there that deep down would actually quite like to support this Bill, but they've been whipped. They've been whipped and told that they cannot support this Bill." When the fall is all that's left it matters a great deal how one falls, and in her concluding speech Leary's buried her Bill with dignity. "It's been a real privilege to be able to have this reading on my Bill, and I want to acknowledge my late mother for her Leary luck in getting my Bill drawn. It's continuing even after her departure, so thanks very much, Mum," she said. "I can feel the sun setting on my sunset clauses Bill ... it's such a shame that the government members won't support it in its first reading, because if they had, I think they would find, actually, there would be many property developers who would support this Bill because they do not want to be tarnished by the reputation of a few bad apples. That's certainly been the experience in Australia, where their equivalent Bill was overwhelmingly supported ... That's, I'm sure, what would have happened here, but, sadly, we won't get that chance." Leary then put in a plug for her other Bill, stressing that yet again she was trying to protect the little guy or gal against the big players. "I note that this legislation has worked very well in Australia. I am going to let the sun set on it now — it's the last gasp — but don't worry, we've got the Retirement Villages (Fairer Repayments) Amendment Bill and you still have a chance to support that, National Party members." Well, at least Leary knows that she has one likely backer.
Otago Daily Times
4 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Sir Ian Taylor: Do we really need this passport debate?
OPINION: Sir Ian Taylor has penned a letter to Foreign Minister Winston Peters. Kia ora Winston , I know we still haven't managed to have that long-promised lunch to unpack the true meaning of the term woke which, given your political instincts, I suspect you secretly enjoy throwing around just to keep everyone on their toes. But before we sit down over a steaming plate of puha to have that kōrero, (see what I did there) I was wondering if I could add another topic to the agenda: the use of Māori on the New Zealand passport. It seems, somehow, that the order of two words on a travel document now ranks among the great political battlegrounds of our time. Forget the cost-of-living crisis. Forget child poverty. Forget the price of butter which, somehow, has become a handy distraction from the real costs hitting household budgets. Rent, insurance, petrol, electricity, rates. You know, those things we don't have any option about paying. And that's what's confusing me. I find it difficult to believe that in times like those we are currently facing, what matters most to you, and Brooke van Velden, is whether our passports say New Zealand Aotearoa or Aotearoa New Zealand . I know Brooke won't be coming to share kai with us (sorry did it again) but there is a bit to discuss here don't you think? You and I both travel. I've got the older passport that leads with New Zealand . My son has the updated version that begins with Aotearoa . And miraculously, we both manage to get through international border controls all over the world. In the last month that included, Dubai, Paris, Lisbon, Seville, Belfast and Dublin. No panic. No confusion. Just a couple of kiwi travellers doing what travellers do. Handing over our passports to show where we come from. So, if no one at the border seems to care which name comes first, is this really the debate we need to be having here in Aotearoa New Zealand? Maybe when we do sit down for that lunch, we could have a better one: where did the name New Zealand come from in the first place? Our national identity is quite literally borrowed from a country on the other side of the world that has no historical, cultural, or geographical connection to us, at all. When Abel Tasman who, it's worth pointing out never even set foot on these shores, spotted the coastline in 1642 he didn't ask the local inhabitants what they called the land. Those inhabitants just happened to be yours and my Polynesian ancestors who landed here hundreds of years before Tasman made it to this, the land of the long white cloud. No, instead Dutch cartographers back in Europe dubbed it Nova Zeelandia , after their own province of Zeeland. A flat, soggy region famous for its' windmills, dykes, cheese, tulips and canals. Not a single Pohutukawa tree in sight. I don't know about you, but I'm not sure windmills and cheese wheels quite capture the essence of who we are. And yet somehow, this adopted name, bestowed by men who didn't even disembark, has become sacrosanct to some, while Aotearoa , a name used to describe this land for centuries before Tasman turned up, is treated by some as irrelevant, with little or no place in our history. But I do think you and I will be able to find a few things in common when we get to this part of our korero. I actually don't know why the order on the passport was changed in the first place. I quite like the old cover on my passport, where Aotearoa sits below New Zealand. In fact, one could argue that having Aotearoa beneath New Zealand is symbolic. That it reflects the foundation, the whenua, on which this nation was built. Recognising that Aotearoa was here first and we built a new nation, together, on top of that foundation. I hope you don't think that is too woke of me. This isn't just about your argument to change it back. The same argument could have, and perhaps should have, been made when someone decided to make the first change. But now it's become an ideological battle, not a discussion. It's less about identity and more about headlines. But surely this is not a debate that belongs on the front pages, and certainly not in Parliament's time. It looks like a turf war between two minority parties fighting over the same narrow band of voters. Voters you both need to stay above that 5% barrier that, in the current MMP environment, gives minority parties, on both sides, far more power than was ever intended. A power that has led to a growing division between us that will ultimately weaken us as a nation the world looks up to. If you're looking for what a modern, unified New Zealand looks like, I suggest you go back and watch Michaela Sokolich-Beatson's post-match speech after the Northern Mystics v Tactix netball final last weekend. Michaela spoke beautifully, switching naturally between English and te reo Māori. It was moving, eloquent and powerful. It showed that both languages, both cultures, are now a part of who she is. And then her team delivered a haka. When Michaela Sokolich-Beatson and her team stood after their loss and delivered that haka, it wasn't a challenge. In Māori culture it's a gesture of honour and pride. A way to acknowledge their opponents, their teammates, and the community they represent. It was powerful because it wasn't about the scoreboard, it was about identity, unity, and respect. That haka didn't just mark the end of a match. It marked who we are now. So, Winston, about that lunch. Let's talk woke . Let's talk passports. But more importantly, let's talk about how we shift the focus back to the real work that needs doing, on both sides of the House.
