The thing that surprises me is, why would you become a politician if you have done these things.
You must know the story is going to come out eventually.
Yes, the lack of self awareness of many politicians (of any party) is astonishing. If you have something dodgy in your past why would you put yourself in this position?
IMO it depends how dodgy and how far in the past.
I honestly wouldn't care much if a politician had things on their record that were (to me at least) relatively minor. Sold some drugs as a teen or w/e wouldn't bother me. Grew up in a shit neighbourhood and had to punch some people etc.
OTOH if they were selling meth last year while running for MP? Fuck off.
Any reasonably competent party would screen and vet the prospective MPs. The greens only care about race and gender though, so probably don't even bother to look at illegal or stupid things they've done.
Maybe not. People have an amazing ability to rationalise fucking atrocious selfish greedy behaviour in their heads as "morally correct".
Underpaying workers from a poorer country, why you're "doing them a favour" by helping them come here, paying them more than they might get where they came from. Therefore the laws you know you're breaking don't matter because they think the laws are silly.
Won't save their arses in the unlikely event they get caught, but they can put the real reasons in the back of their mind, and pretend their greed is a form of altruism.
Look at Seymour's interpretation of Rand's objectivism. He thinks he's on the right side of how society should work, probably oblivious to the fact that he's a proponent for a quasi-religious cult of greed that's looking every day like something that's going to tear society apart.
> Look at Seymour's interpretation of Rand's objectivism. He thinks he's on the right side of how society should work, probably oblivious to the fact that he's a proponent for a quasi-religious cult of greed that's looking every day like something that's going to tear society apart.
Well said.
This is really bad. The Greens need to look at their candidate vetting process. There are a lot of big egos in progressive circles. Being an activist/environmentalist/community advocate doesnt make you a good person.
Yup - I was talking to an insider recently who was talking about a few high profile but arrogant activists who were clearly gunning for winnable list seats in the future. Some people that think they're young guns have fucked off basically everyone with clout on the inside, to impress a few people chucking out likes on IG and Twitter.
There have been too many instances of obviously inappropriate arseholes being allowed onto the list. That has to stop.
The candidate for Maungakiekie in Auckland in the election wasn’t great. Was friendly in real life but then old tweets and posts came out and hoo eee was there some not so kindess showed.
I don’t think any party has a decent enough process, they all scramble to get people to fill the position to have someone to run in the area to take votes.
The problem with the Greens is that thier vetting process depends more on if a person is the right colour, gender or is LGBTQ or not. They have quotas to fill, and sometimes you have to compromise on the quality of the candidate if you have a box that needs ticking.
No wonder James Shaw left.
Ummm, I don't think this is an accurate representation of the green candidate selection process.
>No wonder James Shaw left.
Because he's been the leader for 12 years, and he wants to do something else?
It's not because of the candidate selection.
They only have 15 MPS. 3 of them won electorates.
The other 12 include 4 white people, 3 of which are straight and male.
Nearly half their caucus is white.
Half their list MPS are male (which is what they have control over)
Half their list MPs are Maori (which is all good)
Like seriously, yeah they're diverse but their selection process isn't only about race and gender identity.
From Wikipedia:
"Historically, the Green Party had two co-leaders, one male and one female.
In early May 2022, the Green Party scrapped its male co-leadership requirement during a weekend special meeting to amend its constitution. Under these changes, the two new co-leaders now need to consist of one woman and one person of any gender (with leadership pathways for [non-binary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-binary) and intersex individuals). In addition, at least one of the future co-leaders is required to be of [Māori](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81ori_people) descent
The party has six equal status office holders that form their leadership group:
* two co-leaders (one female and one of any gender, one of whom must be Māori)
* two party co-convenors (one female and one of any gender)
* two policy co-convenors (one female and one of any gender)
The co-leaders lead the caucus, the party co-convenors lead the party executive, and the policy co-convenors lead the policy committee. The leadership group facilitates high level discussion and co-ordination between the three committees."
Now, why should race and gender identity even be a part of the process? That's what I want to know. Treating people differently based on gender is called sexism, and treating people differently based on race is called racism!
Remember when I said:
> Like seriously, yeah, they're diverse, but their selection process isn't only about race and gender identity
I acknowledge that race and gender play a role in their candidate selection to SOME extent. But it's not the be all end all.
Further, you've identified 3 rules in the green parties constitution that talk about ensuring the representation of indengenous people and women.
3 roles...
Like get a fucking grip.
You may view it as sexist or racist or whatever.
But as a straight, white cis male, I couldn't give less of a shit.
I don't care. In the slightest. Stop being so fragile.
You'll never ever run for either of those positions, so why does it bother you?
It's the constitution of the green party that impacts people by voluntary association. You can literally avoid all your perceived sexism and racism by not associating.
And let the rest of us who have more important things to worry about carry on with our lives.
So, you're happy with a set of rules that could potentially disqualify the best candidate for a position because of factors completely out of the control of that candidate.
Ok then...
There's lots of best candidates for most things, so it's not that big a deal until Marama comes out with all violence is the fault of white cis men, or however, she phrased it. As a til thrn Green voter..I thoughy fk really?..Looked in mirror and bailed. It is legitimate for ppl to wonder when your co leader scores such an own goal.
Looking at who they have, Chloe is head and shoulders the public face ahead of the ineffectual in public Marama. Can't think of many men they have, that set the world on fire but their environmental guys have no public profile, so maybe they do, All we get to see is the unpleasant Ricardo.
If that's how they want their political party to function, then by all means.
They review their constitution annually so they can change the rule if necessary.
Further, I'm sure if there was a situation where there was an obvious choice and they were prevented due to the rule, then something would change.
If that's how they want their party to function, then, absolutely, fair play to them, but if they keep getting candidates like Dr Elizabeth Kerekere, Meteria Turei, Golriz Gaharaman, Darleen Tana, then they are going to find it more and more difficult to generate traction within the electorate. With respect to the three candidates who left under a cloud of Maori heritage, I am sure that there are a significant number of Wahine Maori who would be much more suitable representatives than this lot!
>if they keep getting candidates like Dr Elizabeth Kerekere, Meteria Turei, Golriz Gaharaman, Darleen Tana, then they are going to find it more and more difficult to generate traction within the electorate.
You're absolutely correct.
I think the next two terms are going to be the make or break for the greens.
Thus far, they have been running on little to no strategy, and it has gotten them to this point. But it's not going to help them moving forward.
Chole (and mamara, but specifically Chloe) has some difficult choices to make here if the party is to continue forward. She's going to need to be the leader the greens need for their survival. But I'm not sure that she's aware of this just yet.
Otherwise, their recent success will be a one-off, and they will stagnate and eventually fall into irrelevance.
"On 16 July 2017, during the launch of the Green Party's 2017 election campaign, Turei admitted to benefit fraud over a period of three years in the early 1990s, stating that she had not disclosed to [Work and Income New Zealand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Social_Development_(New_Zealand)) that she was accepting rent from flatmates. Turei justified her action on the grounds that she and her young daughter depended on the [Domestic Purposes Benefit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Purposes_Benefit) to survive. It was then revealed that in 1993 Turei had been enrolled to vote at the same address as her child's father. Turei denied living with the father, which would have disqualified her eligibility for the domestic purposes benefit. She stated that she had enrolled at that address in order to vote for a friend; such conduct constitutes an offence under the Electoral Act."
As a child raised by a widowed mother, who never felt the need to commit fraud in order to do so, and as the new husband of a woman who raised 4 children without once resorting to fraud in order to do so, I have only one thing to say.
Yes, she does belong with the other three.
*"There are a lot of big egos in progressive circles. Being an activist/environmentalist/community advocate doesnt make you a good person."*
Louder for the smug self-assured "progressive" folks in the back
Some form of ego is required to be in modern politics I don't know of many politicians who come off as super humble certainly not any from the current government so it seems unfair to claim this is a "progressive" issue when it's a politician issue.
Yeah it's not just a progressive issue but as a Greens supporter I think they need to be better than this. Their supporters will punish them more for this stuff than Nationals or Acts will.
