Latest news with #ACT
ABC News
17 minutes ago
- Business
- ABC News
Canberra builder says his life's work is 'tarnished' over orders to pay home owners almost $25,000
A Canberra builder has told the ABC his reputation has been been "tarnished" and he was forced to close his business after ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) findings against him. The matter relates to a new home build in Throsby in Canberra's north, with the homeowners successfully suing the building company they engaged which belongs to David Ryan. The builder was known as Wombat Hillton Pty Ltd, trading as David Reid Homes ACT, when the homeowners first engaged the company in 2018 — but the tribunal's report noted the business name had changed in 2020 to David Ryan Homes. Mr Ryan, who has since retired, said he has "nothing to hide" after a career in which he said he prided himself on "his detail, costings and transparency". "I can't sell the business now. I've closed the business down. I can't sell it because of this case and the bad name caused by ACAT to my business," Mr Ryan said. In the proceedings, the burden of proof fell to the homeowners, meaning they had to convince the tribunal of their claims on the balance of probabilities. The tribunal heard a number of disputes between the homeowners and Mr Ryan's previous building company had surfaced by early 2019. Those issues prompted the couple to hire an independent building consultant to "assist in the handover" of their new home. The homeowners had also complained to Access Canberra which investigated the complaints and found that there were "defects associated with the construction of the premises". That resulted in two rectification orders, with the latter in March 2023 listing a number of defects, including water ingress into bedrooms, the kitchen and an ensuite, faulty door seals, and overdriven roofing screws. Mr Ryan argued the water was leaking into the home only through cables that were installed by a solar company post-construction. He asked the tribunal to review the rectification orders but discontinued that action after preparing a program of works which were accepted. But that's not where the dispute ended. In mid 2024, the homeowners sued the builder for compensation, costs and damages, "including building consultant and expert report fees". The applicants claimed they were owed more than $25,000 but "compromised the value of the claim" so it could sit within ACAT's monetary jurisdiction. Mr Ryan responded by denying the claims and made a counter claim against the homeowners of $15,000 on top of his tribunal filing fees. He went on to withdraw that counter claim but reiterated his company's "denial of liability". Mr Ryan submitted to the tribunal that the homeowners paid for a consultant of their own volition and not because they were required to by authorities. The tribunal agreed. He also argued he had complied with the rectification order and said his program of works was approved by the relevant authorities. He insisted there was no evidence to begin with that supported claims of improper cladding installation. 'There was a small chip ... one tiny scratch which you couldn't see from three metres away," Mr Ryan said. "And one sheet was put on back-to-front during construction. Two years it sat there facing the street and no one knew about it. 'Somehow, someone picked it up and we replaced that sheet ... it was done.' But the applicants had submitted that "panels were installed backwards; there was improper fastener placement; bowing or cupping of the panels and that the panels were damaged". "Although the respondent has attempted some rectification, the applicants alleged ongoing problems caused by the respondent's acts during the attempted rectification," the tribunal member added. Mr Ryan did not accept those findings. ACAT has ordered Mr Ryan's building company to pay the homeowners $24,584 which includes rectification costs for damages to cladding. The amount also covers variations to what was agreed upon, including window, skylight and hot water system positions. But Mr Ryan argued the clients had not given selections for the placements of many elements and they kept changing their minds. "If the client doesn't give their selections, we rely on estimates and allowances that we leave during construction," Mr Ryan said. "During construction, the client changed on changed on changed everything, over and over and over. In fact, we were getting three to four phone calls every day," he said. "The whole home was changed with the best you could put in it … and the home came to ... 60 or 70 thousand dollars above what we were allowing for." In their considerations, the tribunal member remarked that "building a home is a costly and often stressful event for clients and builders". "The builder has a multitude of complex tasks to perform, and the client has a multitude of complex choices to make on fixtures and fittings whilst maintaining their budget. "Builder and client relationships can become strained or even fail entirely." The tribunal member said it would be "ideal" if parties could resolve their disputes but acknowledged that in cases such as this, it was not always possible. The builder has 28 days to pay the amount.
