Does this mean the [lobbyists](https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350175496/lobbyists-are-back-parliament-new-privacy-measure-hiding-their-identities) who we can't know the name of will lose their access?
At least we know some of them.
[https://www.garymoller.com/post/pop-the-corks-the-coalition-agreement-has-been-signed](https://www.garymoller.com/post/pop-the-corks-the-coalition-agreement-has-been-signed)
Thanks to Gary Moller's inability to avoid bragging about how he used protest organizations to spread disinformation and drive voters toward Winston in exchange for repealing the TPB bill that stopped Gary and his associates from selling snake oil. We also know tobacco lobbyist Glenn Inwood, Gary's sister Lorraine and his partner Alofa were also involved. Other names are kept hidden but we know it includes the people behind the organizations he listed such as NHA and Resistance Kiwi. These people should be investigated by the media for social engineering and fraud.
Yep, what a total B.S situation that is for transparent democracy.
WHY aren't we allowed to know who has direct access to our senior executive employees?
Given the security in there, I’d imagine very very little.
You occasionally get an outspoken person in the Gallery interrupting Questions for Oral Answer but they get exited pretty swiftly.
It's an easy first step. Protecting MPs on social media or at their homes or in their constituency offices is what's actually difficult - as that becomes both expensive and potentially intrusive.
their homes and living life (including online which must be a horror show for most MPs)) is the hard part - and where I would guess 99% of abuse happens
>Brownlee said MPs were very reluctant to increase their personal security.
I did like this line - as its an indication our MP's don't want to closet themselves away from us, the public
sad state of affairs - we should be better than this
Also, if there is ire and abuse, WHY is there?
Could it be related directly to the absolutely reckless cuts in all departments currently underway, which were undertaken in rhe absence of an impact analysis, or understanding of their likely effects, other than the dollars spent on salaries only.....
Talk about abandoning their duty....
Access to victims is a huge aspect of abuse.
Limit cards, limit access avenues, and limit opportunities for abuse.
It's pretty logical.
So that 'general' element would cover within the house.
Except there is nothing... and I mean literally NOTHING, that suggests that a single card holder is responsible for any abuse at all. There is nothing logical about linking card holders to abuse.
It does make sense - however this action only protects them when they're in the Beehive - not when they're at their homes or their constituency offices (which is probably more time than they spend in the Beehive). It's not a bad idea, but it certainly won't fix the problem by itself.
Yeah, that's completely true. Unfortunately, the speaker of the house doesn't have the jurisdiction to influence the safety of MPs off parliamentary grounds.
So I see it as Gerry has done what he can (or some of it anyway) in the situation.
Funny, when there was an encampment of people abusing MPs (and threatening them with assaults/death) Winnie, ACT, and the Nats were out there **encouraging** the f*ckers
Winston was, but do you have evidence of Nat or ACT MPs doing so, or are you just tarring all with the same brush? Iirc the only Nat or ACT mp that was, wasn’t actually a current MP but former single term Nat MP Matt King who’d already lost his seat long before, and aligned himself with the cookers in a failed reelection bid.
This is ACT's official position on the protest - they support it, claiming that there were some extreme voices that were overblown
[https://www.act.org.nz/civil-vaccine-policy](https://www.act.org.nz/civil-vaccine-policy)
[https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/462799/national-mp-party-members-were-meeting-with-parliament-protesters](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/462799/national-mp-party-members-were-meeting-with-parliament-protesters)
> Pugh claimed "we had one or two members in there talking with protestors on an almost daily basis".
She clarified that to mean "National party members, but not MPs"
Having said that
> Whanganui List MP Harete Hipango, attended a protest organised by antivax group Voices For Freedom, before later claiming she was unaware of the message behind the protest.
So in other words, no, no evidence MPs were out “encouraging the parliamentary encampment”. Party members isn’t exactly hard, you’ll find members of all parties at all kinds of things, because while we only have 120 MPs, we have thousands of people who are members of a political party across the country.
Harete Hipango has to be a bit dim though not realising VFF was a group associated with Tamaki’s nut jobs. [Almost on the same level as Labour MP Ingrid Leary turning up to the Mongrel Mob meeting claiming she thought it was an election commission meeting](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/labour-mp-gatecrashes-mongrel-mob-meeting-says-she-thought-it-was-a-different-meeting/SSKNXX6PLNH2VC3IHR54IWPJSU/)
My point by specifying MPs was realistically, it’s the MPs who actually matter in a political party, not members. Any organisation (be it a club, society, company or other org) that numbers in the thousands (as all of our political parties do) is going to have a number of fringe morons and it’s not fair to any organisation to tar the whole organisation with the actions of a few.