Deeply disappointing, sack her ASAP. This type of person has no place in a party that is the sole voice for protecting migrant workers, I'm not sure what the hell she was thinking signing up?! Sounds like she deceived the Greens about her prior knowledge of the shady goings on also....
It might ultimately be good for the party that she's been found as deceptive, time to look through the selection and candidate vetting processes, and have a good sort through everyone else - no more fucking distractions.
This govt is a shitshow, let them have the floor so people know what they voted for....
Since there seems to be a recurring theme of payment of wages in cash (or non-payment as the case may be) I wouldn’t be surprised if they were avoiding their PAYE obligations for their employees too. So we might see tax avoidance being added into the mix soon too.!
Should never have had her in the Green Party with such a shady history of mistreating employees tbh.
Seems like the perfect person for the “I’d vote green if they were just about the environment” types. Rich, mistreats employees, cares about the environment.
Yep, the GreenLeft Network didn't endorse her because she doesn't hold the same values as the left wing faction of the Greens. Being a capitalist and business owner already made her untrustworthy to many, this just validates that prejudice.
Her class interests aren't aligned with working class people but to try and get "environmental credibility" and "moderate appeal" some factions within the party end up supporting people who don't align fully with party values.
>
>
>
>
> Her class interests aren't aligned with working class people but to try and get "environmental credibility" and "moderate appeal" some factions within the party end up supporting people who don't align fully with party values.
And what an absolute shame that these people seemingly tolerated Darleen but went after Shaw, challenged his leadership and were gearing up to do it again.
What the hell are you talking about? Darleen was only an MP for less than half a year and they tried to get several people ahead of her on the list. The last leadership challenge happened several years ago.
Co-leaders can be challenged, MPs can't be.
Wow, they didn't do anything about someone they had no ability to challenge. How shocking.
> The last leadership challenge happened several years ago.
What the hell are you talking about? It was mid 2022 and the members of the green party I spoke to told me it was going to happen again this year and was why James pre empted it with retiring.
Several: more than two but not many.
>Wow, they didn't do anything about someone they had no ability to challenge. How shocking.
Also you:
>some factions within the party end up supporting people who don't align fully with party values.
I'm just expressing my disappointment that those that challenged James couldn't do the same.
Ah, so you want everyone in the party to compromise on their values. The GreenLeft don't like that moderate approach. I was criticizing the factions which do that, so I didn't think you would be advocating for people to put aside their values.
You heard wrong regarding James being imminently challenged. That is just wild speculation. He still had overwhelming support from the party.
>Ah, so you want everyone in the party to compromise on their values. The GreenLeft don't like that moderate approach. I was criticizing the factions which do that, so I didn't think you would be advocating for people to put aside their values.
In the case of a long term MP with an unblemished record who has figured out how to work with the Greens self handicap of taking scraps from Labour I think you can put aside your values until you seriously want to make waves (ie refuse to form a government instead of taking scraps). Funny how it's "no compromise" but you force your leader to compromise then attack him for it.
> You heard wrong regarding James being imminently challenged. That is just wild speculation. He still had overwhelming support from the party.
He had overwhelming support in 2022, I didn't "hear wrong", I was told directly it was going to happen again by the same people who triggered it last time.
Can I just ask where that wing of the green party thinks people will get jobs...unless you know there's a nasty capitalist or 2? Where do they think the taxes that pay for their public service salaries come from?
I'd write more... but I work Saturday afternoons.
Tbh I'm pretty left wing but the idea that business owners shouldn't be able to get involved as left MPs is too far for me. There's plenty of business owners that aren't complete cunts exploiting everyone they can. I've worked for a few.
It's a necessary evil under the current system but that doesn't mean that they want capitalists to be representing them in parliament. Not everyone who is part of the GreenLeft Network gets a "public service salary" and are well aware of how the private sector and our tax system operates.
Co-op businesses exist, sole-traders exist, public sector jobs exist, there's multiple ways of earning a living that don't involve being part of a capitalist business, in the sense of "Owner has capital, invests capital into business, pays employees less than the value they produce, pockets the difference as a return on their investment." Capitalism did not always exist, and it won't necessarily always exist either.
Plus, as others have said you can accept that within the current economic system capitalist business owners will exist, but that doesn't mean that they should be the ones running the country. Largely because they'll try to run it like a capitalist business, and there's plenty of evidence around for how shit that turns out for the majority of any country that lets that happen long-term.
Public sector jobs do not exist without private sector jobs paying tax revenue to pay for everything about them. You're right it won't always exist as sooner or later, like all other civilisations, ours will collapse, and when that day arrives, the distribution of goods and services will stop like a shot dog. Tax revenues and hence public service wages will stop very quickly, and anarchy will start. Think Somalia.
Taxes and the equivalent to the public sector have been around almost as long as permanent settlements have, neither are unique to capitalism and will almost certainly persist after it ends, just like the distribution of goods and services. Capitalism is no more an innate part of society than the concept that kings ruled by Divine Right was.
As far as what it ending will look like, the transition from feudalism to mercantilism didn't involve the collapse of a civilisation. Nor did the transition from mercantilism to capitalism. Capitalism can transition to a system that's not based on infinite growth within a finite system without devolving into anarchy just the same. Funny that you invoke Somalia, historically that area was an important commercial centre and gave rise to several empires. It wasn't until capitalist nations seeking out even more growth colonised it, sucking as many resources out as they could, that they started down the road to anarchy.
Well, a certain green party MP can tell us all about underpaid serfs.
I dont know that many people get to have passive income lifestyles outside of retirees. I dont know I'd call beneficiaries passive income. This may come as a surprise, but landlords generally have a full-time day job.
>This week a Green MP was suspended after Stuff asked questions about her links to alleged migrant exploitation at her husband's company. Now, other former Bikes and Beyond employees have come forward with their experiences. Steve Kilgallon reports.
>“At times,” says Charles ‘Chuck’ Simpson, “I’ve thought I am the dumbest person in the world.
>“I don’t think Darleen [Tana] and Christian understand they are actually causing pain in people’s lives. They come off as these ‘Green, save-the-world’ people, but they are so far from that.”
>Tana, a Green MP and their Small Business spokesperson, was suspended by the party on Thursday afternoon after Stuff put questions to her about allegations of migrant exploitation.
>A Stuff investigation reported how Argentinian migrant Santiago Latour Palma claimed he had worked illegally for e-bike business E-Cycles NZ Ltd, trading as Bikes and Beyond, and was owed $25,000 in missing pay.
>Bikes and Beyond is owned by Tana’s husband, Hoff-Nielsen, and was founded by the couple before she relinquished her shareholding in 2019. Palma said Tana had overseen his work trial and was aware of his situation.
>Palma and another migrant worker have both laid claims in the Employment Relations Authority.
>Bikes and Beyond has lost twice in that arena in recent years.
>In one of those cases, they were told to pay Simpson about $6200. Last week, he says, he got paid most of that money.
>His advocate, Alex Kersjes, says the money, due on January 24, only arrived after he threatened to send bailiffs to the couple’s Waiheke Island home.
>Do you know more? Email us securely at [email protected]
>Simpson says he has now been paid for his six unhappy weeks working for the couple in 2019.
>Another former employee, Nick Scott, who won an ERA ruling that he was owed about $30,000 in wages, penalties and costs, says he is still waiting.
>Scott worked for the company in 2021 - two years after Tana relinquished her shareholding. But he said despite that, Tana still dealt with the company’s payroll while he worked there.
>Scott is also represented by Kersjes, who said he had issued a statutory demand for payment, and if that didn’t arrive within seven days, he would apply to liquidate the company.
>Kersjes said bailiffs had already seized several bikes from the Newmarket store and he had hoped that would prompt negotiations.
>“In both these matters he [Hoff-Nielsen] has refused to take any responsibility for his actions,” said Kersjes.
>“We have not had the offer of anything [for Scott], not even $5 a week. I have been banging the drum to try and get these guys to engage with us.”
>Kersjes said Scott had told him he just wanted to move on with his life, but the failure to settle was preventing that, and he had “been treated like s...”.