Scoop
a day ago
- Politics
- Scoop
David Seymour And The Political Left
If there was a most prolific blogger while still being consistently thought-provoking award it would be hard to beat Bomber (Martyn) Bradbury and his The Daily Blog ( TDB ). His writing is turbo-charged and opinionated but underpinned by powerful compassion … If there was a 'most prolific blogger while still being consistently thought-provoking' award it would be hard to beat Bomber (Martyn) Bradbury and his The Daily Blog (TDB). His writing is turbo-charged and opinionated but underpinned by powerful compassion and a strong sense of both justice and outrage towards injustice. For me he has been an acquired taste. It took a while and had its moments, but the acquiring proved to be a fascinating journey with the taste acquisition destination reached. I have also appreciated that he republishes my health system (Otaihanga Second Opinion) and politics (Political Bytes) blogs in TDB. He doesn't pull his punches. Occasionally he misses his target but more often he succeeds. He never leaves one wondering what he means. More importantly he invariably raises serious questions which deserve to be addressed. A recent case in point was his 3 July post concerning the challenge of ACT leader and current Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour to the political left in Aotearoa New Zealand: Can the left beat David Seymour and ACT. There are few questions more politically pertinent than this. As Bradbury observes, Seymour has, since 2014, taken ACT from less than 1% to, depending on which poll, a little under or over 10%. However, I have two points of disagreement – TDB's comments on 'woke' and what it means by being leftwing. 'Woke', identity politics and the absence of nuance TDB attributes in part David Seymour's and ACT's relative electoral success to the left allowing itself to be distracted by what it calls 'middle class woke Identity Politics'. I discussed this disagreement over 'woke' in an earlier post (9 October 2023): Structure and superstructure. I considered Bomber Bradbury's then published views on 'woke' too blunt and lacking nuance. Instead I advocated that identity and class politics are better understood in the context of the relationship between structure and superstructure. My criticism was that his argument: …counterposes economic discrimination and oppression to its other forms; it's either class or identity politics! This approach ignores nuance, complexity and layered relationships. In fact, these politics have overlapping layers. The use of the terms 'structure' and 'superstructure' are helpful in this respect. In this context the structure based on the mode and relations of production. Class is defined by its relationship to this production mode. The superstructure, on the other hand, incorporates the various belief systems and ideologies that help rationalise what people do and think (and why), including the law, education systems and religion. This superstructure also includes other forms of discrimination and oppression such as race, sex, sexual orientation and transgender. Sometimes it also includes religion. They exist in a largely capitalist world. But they aren't products of capitalism. They existed in earlier forms of class societies for centuries. It is legitimate to locate them in a superstructure but with an important qualification. To differing degrees, they interact with the underlying structure. Sometimes it is to the extent that it becomes difficult to differentiate. It is these 'superstructural' forms of discrimination and oppression that get labelled as identity politics. The point is not so much the label but whether they are counterposed to class discrimination and oppression or run alongside it, sometimes reinforcing and interactively. A word that should never have been invented A year later (13 April 2024) I discussed 'woke' in the context of a wider discourse on sectarianism: From French Revolution to 'woke'. I concluded by observing that: In my view the word 'woke' should never have been invented….Politics in New Zealand would benefit from a healthy debate on the relationship between class and identity politics. I regard them as interconnected and supplementary rather than opposites. Bomber Bradbury's argument about 'woke' would be strengthened by dropping the term completely (leave it to the political right; it's their political plaything) and instead articulate a more nuanced narrative about identity and class politics. He could take a leaf out of West Indian socialist intellectual and cricket commentator CLR James' 'book' who famously said 'what do they know of cricket if cricket is all that they know'. This could then be turned into 'what do they know of identity politics if identity politics is all that they know'. This could be similarly adapted for class politics. What is leftwing My second disagreement is when TDB refers to the political left in New Zealand it means the Labour Party, Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Unfortunately most of the commentary in the mainstream media around leftwing and rightwing is along the lines that one is what the other isn't; one ends where the other starts and vice versa. This becomes at best bland or meaningless and at worse absurd. Even more unfortunately TDB is uncharacteristically consistent with this mainstream media paradigm. I discussed this question well over two years ago in Political Bytes (30 April 2023): What being leftwing really means. I said that: One way of looking at differentiating between the political left and right is a continuum between collective responsibility and individual responsibility. This leads into the role of the state and to questions over whether healthcare access and educational opportunities, for example, are a right or privilege to one degree or another. …It isn't a bad way of looking at what is left-wing and what isn't. However, it is not