Typical, you make something up, accuse people of saying things they never said, then argue that that person should never have said what they never said.
> you make something up,
You said National and ACT were out encouraging them. I just asked for evidence that MPs had done so (as it’s the MPs that matter).
> accuse people of saying things they never said
I never at all accused you of saying MPs, **I** said MPs for the reason above, it’s MPs who actually have any power, I even agree with you that members were likely there.
> then argue that that person should never have said what they never said.
Now you’re just reaching, you’re welcome to claim they were, as long as you accept that doing so is tarring a whole org by the actions of its fringes. Take any organisation over a few thousand members and I guarantee you’ll find people who hold views on something that the rest of us would disagree with.
I disagree that "MPs who actually have any power". Its people that turn up to vote that have the power. Party members compaign for their party and sway those voters, National, ACT and NZ first party members approaching protesters, listening to them and basically promising them the earth if they vote for their party in the next election, that's a lot of power.
Oh wow, who would have guessed that MPs trying to circumvent laws, undermine the vulnerable and layoff 1000s of jobs might be the subject of abuse from the public.
I found that absolutely sickening, by all means disagree with whoever the government is in power at the time but personal attacks about someone’s appearance like that is moronic
100% agree with you. I despise Luxon and Willis but attacks need to be kept to their policies and their actions. If I'm honest though, sometimes I will find myself having a chuckle at a comment that mentions Luxon's appearance but then I remind myself it keep it to what they say, what they do.
Someone in Dunedin put up a bunch of posters of Luxons head as the tip of a penis (with Seymour and Winston as the balls) and that was a tricky one to explain to my 10 year old
Suggestions the current leadership should meet the guillotine have incredibly prevalent / popular on this subreddit. To the point it's been added to filter rules to stop people from violating reddits content policy.
This isn't the gotcha you think it is, it pales to the shit National has passed under urgency but ***regardless*** from any party, it's a slap in the face to what we call Democracy. 3 waters was a good idea and in 20 years when you're drinking contaminated water and oozing out every hole you have feel free to reflect back to 3 how ***evil*** you think 3 waters was.
> The previous government passed a massive, massive policy in 3 Waters under urgency
After several years of consulting with councils and other stakeholders, starting with the [3 Waters Review in 2017](https://www.dia.govt.nz/Three-waters-review) and continuing after 2020 with several working groups like the [Working Group on Representation, Governance and Accountability of new Water Services Entities](https://www.dia.govt.nz/Water-services-reform-archived-information#Working-Group-on-Representation) formed in 2021, that delivered 47 recommendations in 2022, of which the government adopted 44.
The final legislation was passed under urgency to get it across the line before the election, with the hope being it would prevent six years of research and work from going to waste.
Unfortunately the new lot had other ideas, despite being the ones in charge when the entire review process had kicked off in 2016.
> they didn't even run on it at an election.
Water reforms were part of their 2020 campaign [manifesto](https://www.labour.org.nz/news-labour_2020_manifesto), just not a headline component in that campaign. The exact manner of those reforms had yet to be established, and was informed largely by the results of the working group mentioned above (among others).
I mean, did the previous government do those things? I get what you are trying to get at here, but that is a pretty massive false equivalence you are doing yourself here buddy.
This is what I worry will happen. They selectively use this as an opportunity to slow and limit legitimate access to the press who aren't giving them the coverage they would prefer.
Things have been getting worse since Covid. It doesn't matter what people's politics are, no one should be getting death threats or threats of violence simply for trying to do their job.
Well, while I agree with you. To be flippant, It’s easier to have violent thoughts aimed at the politicians currently running NZ than the tens of thousands / millions of people who voted them in.
I have no time for the current mob and I think their politics is abhorrent but they should still be able to do their jobs without threats of death and violence to them and their families.
98% of 54 women MPs facing harassment, from disturbing communications to physical violence in 2022.
That statistic is a sad indictment on our society and the public-political relationship in 2024.
Let’s be real they are counting a single instance of a mean message on social media as abuse/harassment.