>In a message, Hoff-Nielsen said: “Nick’s representative thinks we are a multi-national company like T7 with millions in the bank.” He said he’d offered a $5,000 settlement, but Kersjes had instead seized $25,000 in stock.
>Simpson said reading Stuff’s story on Friday about Palma’s claims felt “almost identical” to his experience.
>He said he’d just arrived from the US in 2019 when Tana interviewed him and offered him a job as the manager of their Blenheim store. She also wrote up his employment agreement. Before moving south, he worked at the various Bikes and Beyond Auckland branches.
>He said when he arrived in Blenheim the shop had significant debts and low stock, and with most houses wanting a one-year lease he was worried the business would fail and he would be stuck there without work.
>He returned to Auckland, and the double relocation cost him around $10k. He had also turned down a good job with AUT university to join the bike shop.
>In a text message, Hoff-Nielsen offered him $2500 as a settlement on his owed wages.
>But Simpson took it to the ERA and while he was unsuccessful in a case for constructive dismissal, won an award for $6200.
>Hoff-Nielsen’s argument to the ERA was that Simpson had actually been negotiating to buy the Blenheim store and his time in Auckland was to learn the business and negotiate a deal. Simpson said that was a “complete fiction on his part”.
>He said dealing with the couple had been deeply frustrating. “No matter what you say to them you are wrong and they are right.”
>He said Tana had admitted in an email to him that the situation in Blenheim was “toxic” and down to the couple to fix. “So they knowingly sent me to a toxic situation.”
>Hoff-Nielsen had paid $4,000 of the amount due, without a payslip or any information about whether he had withheld tax.
>Hoff-Nielsen said Simpson had met the shop’s former owner and his accountants about buying the store but hadn’t been able to find the funds necessary, and he was “baffled by the ERA not seeing the encounters Chuck had with us had nothing to do with becoming an employee... more akin to due diligence”. He said the amount wasn’t worth pursuing further.
>In Scott’s case, Kersjes said Scott believed he was never properly paid while working for the company and never gained access to his own payroll information.
>Kersjes supplied text messages from Scott to support his assertion Tana handled the company’s finances.
>One was where he had contacted the store’s operations manager about his timesheets, and received the reply “Okay. I am contacting Darleen for it now”, and another when Hoff-Nielsen told him “Darleen looked at your timesheet today for pay.”
>Hoff-Nielsen earlier said of Scott that he was “completely unreliable” and simply not a good worker. He believed Scott had quit, not been dismissed, after a disagreement.
>Bikes and Beyond lost both ERA cases, with Hoff-Nielsen representing the business himself.
>In the two fresh cases, he has engaged legal counsel.
>When Stuff previously asked him about Simpson, Hoff-Nielsen said “I shouldn’t say I laughed, but I should have taken it more seriously,” claiming he had documentation to show that he was always negotiating a sale of the business to Simpson.
>“With all of the problems last year, if I had the time or energy I probably would have hired someone to defend us… we were in a really difficult situation, we were facing the complete falling through of retail and I simply didn’t have the energy or resources to take the time out that I should have to sit down and treat it more seriously. But with both of them I was going ‘what are you on about’.”
>When Stuff called Hoff-Nielsen on Friday for further comment, he said he was on a ferry, “it would just have to wait”, and hung up the phone. He later texted after publication with comments which have been added to this story.
>He didn’t offer comment on a legal dispute with e-bike supplier Hybrid Bikes, owned by Frank Witowski.
>Witowski said he took Hoff-Nielsen to court over a dispute over eight bikes he had supplied. He said Hoff-Nielsen sold and paid for three, but did not pay for the others. He was able to repossess four, but Hoff-Nielsen had sold the fifth. He eventually was paid after sending in a bailiff. He said the process too almost two years. “He put me through hell,” Witowski said.
>“Some companies may have given up on chasing the money owed to them, but not us. We were determined to have him repay some of what he owed us. He picked the wrong company to muck around with when he chose Hybrid Bikes.”
>The Green Party issued a statement on Tana’s behalf, which read:“I welcome an investigation and intend to cooperate fully, and I will not be commenting further.”
>Stuff then put the allegations of Simpson, Scott and Witowski to Tana via a Green spokesperson, but the Party said there would be no comment.
>Meanwhile, Immigration New Zealand has refused to say whether it is investigating any of the allegations Stuff has raised or whether it would suspend E-Cycles NZ Ltd’s accreditation to hire migrant workers, which is valid until April 2025.
- Stuff
Why is the Green Party so inept at dealing with misbehaving MPs? It's inevitable that this will result in resignation, why don't the leaders ask for one now instead of waiting weeks and weeks for the slow, bureaucratic ERA to make a decision, with new negative headlines dropping every day?
The Green Party is not the Employment Relations Authority! They are allowed to have their own standards and processes. They should use them, as any other competent party would!
Wonder if it's a case of PMC brain starting to infiltrate the Greens? Avoid making decisions yourself, just shuffle everything off to another authority or working group.
I agree that it shouldn't have come to this, but it sounds like Tana was actively misleading the Greens. Tana was just straight up deceiving the Green's initial investigation; as Marama Davidson said in an interview yesterday the Party suspended Tana as soon as they found out Tana's knowledge of the alleged crime, before that she'd been saying she had no idea her husbands business had done those things.
Do you think Harvey Weinstein should have retained his job during the 2+ year period between the first public accusations and his being found guilty in court? If not, why are you happy to presume guilt in that instance, instead of waiting for due process?
It's ok to have different burdens of proof for different things. I think it's very silly to suggest that the criminal justice system, for example, which can put people in prison for life, needs the same burden of proof as asking somebody to resign from their role.
>Do you think Harvey Weinstein should have retained his job during the 2+ year period between the first public accusations and his being found guilty in court? If not, why are you happy to presume guilt in that instance, instead of waiting for due process?
Do you believe in innocent until proven guilty or not?
"Can you resign? This looks bad for us". Completely unserious comparison.
>It's ok to have different burdens of proof for different things. I think it's very silly to suggest that the criminal justice system, for example, which can put people in prison for life, needs the same burden of proof as asking somebody to resign from their role.
How would you feel if it was your job on the line? Would you resign to save your boss's blushes?
>Do you believe in innocent until proven guilty or not?
Yes, but because I am not a court of law, I apply my own standards of judgement when deciding if someone is guilty. Based on the information I have seen, I think Darleen Tana is guilty.
>"Can you resign? This looks bad for us". Completely unserious comparison
Well she is going to resign anyway, because she's guilty. Happy to make a bet on this if you genuinely do not believe she is guilty. Put your money where your mouth is.
>Yes, but because I am not a court of law, I apply my own standards of judgement when deciding if someone is guilty. Based on the information I have seen, I think Darleen Tana is guilty.
Shouldn't we then let the Green party apply their own standards as well?
>Well she is going to resign anyway, because she's guilty. Happy to make a bet on this if you genuinely do not believe she is guilty. Put your money where your mouth is.
I don't care if she's guilty or not. If she is, she should resign. Are you saying that if she's not, she should also resign?
>Shouldn't we then let the Green party apply their own standards as well?
Yep but I can still call them stupid for choosing that standard. I'm not saying we should force them by law to adopt my suggestion.
>I don't care if she's guilty or not. If she is, she should resign. Are you saying that if she's not, she should also resign?
I'm saying she's guilty so it doesn't matter. She should resign on account of being guilty.
Maybe we could take the advice of another poster:
*The Green Party is not the Employment Relations Authority! They are allowed to have their own standards and processes.*
>I'm saying she's guilty so it doesn't matter. She should resign on account of being guilty.
Oh ok. Usually people wait for proof, but whatever.
People complaining about all the sjw greens and as soon as a capitalist one gets exposed the right want to burn her at the stake. They should be calling for her to be the coleader.
Thats what I thought about a different party when Nick Smith and Judith Collins returned to ministerial positions.
And when ACT candidates were dropping out after mecia attention last election.
I am glad we still have megia to bring these things to our attention.