enough. We can to better than this. Being left-wing has to be seen in the context of the material system that governs our daily lives. Today in New Zealand, and for the overwhelming majority of the planet, it is capitalism. Wealth accumulation the main driver of capitalism After discussing capitalism's prime driver (limitless wealth accumulation) I observed that: Being left-wing is about wanting to end, or even significantly curtail, the dynamic of wealth accumulation as a driver of societies. This might be through evolutionary or revolutionary means. But what it does require is transformational change. There is a good argument that both the Greens and Te Pāti Māori are transformational (or at least significantly so) this can not be said of the Labour Party. Writing in the context of Labour then being in government, I commented that: Transformational is what the current Labour Party in government is not. It is a political party not of the left but instead of social liberal technocrats with some collectivist impulses. Social liberal values are good and the political left benefits from sharing them. In fact, many people on the political right also share these same values (or at least some of them). In conclusion: …social liberalism of itself does not transform a society which, more than anything else, has wealth accumulation as its dynamic. …The political left needs to expressly differentiate itself from social liberalism in order to overtly focus on economic (as well as social) justice and protecting nature from the ravages of wealth accumulation. If the term 'left-wing' is to mean anything other than not being right-wing or just having some collectivist impulses, then this needs to happen. Bomber's aim nevertheless deadly accurate In his own expressive literary way, however, TDB is right on the mark in describing the effectiveness and interconnections of the hard rightwing Taxpayers' Union, New Zealand Initiative and Atlas Network. TDB is correct in identifying the high level of their lobbying power, particularly through social media describing them as a '…stable of astroturf organisations to generate lobbyist talking points camouflaged as the opinion of the people.' Bomber Bradbury's most telling point, however, is his assessment of David Seymour describing the latter as '… a philosopher before he is a politician and he believes in a far right libertarian economic platform…' Elsewhere he has approvingly quoted leading Labour MP Willie Watson who has described Seymour has the most dangerous MP in Parliament. Again he is on the mark. The reason behind this assessment is that Seymour is a conviction politician; a hard right libertarian. It does not mean that he isn't contradictory. For example, whereas a libertarian might be expected to support small business, Seymour and ACT have a strong orientation to big business, including as donors, with all its consequential anti-libertarian monopolistic traits. But it contrasts with the prevailing opportunism traits of both Christopher Luxon and Winston Peters. Opportunism allows the ability to bend and change somewhat; conviction much less so. In Bomber Bradbury's forthright manner he concludes: The Left [sic] have underestimated Seymour for too long. They need to engage with him in a completely different way and understand they need to push back by offering better solutions and by defining him far more ruthlessly when they do attack him. I agree although I would put it this way. The far right speak in slogans, the rightwing speak in sentences, the leftwing speak in paragraphs, and the far left speak in footnotes. This gives the political right a big advantage. To counter this the political left (plus social liberal technocrats) need to express themselves in plain language sentences that are also translatable into good soundbites.
Scoop
a day ago
- Politics
- Scoop
David Seymour And The Political Left
If there was a 'most prolific blogger while still being consistently thought-provoking' award it would be hard to beat Bomber (Martyn) Bradbury and his The Daily Blog (TDB). His writing is turbo-charged and opinionated but underpinned by powerful compassion and a strong sense of both justice and outrage towards injustice. For me he has been an acquired taste. It took a while and had its moments, but the acquiring proved to be a fascinating journey with the taste acquisition destination reached. I have also appreciated that he republishes my health system (Otaihanga Second Opinion) and politics (Political Bytes) blogs in TDB. He doesn't pull his punches. Occasionally he misses his target but more often he succeeds. He never leaves one wondering what he means. More importantly he invariably raises serious questions which deserve to be addressed. A recent case in point was his 3 July post concerning the challenge of ACT leader and current Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour to the political left in Aotearoa New Zealand: Can the left beat David Seymour and ACT. There are few questions more politically pertinent than this. As Bradbury observes, Seymour has, since 2014, taken ACT from less than 1% to, depending on which poll, a little under or over 10%. However, I have two points of disagreement – TDB's comments on 'woke' and what it means by being leftwing. 