Scoop
23-07-2025
- Scoop
ICJ Climate Ruling: Will The World's Top Court Back A Pacific-led Call To Hold Govts Accountable For Climate Change?
By , for RNZ Pacific in The Hague In 2019, a group of students at the University of the South Pacific, frustrated at the slow pace with which the world's governments were moving to address the climate crisis, had an idea: they would take the world's governments to court. They arranged a meeting with government ministers in Vanuatu and convinced them to take a case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations' top court, where they would seek an opinion to clarify countries' legal obligations under international law. Six years after that idea was hatched in a classroom in Port Vila, the court will on Wednesday (early Thursday morning NZT) deliver its verdict in the Dutch city of The Hague. If successful - and those involved are quietly confident they will be - it could have major ramifications for international law, how climate change disputes are litigated, and it could give small Pacific countries greater leverage in arguments around loss and damage. Most significantly, the claimants argue, it could establish legal consequences for countries that have driven climate change and what they owe to people harmed. "Six long years of campaigning have led us to this moment," Vishal Prasad, the president of Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, the organisation formed of those original students, said. "For too long, international responses have fallen short. We expect a clear and authoritative declaration," he said. "[That] climate inaction is not just a failure of policy, but a breach of international law." More than 100 countries - including New Zealand, Australia and all the countries of the Pacific - have testified before the court, alongside civil society and intergovernmental organisations. And now, on Wednesday (Thursday NZT), they will gather in the brick palace that sits in ornate gardens in this canal-ringed city, to hear if the judges of the world's top court agree. What is the case? The ICJ adjudicates disputes between nations and issues advisory opinions on big international legal issues. In this case, Vanuatu asked the UN General Assembly to ask the judges to weigh what, exactly, international law requires states to do about climate change, and what the consequences should be for states that harm the climate through actions or omissions. Over its deliberations, the court has heard from more than 100 countries and international organisations hoping to influence its opinion, the highest level of participation in the court's history. That has included the governments of low-lying islands and atolls in the Pacific, who said they are paying the steepest price for a crisis they had little role in creating. These nations have long been frustrated with the current mechanisms for addressing climate change, like the UN COP conferences, and are hoping that, ultimately, the court will provide a yardstick by which to measure other countries' actions. "I choose my words carefully when I say that this may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity," Vanuatu's minister for climate change Ralph Regenvanu said in his statement to the court last year. "Let us not allow future generations to look back and wonder why the cause of their doom was condoned." But major powers and emitters, like the United States and China, have argued in their testimonies that existing UN agreements, such as the Paris climate accord, are sufficient to address climate change. "We expect this landmark climate ruling, grounded in binding international law, to reflect the critical legal flashpoints raised during the proceedings," Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the US-based Centre for International Environmental Law (which has been involved with the case), said. "Among them: whether States' climate obligations are anchored in multiple legal sources, extending far beyond the Paris Agreement; whether there is a right to remedy for climate harm; and how human rights and the precautionary principle define States' climate obligations." What could this mean? Rulings from the ICJ are non-binding, and there are myriad cases of international law being flouted by countries the world over. Still, the court's opinion - if it falls in Vanuatu's favour - could still have major ramifications, bolstering the case for linking human rights and climate change in legal proceedings - both international and domestic - and potentially opening the floodgates for climate litigation, where individuals, groups, Indigenous Peoples, and even countries, sue governments or private companies for climate harm. An advisory opinion would also be a powerful precedent for legislators and judges to call on as they tackle questions related to the climate crisis, and give small countries a powerful cudgel in negotiations over future COP agreements and other climate mechanisms. "This would empower vulnerable nations and communities to demand accountability, strengthen legal arguments and negotiations and litigation and push for policies that prioritise prevention and redress over delay and denial," Prasad said. In essence, those who have taken the case have asked the court to issue an opinion on whether governments have "legal obligations" to protect people from climate hazards, but also whether a failure to meet those obligations could bring "legal consequences." At the Peace Palace at 3pm on Wednesday, they will find out from the court's 15 judges. "[The advisory opinion] is not just a legal milestone, it is a defining moment in the global climate justice movement and a beacon of hope for present and future generations," Vanuatu Prime Minister Jotham Napat said in a statement ahead of Wednesday's decision. "I am hopeful for a powerful opinion from the ICJ. It could set the world on a meaningful path to accountability and action."