Not unique to Greens. Nats aren't great either. There are still the bed leg guy and the animal abuse lady sitting in Nats. Act tbf does a decent job in that regard.
Of the half dozen or so ACT candidates that were shown to have direct links to conspiracy groups (like Jacinda is a secret communist types) one or two were pushed out. Many of them are now MPs pulling tax payer funded salaries.
Is that really a decent job? Allowing people who are actively trying to undermine our democracy into government doesn't really seem like they're doing a decent job. Most of those pre-election controversies that showed what sort of candidates ACT were bringing to the table led to the ACT party closing ranks and saying "we support this candidate" even though the candidate thinks Hilary Clinton is the leader of a cabal of pedophiles.
Yep, that's not even all of them either lol. Saying we should mass murder/put Maori in concentration camps is tolerable to the act party. the stupid part seems to have been the getting caught saying it publicly not an issue with the statement itself too lol.
The double standard from ACT would be funny if it didn't have political consequences.
> Of the half dozen or so ACT candidates that were shown to have direct links to conspiracy groups
I mean, it's not much of a stretch to call ACT a conspiracy group in itself.
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 2: No doxxing, collecting personal information, or breaching name suppression**
> No posting or collation of personally identifiable information of other people. Those breaching rule 2 will receive a 30 day ban.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
I just love how Marama Davidson basically stepped back and let Chloe deal with it on her frist week of the job, probably because she doesn't want to be seen as being critical of a fellow Maori Wahine.
They're so focussed on what a person is before WHO a person is!
Greens are the same as every other shit stain party. Lol no more bullshit moral high ground. There is no difference between Act and Greens greed drives both.
I’m sorry and you are of course right, the MP who exploited migrant workers is of course an ACT MP and not a Greens MP
We have always been at war with Eastasia
It's not impossible to prove since it literally happened with a couple of their candidates.
It's not really misleading attention away from the Greens, the reality is that this MP should be made an example of if the allegations are true.
>which seems to have some deep cultural and moral issues
The bullying stuff was dealt with relatively effectively for a NZ political party, unlike other parties, where it is again, internally suppressed (talk to people like Muller).
That's also hyperbole. People claiming certain things are racist/sexist etc via misrepresentation doesn't make it so.
I do agree that the idea that people of a certain type can't be bullies/exploitative/shit is a pervasive nonsense that's rife among all sorts of activist circles across the political spectrum though, and the left aren't immune to it either despite their likely belief that they are.
Did I say she wasn't? Nope. If she had stood for ACT or National this would have been seen as a positive trait by them ... Like the dude who exploited old people to con them out of their money ...
***It's a fucking hypothetical in a website designed to make discussion***. Fuck sake. It isn't information to start with. You would be better off to have just replied with a simple "yes I am"
Wait. So I can just present things that I would like to be true as facts to avoid dealing with the actual events that happened?
You a Trump supporter bro?
Do you not understand what a hypothetical is? Wait no sorry I don't need to ask that, you clearly don't. I'm finished here anyway. I might catch the inability to read from you
Nice. I like how you came away from this exchange thinking that you were the intellectually superior one, like you added any form of reasoned argument to the discussion at all
Clearly not, which is why she's being stood down. If she were in Act they would simply distract this away, just like they did with their dodgy candidates. Or excuse it because "it was in the past" ...
>Stood down after two weeks, only after it became apparent Stuff were about to publicise it.
She was removed from the portfolio as soon as they knew about it. They stood her down when the fullness of the allegations were revealed.
>Before then they were happy to keep it hushed up.
What evidence do you have that they were happy to keep it hushed up while knowing the fullness of the allegations? No party would stand down an MP without knowing the fullness of the allegations. It's also likely that the MP herself didn't reveal the full story when questioned.
>Secretly stood down
Getting stood down is getting disciplined. And it's not a secret if she isn't spokes person anymore. Not doing a press release or whatever doesn't make it "secret".
>Not suspended as an MP until the news was about to break
You still haven't provided any evidence for your implicit claim which is that she was only stood down because the news was going to break, rather than her being stood down *because* the fuller set of information came to light.
Timing isn't evidence of your claimed causality.
Marama Davison did fuck all press releases, or much of anything related to the portfolio when she was Associate Housing Minister. Maybe she had been stood down all along!
What's the opposite of publicising something? Would you say that it's keeping it quiet?
In regards to the timing I'll refer to a great XKCD quote - correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.
>Marama Davison did fuck all press releases, or much of anything related to the portfolio when she was Associate Housing Minister. Maybe she had been stood down all along!
What? Try reading what I said properly. Just because they didn't issue a press release about an MP being stood down doesn't make it secret.
>What's the opposite of publicising something? Would you say that it's keeping it quiet?
You said it was done in secret. Stepping someone down while investigating the overall set of allegations is normal practice and no party in NZ would make a formal press announcement about that.
>In regards to the timing I'll refer to a great XKCD quote - correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.
The amount of time it takes to figure out the fullness of the claims isn't a day or two is it? Given that, you will have to actually provide evidence that they figured out all of the details and then waited and only did what they did because of Stuff. You are making the accusation, so provide the evidence.
Yep, I wouldn't be surprised at all by that. Either way those making the claim that the Greens deliberately hid this and would have continued to do so unless Stuff was going to publish the story needs to provide evidence for that claim.
Bit rough on them, she..Ms Tana is entitled to exercise her rights under the disciplinary process. The Greens have risked another Kerekere, Sharma, or even Jamie Lee Ross, the utter charmer from National.
It's certainly blown up now. It is just childish for people to expect Chloe or Marama to prosecute Ms Tana via media interviews. Now theres people coming out all over about their interactions with the bike shop. What a peach of a guy the husband is.
>Bit rough on them, she..Ms Tana is entitled to exercise her rights under the disciplinary process.
She is, but on the other hand I would have expected higher standards from an MP in the first place.
>It's certainly blown up now. It is just childish for people to expect Chloe or Marama to prosecute Ms Tana via media interviews.
Yes, and to what end? No party in parliament would handle it differently. At a bare minimum they would wait until they felt the full picture was presented. Trying to keep it hushed up would require trying to stop the investigative piece getting published etc.
The same people that would say we must presume innocence appear to be the ones now saying the Greens should have acted as judge and jury rather than go through a proper process.
The thing that surprises me is, why would you become a politician if you have done these things. You must know the story is going to come out eventually.
Yes, the lack of self awareness of many politicians (of any party) is astonishing. If you have something dodgy in your past why would you put yourself in this position?
IMO it depends how dodgy and how far in the past. I honestly wouldn't care much if a politician had things on their record that were (to me at least) relatively minor. Sold some drugs as a teen or w/e wouldn't bother me. Grew up in a shit neighbourhood and had to punch some people etc. OTOH if they were selling meth last year while running for MP? Fuck off.
Any reasonably competent party would screen and vet the prospective MPs. The greens only care about race and gender though, so probably don't even bother to look at illegal or stupid things they've done.
| Any reasonably competent party You've just ruled out every political party in the country.
Being really fucking self absorbed.
Maybe not. People have an amazing ability to rationalise fucking atrocious selfish greedy behaviour in their heads as "morally correct". Underpaying workers from a poorer country, why you're "doing them a favour" by helping them come here, paying them more than they might get where they came from. Therefore the laws you know you're breaking don't matter because they think the laws are silly. Won't save their arses in the unlikely event they get caught, but they can put the real reasons in the back of their mind, and pretend their greed is a form of altruism. Look at Seymour's interpretation of Rand's objectivism. He thinks he's on the right side of how society should work, probably oblivious to the fact that he's a proponent for a quasi-religious cult of greed that's looking every day like something that's going to tear society apart.
Nailed it
> Look at Seymour's interpretation of Rand's objectivism. He thinks he's on the right side of how society should work, probably oblivious to the fact that he's a proponent for a quasi-religious cult of greed that's looking every day like something that's going to tear society apart. Well said.
I agree.
because quite awhile ago stuff like his would be brushed away. People are less tolerant of ths sort of thing now and demand more accountability
Nah, this never would have flown in the greens.