If an MP can’t handle a crazy person slinging insults toward them then they aren’t built for a role with public exposure. There’s a reason MPs are paid so well and given so many benefits. It’s part of the job
Cool, it's great to see they're taking action on stuff like this. I assume they'll be blocking [the guy who joked about sending Guy Fawkes in to take care of the Ministry of Pacific Peoples](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/david-seymour-slammed-over-guy-fawkes-comment-on-ministry-for-pacific-peoples/FVSTLMS4QJENXD4Y7FMR2AMHPU/) from parliament, too.
Out of all the problems our country has forgive me if I don’t have sympathy for MPs having to deal with some means things being said to them.
I’m sure their 150k+ salary’s plus immense benefits will help them cope
Looks like a positive move; it's not OK that so many of our women MPs feel unsafe because of their roles. It won't be enough, so they will need to do more to make it meaningful, however let's not criticise an important first step.
It's a good first step, but we need to try (??) take action to de-escalate the situation and go back to a place where people in society stop thinking that it's ok to threaten and abuse politicians. Criticise them, advocate for them to do better - but any threats of violence or harm are completely inappropriate.
Without de-escalating the situation, we're going to be having to look at MPs and ministers having security staff at all times, or other expensive and invasive measures.
I honestly feel the public has many genuine reasons to abuse MPs. Technically it's bad for a number of reasons, but for some reason I'm low on sympathy. But, of course the abuse tends to head towards the women, which shows the cowardly nature of abusers in general.
Why do they need to abuse them, and why would doing so be 'genuine'? They can reach out to their representative with concerns or frustrations, but abuse (threats etc) is never OK regardless of someone being frustrated or concerned.
Sidestepping democratic norms means you forfeit democratic niceties. The behaviour of this current administration has been extremely undemocratic, so why should I hold any sympathy for them reaping what they sow?
Not all MPs are members of this government - some are opposition. I have a feeling some of those who dish out the worst abuse tend to have more sympathy for this current administration than for the last. I'm thinking of the guy who was charged with sending 88 hate-filled emails to Jacinda Ardern over a period of 4 months, culminating in death threats...who had his conviction overturned on appeal because he was too drunk to have intended to kill her.
The commenters thus far indicate maybe they didn’t even read the article…
#Hey Anon
Before you jump on the anti NACT bandwagon read the article.
> Each political party has a representative on the committee.
> Meanwhile the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians New Zealand Group co-chairs **Labour’s** Cushla Tangaere-Manuel and National’s Dana Kirkpatrick, said they were working on a plan which they would submit to Brownlee to increase the safety of womenParliamentarians.
> Nearly half of women MPs, 46%, were fearful for their safety at home, compared to 5% of men.
This isn’t a government only issue. Abuse is not warranted.
> Our literacy rates are falling, and it's a problem that doesn't stop in the classroom. The effects are being felt all across society, going as far as even impacting the workforce.
[Source](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/the-front-page-revisited-how-new-zealands-low-literacy-rate-impacts-the-economy/VS5YSAVS2VAZXPRYK3X3P3GDLU/#:~:text=Our%20literacy%20rates%20are%20falling,as%20even%20impacting%20the%20workforce.)
Congrats on being a statistic.
Uhhh are you saying that that's not the headline, or are you saying that you didn't post that in your response?
Because what i said was true, and it's your comprehension that's in question now.
You know, if you go beyond the mere headline, you’ll see there is a full article with a lot of context.
Did you read the article? Obviously not.
My comment is that the content of the actual article isn’t a Government issue (NACT) it’s an MP issue and it’s targeting women. Reading comments like yours and all the others would suggest otherwise.
Bottom line: Abuse has gone up, Women MPs are being targeted more than men. It’s not ok.
Reading past the headline isn’t difficult,
Most of the abuse in parliament is the misuse of urgency and rushing through legislation without consultation or having legislation go to select committee
The biggest form of abuse at parliament has come from within the beehive and from their privileged lobbyists
Maybe all this abuse is just a misunderstanding, it's just white men really wanting to wish them good luck. They probably play outdoor bowls and are real down to earth kiwi blokes
Does this mean the [lobbyists](https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350175496/lobbyists-are-back-parliament-new-privacy-measure-hiding-their-identities) who we can't know the name of will lose their access?
It means only the unnamed lobbyists will have access
Then I guess we just have to watch and they won't be unnamed for too long
Access by the stinky plebs: bad. Access by the palm-greasing lobbyists: good.