'Woke', identity politics and the absence of nuance TDB attributes in part David Seymour's and ACT's relative electoral success to the left allowing itself to be distracted by what it calls 'middle class woke Identity Politics'. I discussed this disagreement over 'woke' in an earlier post (9 October 2023): Structure and superstructure. I considered Bomber Bradbury's then published views on 'woke' too blunt and lacking nuance. Instead I advocated that identity and class politics are better understood in the context of the relationship between structure and superstructure. My criticism was that his argument: …counterposes economic discrimination and oppression to its other forms; it's either class or identity politics! This approach ignores nuance, complexity and layered relationships. In fact, these politics have overlapping layers. The use of the terms 'structure' and 'superstructure' are helpful in this respect. In this context the structure based on the mode and relations of production. Class is defined by its relationship to this production mode. The superstructure, on the other hand, incorporates the various belief systems and ideologies that help rationalise what people do and think (and why), including the law, education systems and religion. This superstructure also includes other forms of discrimination and oppression such as race, sex, sexual orientation and transgender. Sometimes it also includes religion. They exist in a largely capitalist world. But they aren't products of capitalism. They existed in earlier forms of class societies for centuries. It is legitimate to locate them in a superstructure but with an important qualification. To differing degrees, they interact with the underlying structure. Sometimes it is to the extent that it becomes difficult to differentiate. It is these 'superstructural' forms of discrimination and oppression that get labelled as identity politics. The point is not so much the label but whether they are counterposed to class discrimination and oppression or run alongside it, sometimes reinforcing and interactively. A word that should never have been invented A year later (13 April 2024) I discussed 'woke' in the context of a wider discourse on sectarianism: From French Revolution to 'woke'. I concluded by observing that: In my view the word 'woke' should never have been invented….Politics in New Zealand would benefit from a healthy debate on the relationship between class and identity politics. I regard them as interconnected and supplementary rather than opposites. Bomber Bradbury's argument about 'woke' would be strengthened by dropping the term completely (leave it to the political right; it's their political plaything) and instead articulate a more nuanced narrative about identity and class politics. He could take a leaf out of West Indian socialist intellectual and cricket commentator CLR James' 'book' who famously said 'what do they know of cricket if cricket is all that they know'. This could then be turned into 'what do they know of identity politics if identity politics is all that they know'. This could be similarly adapted for class politics. What is leftwing My second disagreement is when TDB refers to the political left in New Zealand it means the Labour Party, Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Unfortunately most of the commentary in the mainstream media around leftwing and rightwing is along the lines that one is what the other isn't; one ends where the other starts and vice versa. This becomes at best bland or meaningless and at worse absurd. Even more unfortunately TDB is uncharacteristically consistent with this mainstream media paradigm. I discussed this question well over two years ago in Political Bytes (30 April 2023): What being leftwing really means. I said that: One way of looking at differentiating between the political left and right is a continuum between collective responsibility and individual responsibility. This leads into the role of the state and to questions over whether healthcare access and educational opportunities, for example, are a right or privilege to one degree or another. …It isn't a bad way of looking at what is left-wing and what isn't. However, it is not enough. We can to better than this. Being left-wing has to be seen in the context of the material system that governs our daily lives. Today in New Zealand, and for the overwhelming majority of the planet, it is capitalism. Wealth accumulation the main driver of capitalism After discussing capitalism's prime driver (limitless wealth accumulation) I observed that: Being left-wing is about wanting to end, or even significantly curtail, the dynamic of wealth accumulation as a driver of societies. This might be through evolutionary or revolutionary means. But what it does require is transformational change. There is a good argument that both the Greens and Te Pāti Māori are transformational (or at least significantly so) this can not be said of the Labour Party. Writing in the context of Labour then being in government, I commented that: Transformational is what the current Labour Party in government is not. It is a political party not of the left but instead of social liberal technocrats with some collectivist impulses. Social liberal values are good and the political left benefits from sharing them. In fact, many people on the political right also share these same values (or at least some of them). In conclusion: …social liberalism of itself does not transform a society which, more than anything else, has wealth accumulation as its dynamic. …The political left needs to expressly differentiate itself from social liberalism in order to overtly focus on economic (as well as social) justice and protecting nature from the ravages of wealth accumulation. If the term 'left-wing' is to mean anything other than not being right-wing or just having some collectivist impulses, then this needs to happen. Bomber's aim nevertheless deadly accurate In his own expressive literary way, however, TDB is right on the mark in describing the effectiveness and interconnections of the hard rightwing Taxpayers' Union, New Zealand Initiative and Atlas Network. TDB is correct in identifying the high level of their lobbying power, particularly through social media describing them as a '…stable of astroturf organisations to generate lobbyist talking points camouflaged as the opinion of the people.' Bomber Bradbury's most telling point, however, is his assessment of David Seymour describing the latter as '… a philosopher before he is a politician and he believes in a far