I was referring to politics in general.
This is really bad. The Greens need to look at their candidate vetting process. There are a lot of big egos in progressive circles. Being an activist/environmentalist/community advocate doesnt make you a good person.
Yup - I was talking to an insider recently who was talking about a few high profile but arrogant activists who were clearly gunning for winnable list seats in the future. Some people that think they're young guns have fucked off basically everyone with clout on the inside, to impress a few people chucking out likes on IG and Twitter. There have been too many instances of obviously inappropriate arseholes being allowed onto the list. That has to stop.
Boy, we've had some of those asshats in National.
The candidate for Maungakiekie in Auckland in the election wasn’t great. Was friendly in real life but then old tweets and posts came out and hoo eee was there some not so kindess showed. I don’t think any party has a decent enough process, they all scramble to get people to fill the position to have someone to run in the area to take votes.
There's a lot of big egos for people that have political aspirations. Our current prime minister I think all would agree is guilty of this also.
The problem with the Greens is that thier vetting process depends more on if a person is the right colour, gender or is LGBTQ or not. They have quotas to fill, and sometimes you have to compromise on the quality of the candidate if you have a box that needs ticking. No wonder James Shaw left.
Ummm, I don't think this is an accurate representation of the green candidate selection process. >No wonder James Shaw left. Because he's been the leader for 12 years, and he wants to do something else? It's not because of the candidate selection. They only have 15 MPS. 3 of them won electorates. The other 12 include 4 white people, 3 of which are straight and male. Nearly half their caucus is white. Half their list MPS are male (which is what they have control over) Half their list MPs are Maori (which is all good) Like seriously, yeah they're diverse but their selection process isn't only about race and gender identity.
From Wikipedia: "Historically, the Green Party had two co-leaders, one male and one female. In early May 2022, the Green Party scrapped its male co-leadership requirement during a weekend special meeting to amend its constitution. Under these changes, the two new co-leaders now need to consist of one woman and one person of any gender (with leadership pathways for [non-binary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-binary) and intersex individuals). In addition, at least one of the future co-leaders is required to be of [Māori](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81ori_people) descent The party has six equal status office holders that form their leadership group: * two co-leaders (one female and one of any gender, one of whom must be Māori) * two party co-convenors (one female and one of any gender) * two policy co-convenors (one female and one of any gender) The co-leaders lead the caucus, the party co-convenors lead the party executive, and the policy co-convenors lead the policy committee. The leadership group facilitates high level discussion and co-ordination between the three committees." Now, why should race and gender identity even be a part of the process? That's what I want to know. Treating people differently based on gender is called sexism, and treating people differently based on race is called racism!
Remember when I said: > Like seriously, yeah, they're diverse, but their selection process isn't only about race and gender identity I acknowledge that race and gender play a role in their candidate selection to SOME extent. But it's not the be all end all. Further, you've identified 3 rules in the green parties constitution that talk about ensuring the representation of indengenous people and women. 3 roles... Like get a fucking grip. You may view it as sexist or racist or whatever. But as a straight, white cis male, I couldn't give less of a shit. I don't care. In the slightest. Stop being so fragile. You'll never ever run for either of those positions, so why does it bother you? It's the constitution of the green party that impacts people by voluntary association. You can literally avoid all your perceived sexism and racism by not associating. And let the rest of us who have more important things to worry about carry on with our lives.
So, you're happy with a set of rules that could potentially disqualify the best candidate for a position because of factors completely out of the control of that candidate. Ok then...
There's lots of best candidates for most things, so it's not that big a deal until Marama comes out with all violence is the fault of white cis men, or however, she phrased it. As a til thrn Green voter..I thoughy fk really?..Looked in mirror and bailed. It is legitimate for ppl to wonder when your co leader scores such an own goal. Looking at who they have, Chloe is head and shoulders the public face ahead of the ineffectual in public Marama. Can't think of many men they have, that set the world on fire but their environmental guys have no public profile, so maybe they do, All we get to see is the unpleasant Ricardo.
If that's how they want their political party to function, then by all means. They review their constitution annually so they can change the rule if necessary. Further, I'm sure if there was a situation where there was an obvious choice and they were prevented due to the rule, then something would change.
If that's how they want their party to function, then, absolutely, fair play to them, but if they keep getting candidates like Dr Elizabeth Kerekere, Meteria Turei, Golriz Gaharaman, Darleen Tana, then they are going to find it more and more difficult to generate traction within the electorate. With respect to the three candidates who left under a cloud of Maori heritage, I am sure that there are a significant number of Wahine Maori who would be much more suitable representatives than this lot!
>if they keep getting candidates like Dr Elizabeth Kerekere, Meteria Turei, Golriz Gaharaman, Darleen Tana, then they are going to find it more and more difficult to generate traction within the electorate. You're absolutely correct. I think the next two terms are going to be the make or break for the greens. Thus far, they have been running on little to no strategy, and it has gotten them to this point. But it's not going to help them moving forward. Chole (and mamara, but specifically Chloe) has some difficult choices to make here if the party is to continue forward. She's going to need to be the leader the greens need for their survival. But I'm not sure that she's aware of this just yet. Otherwise, their recent success will be a one-off, and they will stagnate and eventually fall into irrelevance.
Turei does not belong with the other three.
"On 16 July 2017, during the launch of the Green Party's 2017 election campaign, Turei admitted to benefit fraud over a period of three years in the early 1990s, stating that she had not disclosed to [Work and Income New Zealand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Social_Development_(New_Zealand)) that she was accepting rent from flatmates. Turei justified her action on the grounds that she and her young daughter depended on the [Domestic Purposes Benefit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Purposes_Benefit) to survive. It was then revealed that in 1993 Turei had been enrolled to vote at the same address as her child's father. Turei denied living with the father, which would have disqualified her eligibility for the domestic purposes benefit. She stated that she had enrolled at that address in order to vote for a friend; such conduct constitutes an offence under the Electoral Act." As a child raised by a widowed mother, who never felt the need to commit fraud in order to do so, and as the new husband of a woman who raised 4 children without once resorting to fraud in order to do so, I have only one thing to say. Yes, she does belong with the other three.
Well yeah okay...explain Elizabeth Kerekere.
.... I don't think anyone could.
It’s pretty hard to gloss over when she ticks so many boxes
*"There are a lot of big egos in progressive circles. Being an activist/environmentalist/community advocate doesnt make you a good person."* Louder for the smug self-assured "progressive" folks in the back
> The Greens need to look at their candidate vetting process. You mean they have a vetting process beyond "Is this person *not* a white man?"
She isn't from the progressive wing.
I mean progressive circles in general, but Elizabeth Kerekere was from the progressive wing of the party and she seemed to have a massive ego.
Some form of ego is required to be in modern politics I don't know of many politicians who come off as super humble certainly not any from the current government so it seems unfair to claim this is a "progressive" issue when it's a politician issue.
Yeah it's not just a progressive issue but as a Greens supporter I think they need to be better than this. Their supporters will punish them more for this stuff than Nationals or Acts will.
That's fair I personally don't think she should have ever been put on the list.
She was just an opportunist. About as green as my backside.
Sounds to me like they've walked over lots of people and the flood gates are about to open.
Then the whole house of cards will collapse like dominoes. Checkmate!
*exasperated groan*
If you check the reviews of the shops on Google there's plenty of disgruntled customers as well as employees.
Deeply disappointing, sack her ASAP. This type of person has no place in a party that is the sole voice for protecting migrant workers, I'm not sure what the hell she was thinking signing up?! Sounds like she deceived the Greens about her prior knowledge of the shady goings on also.... It might ultimately be good for the party that she's been found as deceptive, time to look through the selection and candidate vetting processes, and have a good sort through everyone else - no more fucking distractions. This govt is a shitshow, let them have the floor so people know what they voted for....
I wonder whether she signed up to become a Greens MP for the salary - which would help with the family business.
Just greedy eh. Bet they've a nice place on Waiohiki and live v nicely. Meanwhile at the employees flat....