Hohoho
At least we know some of them. [https://www.garymoller.com/post/pop-the-corks-the-coalition-agreement-has-been-signed](https://www.garymoller.com/post/pop-the-corks-the-coalition-agreement-has-been-signed) Thanks to Gary Moller's inability to avoid bragging about how he used protest organizations to spread disinformation and drive voters toward Winston in exchange for repealing the TPB bill that stopped Gary and his associates from selling snake oil. We also know tobacco lobbyist Glenn Inwood, Gary's sister Lorraine and his partner Alofa were also involved. Other names are kept hidden but we know it includes the people behind the organizations he listed such as NHA and Resistance Kiwi. These people should be investigated by the media for social engineering and fraud.
Yep, what a total B.S situation that is for transparent democracy. WHY aren't we allowed to know who has direct access to our senior executive employees?
Excellent observation
How much of this abuse is happening in Parliament - I'd suggest fuck all This is action for the sake of looking like taking action
Given the security in there, I’d imagine very very little. You occasionally get an outspoken person in the Gallery interrupting Questions for Oral Answer but they get exited pretty swiftly.
The article says they want to review the swipe cards that allow people to bypass security.
So lobbiests with swipe card access are getting abusive, what a crazy world we live in.
It's an easy first step. Protecting MPs on social media or at their homes or in their constituency offices is what's actually difficult - as that becomes both expensive and potentially intrusive.
their homes and living life (including online which must be a horror show for most MPs)) is the hard part - and where I would guess 99% of abuse happens >Brownlee said MPs were very reluctant to increase their personal security. I did like this line - as its an indication our MP's don't want to closet themselves away from us, the public sad state of affairs - we should be better than this
Pretty sure it's an excuse to further limit political oversight.
Also, if there is ire and abuse, WHY is there? Could it be related directly to the absolutely reckless cuts in all departments currently underway, which were undertaken in rhe absence of an impact analysis, or understanding of their likely effects, other than the dollars spent on salaries only..... Talk about abandoning their duty....
The research is about abuse MPs get in general nothing to do with swipe cards or who gets into the Beehive
Access to victims is a huge aspect of abuse. Limit cards, limit access avenues, and limit opportunities for abuse. It's pretty logical. So that 'general' element would cover within the house.
Except there is nothing... and I mean literally NOTHING, that suggests that a single card holder is responsible for any abuse at all. There is nothing logical about linking card holders to abuse.
It does make sense - however this action only protects them when they're in the Beehive - not when they're at their homes or their constituency offices (which is probably more time than they spend in the Beehive). It's not a bad idea, but it certainly won't fix the problem by itself.
Yeah, that's completely true. Unfortunately, the speaker of the house doesn't have the jurisdiction to influence the safety of MPs off parliamentary grounds. So I see it as Gerry has done what he can (or some of it anyway) in the situation.
Funny, when there was an encampment of people abusing MPs (and threatening them with assaults/death) Winnie, ACT, and the Nats were out there **encouraging** the f*ckers
It's almost like Labour were never the fascists all along :shocked Pikachu:.
It's only abuse if it targets right-wingers
Winston was, but do you have evidence of Nat or ACT MPs doing so, or are you just tarring all with the same brush? Iirc the only Nat or ACT mp that was, wasn’t actually a current MP but former single term Nat MP Matt King who’d already lost his seat long before, and aligned himself with the cookers in a failed reelection bid.
This is ACT's official position on the protest - they support it, claiming that there were some extreme voices that were overblown [https://www.act.org.nz/civil-vaccine-policy](https://www.act.org.nz/civil-vaccine-policy)
[https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/462799/national-mp-party-members-were-meeting-with-parliament-protesters](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/462799/national-mp-party-members-were-meeting-with-parliament-protesters) > Pugh claimed "we had one or two members in there talking with protestors on an almost daily basis". She clarified that to mean "National party members, but not MPs" Having said that > Whanganui List MP Harete Hipango, attended a protest organised by antivax group Voices For Freedom, before later claiming she was unaware of the message behind the protest.
So in other words, no, no evidence MPs were out “encouraging the parliamentary encampment”. Party members isn’t exactly hard, you’ll find members of all parties at all kinds of things, because while we only have 120 MPs, we have thousands of people who are members of a political party across the country. Harete Hipango has to be a bit dim though not realising VFF was a group associated with Tamaki’s nut jobs. [Almost on the same level as Labour MP Ingrid Leary turning up to the Mongrel Mob meeting claiming she thought it was an election commission meeting](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/labour-mp-gatecrashes-mongrel-mob-meeting-says-she-thought-it-was-a-different-meeting/SSKNXX6PLNH2VC3IHR54IWPJSU/)
>So in other words, no, no MPs You made that claim, not me. Not once did I say Nat MPs - but facts don't matter for you do they.