right libertarian economic platform…' Elsewhere he has approvingly quoted leading Labour MP Willie Watson who has described Seymour has the most dangerous MP in Parliament. Again he is on the mark. The reason behind this assessment is that Seymour is a conviction politician; a hard right libertarian. It does not mean that he isn't contradictory. For example, whereas a libertarian might be expected to support small business, Seymour and ACT have a strong orientation to big business, including as donors, with all its consequential anti-libertarian monopolistic traits. But it contrasts with the prevailing opportunism traits of both Christopher Luxon and Winston Peters. Opportunism allows the ability to bend and change somewhat; conviction much less so. In Bomber Bradbury's forthright manner he concludes: The Left [sic] have underestimated Seymour for too long. They need to engage with him in a completely different way and understand they need to push back by offering better solutions and by defining him far more ruthlessly when they do attack him. I agree although I would put it this way. The far right speak in slogans, the rightwing speak in sentences, the leftwing speak in paragraphs, and the far left speak in footnotes. This gives the political right a big advantage. To counter this the political left (plus social liberal technocrats) need to express themselves in plain language sentences that are also translatable into good soundbites. Ian Powell Otaihanga Second Opinion is a regular health systems blog in New Zealand. Ian Powell is the editor of the health systems blog 'Otaihanga Second Opinion.' He is also a columnist for New Zealand Doctor, occasional columnist for the Sunday Star Times, and contributor to the Victoria University hosted Democracy Project. For over 30 years , until December 2019, he was the Executive Director of Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand.
Scoop
a day ago
- Politics
- Scoop
David Seymour And The Political Left
If there was a 'most prolific blogger while still being consistently thought-provoking' award it would be hard to beat Bomber (Martyn) Bradbury and his The Daily Blog (TDB). His writing is turbo-charged and opinionated but underpinned by powerful compassion and a strong sense of both justice and outrage towards injustice. For me he has been an acquired taste. It took a while and had its moments, but the acquiring proved to be a fascinating journey with the taste acquisition destination reached. I have also appreciated that he republishes my health system (Otaihanga Second Opinion) and politics (Political Bytes) blogs in TDB. He doesn't pull his punches. Occasionally he misses his target but more often he succeeds. He never leaves one wondering what he means. More importantly he invariably raises serious questions which deserve to be addressed. A recent case in point was his 3 July post concerning the challenge of ACT leader and current Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour to the political left in Aotearoa New Zealand: Can the left beat David Seymour and ACT. There are few questions more politically pertinent than this. As Bradbury observes, Seymour has, since 2014, taken ACT from less than 1% to, depending on which poll, a little under or over 10%. However, I have two points of disagreement – TDB's comments on 'woke' and what it means by being leftwing. 'Woke', identity politics and the absence of nuance TDB attributes in part David Seymour's and ACT's relative electoral success to the left allowing itself to be distracted by what it calls 'middle class woke Identity Politics'. I discussed this disagreement over 'woke' in an earlier post (9 October 2023): Structure and superstructure. I considered Bomber Bradbury's then published views on 'woke' too blunt and lacking nuance. Instead I advocated that identity and class politics are better understood in the context of the relationship between structure and superstructure. My criticism was that his argument: …counterposes economic discrimination and oppression to its other forms; it's either class or identity politics! This approach ignores nuance, complexity and layered relationships. In fact, these politics have overlapping layers. The use of the terms 'structure' and 'superstructure' are helpful in this respect. In this context the structure based on the mode and relations of production. Class is defined by its relationship to this production mode. The superstructure, on the other hand, incorporates the various belief systems and ideologies that help rationalise what people do and think (and why), including the law, education systems and religion. This superstructure also includes other forms of discrimination and oppression such as race, sex, sexual orientation and transgender. Sometimes it also includes religion. They exist in a largely capitalist world. But they aren't products of capitalism. They existed in earlier forms of class societies for centuries. It is legitimate to locate them in a superstructure but with an important qualification. To differing degrees, they interact with the underlying structure. Sometimes it is to the extent that it becomes difficult to differentiate. It is these 'superstructural' forms of discrimination and oppression that get labelled as identity politics. The point is not so much the label but whether they are counterposed to class discrimination and oppression or run alongside it, sometimes reinforcing and interactively. A word that should never have been invented A year later (13 April 2024) I discussed 'woke' in the context of a wider discourse on sectarianism: From French Revolution to 'woke'. I concluded by observing that: In my view the word 'woke' should never have been invented….Politics in New Zealand would benefit from a healthy debate on the relationship between class and identity politics. I regard them as interconnected and supplementary rather than opposites. Bomber Bradbury's