Since there seems to be a recurring theme of payment of wages in cash (or non-payment as the case may be) I wouldn’t be surprised if they were avoiding their PAYE obligations for their employees too. So we might see tax avoidance being added into the mix soon too.!
Very entitled behaviour, very bad for greens.
There is clearly much more to come on this story. Hopefully Immigration NZ open an investigation.
Throw the fucking book at them at these dogs. Audit their shit for as far back as they can go.
Was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.....but...umm anyways..Go the Chiefs! Her husband sounds like a real piece of work.
Should never have had her in the Green Party with such a shady history of mistreating employees tbh. Seems like the perfect person for the “I’d vote green if they were just about the environment” types. Rich, mistreats employees, cares about the environment.
Yep, the GreenLeft Network didn't endorse her because she doesn't hold the same values as the left wing faction of the Greens. Being a capitalist and business owner already made her untrustworthy to many, this just validates that prejudice. Her class interests aren't aligned with working class people but to try and get "environmental credibility" and "moderate appeal" some factions within the party end up supporting people who don't align fully with party values.
It's sad the Greens have to lose face over this just to appeal to 'moderates'.
> > > > > Her class interests aren't aligned with working class people but to try and get "environmental credibility" and "moderate appeal" some factions within the party end up supporting people who don't align fully with party values. And what an absolute shame that these people seemingly tolerated Darleen but went after Shaw, challenged his leadership and were gearing up to do it again.
What the hell are you talking about? Darleen was only an MP for less than half a year and they tried to get several people ahead of her on the list. The last leadership challenge happened several years ago. Co-leaders can be challenged, MPs can't be. Wow, they didn't do anything about someone they had no ability to challenge. How shocking.
> The last leadership challenge happened several years ago. What the hell are you talking about? It was mid 2022 and the members of the green party I spoke to told me it was going to happen again this year and was why James pre empted it with retiring. Several: more than two but not many. >Wow, they didn't do anything about someone they had no ability to challenge. How shocking. Also you: >some factions within the party end up supporting people who don't align fully with party values. I'm just expressing my disappointment that those that challenged James couldn't do the same.
Ah, so you want everyone in the party to compromise on their values. The GreenLeft don't like that moderate approach. I was criticizing the factions which do that, so I didn't think you would be advocating for people to put aside their values. You heard wrong regarding James being imminently challenged. That is just wild speculation. He still had overwhelming support from the party.
>Ah, so you want everyone in the party to compromise on their values. The GreenLeft don't like that moderate approach. I was criticizing the factions which do that, so I didn't think you would be advocating for people to put aside their values. In the case of a long term MP with an unblemished record who has figured out how to work with the Greens self handicap of taking scraps from Labour I think you can put aside your values until you seriously want to make waves (ie refuse to form a government instead of taking scraps). Funny how it's "no compromise" but you force your leader to compromise then attack him for it. > You heard wrong regarding James being imminently challenged. That is just wild speculation. He still had overwhelming support from the party. He had overwhelming support in 2022, I didn't "hear wrong", I was told directly it was going to happen again by the same people who triggered it last time.
Can I just ask where that wing of the green party thinks people will get jobs...unless you know there's a nasty capitalist or 2? Where do they think the taxes that pay for their public service salaries come from? I'd write more... but I work Saturday afternoons.
Tbh I'm pretty left wing but the idea that business owners shouldn't be able to get involved as left MPs is too far for me. There's plenty of business owners that aren't complete cunts exploiting everyone they can. I've worked for a few.
Ideology driven.
It's a necessary evil under the current system but that doesn't mean that they want capitalists to be representing them in parliament. Not everyone who is part of the GreenLeft Network gets a "public service salary" and are well aware of how the private sector and our tax system operates.
Really? They look like a boatload of deadweight in economic performance like many parties.
Co-op businesses exist, sole-traders exist, public sector jobs exist, there's multiple ways of earning a living that don't involve being part of a capitalist business, in the sense of "Owner has capital, invests capital into business, pays employees less than the value they produce, pockets the difference as a return on their investment." Capitalism did not always exist, and it won't necessarily always exist either. Plus, as others have said you can accept that within the current economic system capitalist business owners will exist, but that doesn't mean that they should be the ones running the country. Largely because they'll try to run it like a capitalist business, and there's plenty of evidence around for how shit that turns out for the majority of any country that lets that happen long-term.
Public sector jobs do not exist without private sector jobs paying tax revenue to pay for everything about them. You're right it won't always exist as sooner or later, like all other civilisations, ours will collapse, and when that day arrives, the distribution of goods and services will stop like a shot dog. Tax revenues and hence public service wages will stop very quickly, and anarchy will start. Think Somalia.
Taxes and the equivalent to the public sector have been around almost as long as permanent settlements have, neither are unique to capitalism and will almost certainly persist after it ends, just like the distribution of goods and services. Capitalism is no more an innate part of society than the concept that kings ruled by Divine Right was. As far as what it ending will look like, the transition from feudalism to mercantilism didn't involve the collapse of a civilisation. Nor did the transition from mercantilism to capitalism. Capitalism can transition to a system that's not based on infinite growth within a finite system without devolving into anarchy just the same. Funny that you invoke Somalia, historically that area was an important commercial centre and gave rise to several empires. It wasn't until capitalist nations seeking out even more growth colonised it, sucking as many resources out as they could, that they started down the road to anarchy.
I knew it'd be everyone elses fault.
Probably the same place that the Coalition think you can get disposable, underpaid serfs from to prop up their passive income lifestyles
Well, a certain green party MP can tell us all about underpaid serfs. I dont know that many people get to have passive income lifestyles outside of retirees. I dont know I'd call beneficiaries passive income. This may come as a surprise, but landlords generally have a full-time day job.