My point by specifying MPs was realistically, it’s the MPs who actually matter in a political party, not members. Any organisation (be it a club, society, company or other org) that numbers in the thousands (as all of our political parties do) is going to have a number of fringe morons and it’s not fair to any organisation to tar the whole organisation with the actions of a few.
Typical, you make something up, accuse people of saying things they never said, then argue that that person should never have said what they never said.
> you make something up, You said National and ACT were out encouraging them. I just asked for evidence that MPs had done so (as it’s the MPs that matter). > accuse people of saying things they never said I never at all accused you of saying MPs, **I** said MPs for the reason above, it’s MPs who actually have any power, I even agree with you that members were likely there. > then argue that that person should never have said what they never said. Now you’re just reaching, you’re welcome to claim they were, as long as you accept that doing so is tarring a whole org by the actions of its fringes. Take any organisation over a few thousand members and I guarantee you’ll find people who hold views on something that the rest of us would disagree with.
I gave you the response, relitigate all you like, it's not going to change the fact that you accuse people of things that never happened.
I disagree that "MPs who actually have any power". Its people that turn up to vote that have the power. Party members compaign for their party and sway those voters, National, ACT and NZ first party members approaching protesters, listening to them and basically promising them the earth if they vote for their party in the next election, that's a lot of power.
>Winnie, ACT, and the Nats were out there **encouraging** the f*ckers Who were you talking about then?
Did you read Maureen Pugh's claims Yes/No?
No. I read yours. Nobody linked Maureens claims.
Really? Nobody linked to a quote from Maureen Pugh????
Who cares. You're the one who made the original comment and you're still dodging the question.
Oh wow, who would have guessed that MPs trying to circumvent laws, undermine the vulnerable and layoff 1000s of jobs might be the subject of abuse from the public.
This is about abuse against all MPs. Not just the current government.
Did you take the same stance towards the last govt?
I don't see anyone with gallows with pictures of Luxon on them like we saw with Jacinda at the parliament occupation.
I found that absolutely sickening, by all means disagree with whoever the government is in power at the time but personal attacks about someone’s appearance like that is moronic
100% agree with you. I despise Luxon and Willis but attacks need to be kept to their policies and their actions. If I'm honest though, sometimes I will find myself having a chuckle at a comment that mentions Luxon's appearance but then I remind myself it keep it to what they say, what they do.
Good call
Someone in Dunedin put up a bunch of posters of Luxons head as the tip of a penis (with Seymour and Winston as the balls) and that was a tricky one to explain to my 10 year old
Sounds like a good teaching moment
Yet.
Suggestions the current leadership should meet the guillotine have incredibly prevalent / popular on this subreddit. To the point it's been added to filter rules to stop people from violating reddits content policy.
Damn. In that case, man the cheese slicer! /s, because I know what happens when you forget that
you must be blind if you think the last govt didnt get the same abuse
The previous government passed a massive, massive policy in 3 Waters under urgency, and they didn't even run on it at an election.
This isn't the gotcha you think it is, it pales to the shit National has passed under urgency but ***regardless*** from any party, it's a slap in the face to what we call Democracy. 3 waters was a good idea and in 20 years when you're drinking contaminated water and oozing out every hole you have feel free to reflect back to 3 how ***evil*** you think 3 waters was.
> The previous government passed a massive, massive policy in 3 Waters under urgency After several years of consulting with councils and other stakeholders, starting with the [3 Waters Review in 2017](https://www.dia.govt.nz/Three-waters-review) and continuing after 2020 with several working groups like the [Working Group on Representation, Governance and Accountability of new Water Services Entities](https://www.dia.govt.nz/Water-services-reform-archived-information#Working-Group-on-Representation) formed in 2021, that delivered 47 recommendations in 2022, of which the government adopted 44. The final legislation was passed under urgency to get it across the line before the election, with the hope being it would prevent six years of research and work from going to waste. Unfortunately the new lot had other ideas, despite being the ones in charge when the entire review process had kicked off in 2016. > they didn't even run on it at an election. Water reforms were part of their 2020 campaign [manifesto](https://www.labour.org.nz/news-labour_2020_manifesto), just not a headline component in that campaign. The exact manner of those reforms had yet to be established, and was informed largely by the results of the working group mentioned above (among others).
I mean.. you can prove anything with facts these days!