argument about 'woke' would be strengthened by dropping the term completely (leave it to the political right; it's their political plaything) and instead articulate a more nuanced narrative about identity and class politics. He could take a leaf out of West Indian socialist intellectual and cricket commentator CLR James' 'book' who famously said 'what do they know of cricket if cricket is all that they know'. This could then be turned into 'what do they know of identity politics if identity politics is all that they know'. This could be similarly adapted for class politics. What is leftwing My second disagreement is when TDB refers to the political left in New Zealand it means the Labour Party, Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Unfortunately most of the commentary in the mainstream media around leftwing and rightwing is along the lines that one is what the other isn't; one ends where the other starts and vice versa. This becomes at best bland or meaningless and at worse absurd. Even more unfortunately TDB is uncharacteristically consistent with this mainstream media paradigm. I discussed this question well over two years ago in Political Bytes (30 April 2023): What being leftwing really means. I said that: One way of looking at differentiating between the political left and right is a continuum between collective responsibility and individual responsibility. This leads into the role of the state and to questions over whether healthcare access and educational opportunities, for example, are a right or privilege to one degree or another. …It isn't a bad way of looking at what is left-wing and what isn't. However, it is not enough. We can to better than this. Being left-wing has to be seen in the context of the material system that governs our daily lives. Today in New Zealand, and for the overwhelming majority of the planet, it is capitalism. Wealth accumulation the main driver of capitalism After discussing capitalism's prime driver (limitless wealth accumulation) I observed that: Being left-wing is about wanting to end, or even significantly curtail, the dynamic of wealth accumulation as a driver of societies. This might be through evolutionary or revolutionary means. But what it does require is transformational change. There is a good argument that both the Greens and Te Pāti Māori are transformational (or at least significantly so) this can not be said of the Labour Party. Writing in the context of Labour then being in government, I commented that: Transformational is what the current Labour Party in government is not. It is a political party not of the left but instead of social liberal technocrats with some collectivist impulses. Social liberal values are good and the political left benefits from sharing them. In fact, many people on the political right also share these same values (or at least some of them). In conclusion: …social liberalism of itself does not transform a society which, more than anything else, has wealth accumulation as its dynamic. …The political left needs to expressly differentiate itself from social liberalism in order to overtly focus on economic (as well as social) justice and protecting nature from the ravages of wealth accumulation. If the term 'left-wing' is to mean anything other than not being right-wing or just having some collectivist impulses, then this needs to happen. Bomber's aim nevertheless deadly accurate In his own expressive literary way, however, TDB is right on the mark in describing the effectiveness and interconnections of the hard rightwing Taxpayers' Union, New Zealand Initiative and Atlas Network. TDB is correct in identifying the high level of their lobbying power, particularly through social media describing them as a '…stable of astroturf organisations to generate lobbyist talking points camouflaged as the opinion of the people.' Bomber Bradbury's most telling point, however, is his assessment of David Seymour describing the latter as '… a philosopher before he is a politician and he believes in a far right libertarian economic platform…' Elsewhere he has approvingly quoted leading Labour MP Willie Watson who has described Seymour has the most dangerous MP in Parliament. Again he is on the mark. The reason behind this assessment is that Seymour is a conviction politician; a hard right libertarian. It does not mean that he isn't contradictory. For example, whereas a libertarian might be expected to support small business, Seymour and ACT have a strong orientation to big business, including as donors, with all its consequential anti-libertarian monopolistic traits. But it contrasts with the prevailing opportunism traits of both Christopher Luxon and Winston Peters. Opportunism allows the ability to bend and change somewhat; conviction much less so. In Bomber Bradbury's forthright manner he concludes: The Left [sic] have underestimated Seymour for too long. They need to engage with him in a completely different way and understand they need to push back by offering better solutions and by defining him far more ruthlessly when they do attack him. I agree although I would put it this way. The far right speak in slogans, the rightwing speak in sentences, the leftwing speak in paragraphs, and the far left speak in footnotes. This gives the political right a big advantage. To counter this the political left (plus social liberal technocrats) need to express themselves in plain language sentences that are also translatable into good soundbites. Ian Powell Otaihanga Second Opinion is a regular health systems blog in New Zealand. Ian Powell is the editor of the health systems blog 'Otaihanga Second Opinion.' He is also a columnist for New Zealand Doctor, occasional columnist for the Sunday Star Times, and contributor to the Victoria University hosted Democracy Project. For over 30 years , until December 2019, he was the Executive Director of Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand.
