The dictionary defines filibuster as ‘a political procedure where one or more Members of Parliament debate over a proposed piece of legislation so as to delay or entirely prevent a decision being made on the proposal.’
Where Section 70 (S70) is concerned, consecutive governments have unscrupulously used this action not to do anything, or reach a decision in regard to S70. The government has just procrastinated and purposely moved any further debate to a future date, prolonging any action in support of overseas immigrants and returning Kiwis with retirement savings schemes which do not come under S70.
The simple reason for this, and this action has been going on for years by consecutive governments, is because government steals $500-600 million per year from immigrants and Kiwis with overseas retirement saving schemes to subsidise the NZ super scheme. This is out-and-out theft, as the money in overseas retirement savings schemes is the sole property of each individual, that comes from their wages, with a contribution from their employers, and not from any overseas government or government tax purse.
Watch out you KiwiSavers with a New Zealand contribution paid into your Kiwisaver. You will, some time in the future, fall under the direct deduction policy known as S70. The New Zealand government has been clever enough to ensure at some stage they can action your Kiwisaver funds to help subsidise the NZ super Scheme.
By the way in joining Kiwisaver, (which of course is your money), and then being entitled to a New Zealand pension when you retire, you are all the double-dippers.
When you vote a government in to run your country, no MP has a job description, and therefore has no accountability to those who voted them in.
MPs are totally responsible to the party line, and must blindly follow any policy etc the party defines. Any deviation from the party line can result in disqualification from the party, a fact that was confirmed at a meeting last week with a political party representative.
Whatever happened to supporting their constituents and Kiwis who voted for them? All we do is vote them in based on false promises, and then filibustering is used to prevent grievances from constituents being actioned.
The final point is for all Kiwis to take a look at the Treaty of Waitangi, which firmly states that it is a document signed between the Crown and the people of New Zealand, and is not culturally specific. The question has now to be asked, why one section of the community in New Zealand is significantly benefiting from $$$m handouts and the rest of New Zealand are denied the same opportunity under the principles of the treaty.
Where has democracy gone, the level playing fields and the rights of all New Zealanders? PAUL NORFOLK
Brady’s policy paper, which examined China’s foreign political influence activities under Xi Jinping. New Zealand was a representative case study.
Brady asserted that New Zealand’s relationship with China is of interest because the Chinese government regards New Zealand as an exemplar of how it would like its relations to be with other states, that the Chinese government’s foreign influence activities have accelerated under Xi, and that they have the potential to undermine the sovereignty and integrity of the political systems of targeted states.
I also quoted Beijing-based New Zealand businessman Rodney Jones about Brady’s take on Chinese political influence in New Zealand. He said, “I think our response is just nuts, actually. It’s just nuts . . . We are talking about the Chinese Communist Party, not China. And so we need to be alert to the role that the Chinese Communist Party wants to play within our Chinese community and within our broader polity.”
I suggested at the time that the Strategy Committee might want to open the issue up for community-wide debate before a final recommendation was made. There has been no response.
There is now a May 2018 report, China and the Age of Strategic Rivalry (available online under the auspices of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service), which provides more cautionary advice for Far North councillors.
This report highlights New Zealand as a
vivid case study of China’s willingness to use economic ties to influence a broad spectrum of a society’s economic, financial, social and security issues. It clearly states that smaller states are particularly vulnerable to Chinese influence strategies.
Key reasons given for persistent Chinese activity in New Zealand are potential votes for China at international forums, Antarctic science and China’s long-term strategic agenda in Antarctica, investment in New Zealand’s dairy sector, horticultural science, offshore oil and gas exploration, New Zealand’s expertise in multilateral trade negotiations and Pacific affairs.
The report states, “For a small state like New Zealand, which is a former colony of one great power and has been under the shelter of another for more than 60 years, it can often be a challenge as to how to defend the country against foreign political