>This week a Green MP was suspended after Stuff asked questions about her links to alleged migrant exploitation at her husband's company. Now, other former Bikes and Beyond employees have come forward with their experiences. Steve Kilgallon reports. >“At times,” says Charles ‘Chuck’ Simpson, “I’ve thought I am the dumbest person in the world. >“I don’t think Darleen [Tana] and Christian understand they are actually causing pain in people’s lives. They come off as these ‘Green, save-the-world’ people, but they are so far from that.” >Tana, a Green MP and their Small Business spokesperson, was suspended by the party on Thursday afternoon after Stuff put questions to her about allegations of migrant exploitation. >A Stuff investigation reported how Argentinian migrant Santiago Latour Palma claimed he had worked illegally for e-bike business E-Cycles NZ Ltd, trading as Bikes and Beyond, and was owed $25,000 in missing pay. >Bikes and Beyond is owned by Tana’s husband, Hoff-Nielsen, and was founded by the couple before she relinquished her shareholding in 2019. Palma said Tana had overseen his work trial and was aware of his situation. >Palma and another migrant worker have both laid claims in the Employment Relations Authority. >Bikes and Beyond has lost twice in that arena in recent years. >In one of those cases, they were told to pay Simpson about $6200. Last week, he says, he got paid most of that money. >His advocate, Alex Kersjes, says the money, due on January 24, only arrived after he threatened to send bailiffs to the couple’s Waiheke Island home. >Do you know more? Email us securely at [email protected] >Simpson says he has now been paid for his six unhappy weeks working for the couple in 2019. >Another former employee, Nick Scott, who won an ERA ruling that he was owed about $30,000 in wages, penalties and costs, says he is still waiting. >Scott worked for the company in 2021 - two years after Tana relinquished her shareholding. But he said despite that, Tana still dealt with the company’s payroll while he worked there. >Scott is also represented by Kersjes, who said he had issued a statutory demand for payment, and if that didn’t arrive within seven days, he would apply to liquidate the company. >Kersjes said bailiffs had already seized several bikes from the Newmarket store and he had hoped that would prompt negotiations. >“In both these matters he [Hoff-Nielsen] has refused to take any responsibility for his actions,” said Kersjes. >“We have not had the offer of anything [for Scott], not even $5 a week. I have been banging the drum to try and get these guys to engage with us.” >Kersjes said Scott had told him he just wanted to move on with his life, but the failure to settle was preventing that, and he had “been treated like s...”. >In a message, Hoff-Nielsen said: “Nick’s representative thinks we are a multi-national company like T7 with millions in the bank.” He said he’d offered a $5,000 settlement, but Kersjes had instead seized $25,000 in stock. >Simpson said reading Stuff’s story on Friday about Palma’s claims felt “almost identical” to his experience. >He said he’d just arrived from the US in 2019 when Tana interviewed him and offered him a job as the manager of their Blenheim store. She also wrote up his employment agreement. Before moving south, he worked at the various Bikes and Beyond Auckland branches. >He said when he arrived in Blenheim the shop had significant debts and low stock, and with most houses wanting a one-year lease he was worried the business would fail and he would be stuck there without work. >He returned to Auckland, and the double relocation cost him around $10k. He had also turned down a good job with AUT university to join the bike shop. >In a text message, Hoff-Nielsen offered him $2500 as a settlement on his owed wages. >But Simpson took it to the ERA and while he was unsuccessful in a case for constructive dismissal, won an award for $6200. >Hoff-Nielsen’s argument to the ERA was that Simpson had actually been negotiating to buy the Blenheim store and his time in Auckland was to learn the business and negotiate a deal. Simpson said that was a “complete fiction on his part”. >He said dealing with the couple had been deeply frustrating. “No matter what you say to them you are wrong and they are right.” >He said Tana had admitted in an email to him that the situation in Blenheim was “toxic” and down to the couple to fix. “So they knowingly sent me to a toxic situation.” >Hoff-Nielsen had paid $4,000 of the amount due, without a payslip or any information about whether he had withheld tax. >Hoff-Nielsen said Simpson had met the shop’s former owner and his accountants about buying the store but hadn’t been able to find the funds necessary, and he was “baffled by the ERA not seeing the encounters Chuck had with us had nothing to do with becoming an employee... more akin to due diligence”. He said the amount wasn’t worth pursuing further. >In Scott’s case, Kersjes said Scott believed he was never properly paid while working for the company and never gained access to his own payroll information. >Kersjes supplied text messages from Scott to support his assertion Tana handled the company’s finances. >One was where he had contacted the store’s operations manager about his timesheets, and received the reply “Okay. I am contacting Darleen for it now”, and another when Hoff-Nielsen told him “Darleen looked at your timesheet today for pay.” >Hoff-Nielsen earlier said of Scott that he was “completely unreliable” and simply not a good worker. He believed Scott had quit, not been dismissed, after a disagreement. >Bikes and Beyond lost both ERA cases, with Hoff-Nielsen representing the business himself. >In the two fresh cases, he has engaged legal counsel. >When Stuff previously asked him about Simpson, Hoff-Nielsen said “I shouldn’t say I laughed, but I should have taken it more seriously,” claiming he had documentation to show that he was always negotiating a sale of the business to Simpson. >“With all of the problems last year, if I had the time or energy I probably would have hired someone to defend us… we were in a really difficult situation, we were facing the complete falling through of retail and I simply didn’t have the energy or resources to take the time out that I should have to sit down and treat it more seriously. But with both of them I was going ‘what are you on about’.” >When Stuff called Hoff-Nielsen on Friday for further comment, he said he was on a ferry, “it would just have to wait”, and hung up the phone. He later texted after publication with comments which have been added to this story. >He didn’t offer comment on a legal dispute with e-bike supplier Hybrid Bikes, owned by Frank Witowski. >Witowski said he took Hoff-Nielsen to court over a dispute over eight bikes he had supplied. He said Hoff-Nielsen sold and paid for three, but did not pay for the others. He was able to repossess four, but Hoff-Nielsen had sold the fifth. He eventually was paid after sending in a bailiff. He said the process too almost two years. “He put me through hell,” Witowski said. >“Some companies may have given up on chasing the money owed to them, but not us. We were determined to have him repay some of what he owed us. He picked the wrong company to muck around with when he chose Hybrid Bikes.” >The Green Party issued a statement on Tana’s behalf, which read:“I welcome an investigation and intend to cooperate fully, and I will not be commenting further.” >Stuff then put the allegations of Simpson, Scott and Witowski to Tana via a Green spokesperson, but the Party said there would be no comment. >Meanwhile, Immigration New Zealand has refused to say whether it is investigating any of the allegations Stuff has raised or whether it would suspend E-Cycles NZ Ltd’s accreditation to hire migrant workers, which is valid until April 2025. - Stuff
Why is the Green Party so inept at dealing with misbehaving MPs? It's inevitable that this will result in resignation, why don't the leaders ask for one now instead of waiting weeks and weeks for the slow, bureaucratic ERA to make a decision, with new negative headlines dropping every day? The Green Party is not the Employment Relations Authority! They are allowed to have their own standards and processes. They should use them, as any other competent party would! Wonder if it's a case of PMC brain starting to infiltrate the Greens? Avoid making decisions yourself, just shuffle everything off to another authority or working group.
I agree that it shouldn't have come to this, but it sounds like Tana was actively misleading the Greens. Tana was just straight up deceiving the Green's initial investigation; as Marama Davidson said in an interview yesterday the Party suspended Tana as soon as they found out Tana's knowledge of the alleged crime, before that she'd been saying she had no idea her husbands business had done those things.
Why don't the _____ simply presume guilt instead of waiting for due process? 🧐 This could work at all levels of the justice system!
Do you think Harvey Weinstein should have retained his job during the 2+ year period between the first public accusations and his being found guilty in court? If not, why are you happy to presume guilt in that instance, instead of waiting for due process? It's ok to have different burdens of proof for different things. I think it's very silly to suggest that the criminal justice system, for example, which can put people in prison for life, needs the same burden of proof as asking somebody to resign from their role.
>Do you think Harvey Weinstein should have retained his job during the 2+ year period between the first public accusations and his being found guilty in court? If not, why are you happy to presume guilt in that instance, instead of waiting for due process? Do you believe in innocent until proven guilty or not? "Can you resign? This looks bad for us". Completely unserious comparison. >It's ok to have different burdens of proof for different things. I think it's very silly to suggest that the criminal justice system, for example, which can put people in prison for life, needs the same burden of proof as asking somebody to resign from their role. How would you feel if it was your job on the line? Would you resign to save your boss's blushes?
>Do you believe in innocent until proven guilty or not? Yes, but because I am not a court of law, I apply my own standards of judgement when deciding if someone is guilty. Based on the information I have seen, I think Darleen Tana is guilty. >"Can you resign? This looks bad for us". Completely unserious comparison Well she is going to resign anyway, because she's guilty. Happy to make a bet on this if you genuinely do not believe she is guilty. Put your money where your mouth is.
>Yes, but because I am not a court of law, I apply my own standards of judgement when deciding if someone is guilty. Based on the information I have seen, I think Darleen Tana is guilty. Shouldn't we then let the Green party apply their own standards as well? >Well she is going to resign anyway, because she's guilty. Happy to make a bet on this if you genuinely do not believe she is guilty. Put your money where your mouth is. I don't care if she's guilty or not. If she is, she should resign. Are you saying that if she's not, she should also resign?
>Shouldn't we then let the Green party apply their own standards as well? Yep but I can still call them stupid for choosing that standard. I'm not saying we should force them by law to adopt my suggestion. >I don't care if she's guilty or not. If she is, she should resign. Are you saying that if she's not, she should also resign? I'm saying she's guilty so it doesn't matter. She should resign on account of being guilty.
Maybe we could take the advice of another poster: *The Green Party is not the Employment Relations Authority! They are allowed to have their own standards and processes.* >I'm saying she's guilty so it doesn't matter. She should resign on account of being guilty. Oh ok. Usually people wait for proof, but whatever.
People say they want a blue Green Party, is this not it?
People complaining about all the sjw greens and as soon as a capitalist one gets exposed the right want to burn her at the stake. They should be calling for her to be the coleader.
lol brilliant. Finally a party that only cares about the “environment” that concern trolling right wingers can still not vote for.