ABC News
a day ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Pauline Hanson's surprise nomination and Bob Katter's unusual oath
Pauline Hanson is no stranger to shocking the Senate. This time, however, there were no outfit reveals like her widely condemned burqa offering of 2017, but rather a surprise nomination for a man who, politically at least, sits at the opposite end of the spectrum. "I would like to nominate David Pocock," the One Nation leader said, putting forward the independent to be president of the Senate. Perhaps what was more shocking was what followed — a man turning down the chance at a pay rise and political promotion. "I am very flattered that you would put me forward," a surprised Pocock told the chamber. Wearing a jacket and no tie, Pocock noted that as much as he disagreed with the bulk of the conventions in the Senate, this was an instance in which he would uphold it, and focus his time representing the people of the ACT. "I would politely decline the nomination but thank you," he said before returning to his seat on the crossbench. The scale of Labor's election victory brought with it gains in the Senate that will see the ALP become the biggest party. It also stripped Pocock of the key vote he previously held in the last parliament. Having quietly returned to his seat, across the parliament, the father of the House was finding his voice, even if it wasn't necessarily being sought. Bob Katter stood alongside his fellow crossbenchers as House of Representatives clerk Claressa Surtees asked the MPs to swear their allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors. "No, I swear allegiance to the Australian people," Katter said, before repeating it a second time. It was far from the first time a politician had gone off script. In the last parliament, senator Lidia Thorpe initially described the Queen as a coloniser. At the time she was forced to recite the oath as written. Years later she would claim that she had sworn her allegiance to the Queen's "hairs", not "heirs". This time, no hairs were split over Katter's comments and the pomp and circumstance carried on. Still licking its wounds from its electoral drubbing, the Coalition broke with convention and opted against nominating a candidate for speaker, instead backing in Labor's Milton Dick to return the role he held in the last parliament. Steps were racked up as MPs marched backwards and forwards between the chambers for the ceremonial proceedings. As Labor MPs crammed into the Senate, it hammered home the scale of its May election. Squished into the limited seating of the 76-member Upper House, Labor's 123 politicians were crammed in like sardines. The opposition, meanwhile, with its 70 politicians, had enough room to swing a cat. It wasn't just the numbers that told the story but also what those in the chamber were wearing. A seat of men in blue suits dominated the opposition's benches, where fewer than one in three were women. Opposite them sat a female-dominated Labor caucus, where the number of women is so strong that it is just one person shy of the full Coalition caucus. In the House of Representatives it's even starker, with Labor women making up greater numbers than the opposition as a whole. The return of the parliament brings with it a chance for Labor to take not just a victory lap but the chance to rub it in the face of its opponents. You need only look to who Labor tapped to deliver the first of the parliament's first speeches to see an example of just that. First up will be Ali France, followed then by Sarah Whitty, two women whose victories came at the expense of Liberal leader Peter Dutton and Greens leader Adam Bandt. Defeating Dutton is why so many people know France's name. But her story is so much more than the man she defeated at an election. A former journalist, para-athlete and disability advocate, France had a leg amputated above her knee after she was pinned by a car in a shopping centre car park. Her eldest son, Henry, died from leukaemia in early 2024, an experience that almost prompted her to abandon her years' long quest to become a federal MP. In an arena that has long been dominated by men, France's story shows how the parliament is changing. Tomorrow too will bring with it those signs of change, when Sussan Ley squares off against the prime minister for her first question time as opposition leader. The first woman to hold that role, Ley has vowed she'll be doing business differently to the men who came before her.