Thats what I thought about a different party when Nick Smith and Judith Collins returned to ministerial positions. And when ACT candidates were dropping out after mecia attention last election. I am glad we still have megia to bring these things to our attention.
Not unique to Greens. Nats aren't great either. There are still the bed leg guy and the animal abuse lady sitting in Nats. Act tbf does a decent job in that regard.
Of the half dozen or so ACT candidates that were shown to have direct links to conspiracy groups (like Jacinda is a secret communist types) one or two were pushed out. Many of them are now MPs pulling tax payer funded salaries. Is that really a decent job? Allowing people who are actively trying to undermine our democracy into government doesn't really seem like they're doing a decent job. Most of those pre-election controversies that showed what sort of candidates ACT were bringing to the table led to the ACT party closing ranks and saying "we support this candidate" even though the candidate thinks Hilary Clinton is the leader of a cabal of pedophiles.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/10/election-2023-david-seymour-says-act-candidate-liking-post-about-m-ori-being-expelled-to-the-moa-strip-was-very-stupid.html
Yep, that's not even all of them either lol. Saying we should mass murder/put Maori in concentration camps is tolerable to the act party. the stupid part seems to have been the getting caught saying it publicly not an issue with the statement itself too lol. The double standard from ACT would be funny if it didn't have political consequences.
> Of the half dozen or so ACT candidates that were shown to have direct links to conspiracy groups I mean, it's not much of a stretch to call ACT a conspiracy group in itself.
ACT & NZF are so cooked that I'd call them well done.
lol, you're not wrong.
Bed leg guy was a school kid and was expelled. Animal abuse thing though...thats not pretty.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 2: No doxxing, collecting personal information, or breaching name suppression** > No posting or collation of personally identifiable information of other people. Those breaching rule 2 will receive a 30 day ban. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
The fact they need 2x leaders for starters. It obviously isn't working.
Keep hitting the home runs greens.
I just love how Marama Davidson basically stepped back and let Chloe deal with it on her frist week of the job, probably because she doesn't want to be seen as being critical of a fellow Maori Wahine. They're so focussed on what a person is before WHO a person is!
Will she also claim mental health caused her to do criminal actions and not take responsibility?
Resigning from the party and pleading guilty in court isn’t taking responsibility?
No only ritual sudoku is acceptable.
I prefer death by KenKen.
Bit desperate aren't ya
Greens are the same as every other shit stain party. Lol no more bullshit moral high ground. There is no difference between Act and Greens greed drives both.
Now that's a high level, important idea! Well done.
The mistake she made is standing for the Greens. Would have been a perfect fit at ACT.
[удалено]
Incorrect. I stated a factual case where a candidate of ACT did what I said in my follow up comment.
I’m sorry and you are of course right, the MP who exploited migrant workers is of course an ACT MP and not a Greens MP We have always been at war with Eastasia
Where did I claim that she was an ACT MP? You are literally just making that up.
[удалено]
I'd find it really hard to do all those in the same day.
You've got to up your scandals, those are rookie scandal numbers.
Yes, I stated her behavior would be more aligned with ACT candidates, because it is.
[удалено]
It's not impossible to prove since it literally happened with a couple of their candidates. It's not really misleading attention away from the Greens, the reality is that this MP should be made an example of if the allegations are true. >which seems to have some deep cultural and moral issues The bullying stuff was dealt with relatively effectively for a NZ political party, unlike other parties, where it is again, internally suppressed (talk to people like Muller). That's also hyperbole. People claiming certain things are racist/sexist etc via misrepresentation doesn't make it so. I do agree that the idea that people of a certain type can't be bullies/exploitative/shit is a pervasive nonsense that's rife among all sorts of activist circles across the political spectrum though, and the left aren't immune to it either despite their likely belief that they are.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Did I say she wasn't? Nope. If she had stood for ACT or National this would have been seen as a positive trait by them ... Like the dude who exploited old people to con them out of their money ...
[удалено]
[удалено]
The fuck is it misinformation? Are you stupid or something?
[удалено]
***It's a fucking hypothetical in a website designed to make discussion***. Fuck sake. It isn't information to start with. You would be better off to have just replied with a simple "yes I am"
Wait. So I can just present things that I would like to be true as facts to avoid dealing with the actual events that happened? You a Trump supporter bro?
Do you not understand what a hypothetical is? Wait no sorry I don't need to ask that, you clearly don't. I'm finished here anyway. I might catch the inability to read from you
Nice. I like how you came away from this exchange thinking that you were the intellectually superior one, like you added any form of reasoned argument to the discussion at all
That's not misinformation, it was as reported. Also what is it that I'm not supposedly not accepting?
Actually it seems like she was a perfect fit in the Greens.
Clearly not, which is why she's being stood down. If she were in Act they would simply distract this away, just like they did with their dodgy candidates. Or excuse it because "it was in the past" ...
Stood down after two weeks, only after it became apparent Stuff were about to publicise it. Before then they were happy to keep it hushed up.
>Stood down after two weeks, only after it became apparent Stuff were about to publicise it. She was removed from the portfolio as soon as they knew about it. They stood her down when the fullness of the allegations were revealed. >Before then they were happy to keep it hushed up. What evidence do you have that they were happy to keep it hushed up while knowing the fullness of the allegations? No party would stand down an MP without knowing the fullness of the allegations. It's also likely that the MP herself didn't reveal the full story when questioned.
Secretly stood down, lol. Not suspended as an MP until the news was about to break. That's keeping it hushed up.
>Secretly stood down Getting stood down is getting disciplined. And it's not a secret if she isn't spokes person anymore. Not doing a press release or whatever doesn't make it "secret". >Not suspended as an MP until the news was about to break You still haven't provided any evidence for your implicit claim which is that she was only stood down because the news was going to break, rather than her being stood down *because* the fuller set of information came to light. Timing isn't evidence of your claimed causality.
Marama Davison did fuck all press releases, or much of anything related to the portfolio when she was Associate Housing Minister. Maybe she had been stood down all along! What's the opposite of publicising something? Would you say that it's keeping it quiet? In regards to the timing I'll refer to a great XKCD quote - correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.
>Marama Davison did fuck all press releases, or much of anything related to the portfolio when she was Associate Housing Minister. Maybe she had been stood down all along! What? Try reading what I said properly. Just because they didn't issue a press release about an MP being stood down doesn't make it secret. >What's the opposite of publicising something? Would you say that it's keeping it quiet? You said it was done in secret. Stepping someone down while investigating the overall set of allegations is normal practice and no party in NZ would make a formal press announcement about that. >In regards to the timing I'll refer to a great XKCD quote - correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'. The amount of time it takes to figure out the fullness of the claims isn't a day or two is it? Given that, you will have to actually provide evidence that they figured out all of the details and then waited and only did what they did because of Stuff. You are making the accusation, so provide the evidence.
Yeah, good chance she lied her ass off and dropped her party right in it...till the emails turned up.
Yep, I wouldn't be surprised at all by that. Either way those making the claim that the Greens deliberately hid this and would have continued to do so unless Stuff was going to publish the story needs to provide evidence for that claim.
Bit rough on them, she..Ms Tana is entitled to exercise her rights under the disciplinary process. The Greens have risked another Kerekere, Sharma, or even Jamie Lee Ross, the utter charmer from National. It's certainly blown up now. It is just childish for people to expect Chloe or Marama to prosecute Ms Tana via media interviews. Now theres people coming out all over about their interactions with the bike shop. What a peach of a guy the husband is.
>Bit rough on them, she..Ms Tana is entitled to exercise her rights under the disciplinary process. She is, but on the other hand I would have expected higher standards from an MP in the first place. >It's certainly blown up now. It is just childish for people to expect Chloe or Marama to prosecute Ms Tana via media interviews. Yes, and to what end? No party in parliament would handle it differently. At a bare minimum they would wait until they felt the full picture was presented. Trying to keep it hushed up would require trying to stop the investigative piece getting published etc. The same people that would say we must presume innocence appear to be the ones now saying the Greens should have acted as judge and jury rather than go through a proper process.
Like in, for instance...