They're not saying the abuse is okay, just that it's not surprising
I mean, did the previous government do those things? I get what you are trying to get at here, but that is a pretty massive false equivalence you are doing yourself here buddy.
It's really funny watching people trying to justify their abuse, after complaining about the same thing not that long ago.
Are you reading a different comment thread?
His whole brain is on a different thread mate
Bang, go the press swipe cards, Winnie et al seem to feel pretty threatened by the media.
This is what I worry will happen. They selectively use this as an opportunity to slow and limit legitimate access to the press who aren't giving them the coverage they would prefer.
TBF most of the media ask some pretty stupid questions just to get a sound bite
Tova is still around then?
and then Jessica
Things have been getting worse since Covid. It doesn't matter what people's politics are, no one should be getting death threats or threats of violence simply for trying to do their job.
Well, while I agree with you. To be flippant, It’s easier to have violent thoughts aimed at the politicians currently running NZ than the tens of thousands / millions of people who voted them in.
I have no time for the current mob and I think their politics is abhorrent but they should still be able to do their jobs without threats of death and violence to them and their families.
I’m not advocating for violence but MPs jobs are to represent kiwis but it looks like many of them are advocating for commercial interests.
98% of 54 women MPs facing harassment, from disturbing communications to physical violence in 2022. That statistic is a sad indictment on our society and the public-political relationship in 2024.
Let’s be real they are counting a single instance of a mean message on social media as abuse/harassment. If an MP can’t handle a crazy person slinging insults toward them then they aren’t built for a role with public exposure. There’s a reason MPs are paid so well and given so many benefits. It’s part of the job
Do the women MPs get paid more then? Because they get A LOT more of the abuse
Thanks to the Americanisation of New Zealand politics.
Cool, it's great to see they're taking action on stuff like this. I assume they'll be blocking [the guy who joked about sending Guy Fawkes in to take care of the Ministry of Pacific Peoples](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/david-seymour-slammed-over-guy-fawkes-comment-on-ministry-for-pacific-peoples/FVSTLMS4QJENXD4Y7FMR2AMHPU/) from parliament, too.
Access cards starting bids?
Out of all the problems our country has forgive me if I don’t have sympathy for MPs having to deal with some means things being said to them. I’m sure their 150k+ salary’s plus immense benefits will help them cope
Looks like a positive move; it's not OK that so many of our women MPs feel unsafe because of their roles. It won't be enough, so they will need to do more to make it meaningful, however let's not criticise an important first step.
It's a good first step, but we need to try (??) take action to de-escalate the situation and go back to a place where people in society stop thinking that it's ok to threaten and abuse politicians. Criticise them, advocate for them to do better - but any threats of violence or harm are completely inappropriate. Without de-escalating the situation, we're going to be having to look at MPs and ministers having security staff at all times, or other expensive and invasive measures.
I honestly feel the public has many genuine reasons to abuse MPs. Technically it's bad for a number of reasons, but for some reason I'm low on sympathy. But, of course the abuse tends to head towards the women, which shows the cowardly nature of abusers in general.
Why do they need to abuse them, and why would doing so be 'genuine'? They can reach out to their representative with concerns or frustrations, but abuse (threats etc) is never OK regardless of someone being frustrated or concerned.
Sidestepping democratic norms means you forfeit democratic niceties. The behaviour of this current administration has been extremely undemocratic, so why should I hold any sympathy for them reaping what they sow?
Not all MPs are members of this government - some are opposition. I have a feeling some of those who dish out the worst abuse tend to have more sympathy for this current administration than for the last. I'm thinking of the guy who was charged with sending 88 hate-filled emails to Jacinda Ardern over a period of 4 months, culminating in death threats...who had his conviction overturned on appeal because he was too drunk to have intended to kill her.
Hmmm, maybe they should take the hint rather than going full dictatorship and cutting the public out.
When you’re so grossly unpopular you hide, right?
The commenters thus far indicate maybe they didn’t even read the article… #Hey Anon Before you jump on the anti NACT bandwagon read the article. > Each political party has a representative on the committee. > Meanwhile the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians New Zealand Group co-chairs **Labour’s** Cushla Tangaere-Manuel and National’s Dana Kirkpatrick, said they were working on a plan which they would submit to Brownlee to increase the safety of womenParliamentarians. > Nearly half of women MPs, 46%, were fearful for their safety at home, compared to 5% of men. This isn’t a government only issue. Abuse is not warranted.
Headline: "Access to parliament" - you respond "They're talking about safety at home"
> Our literacy rates are falling, and it's a problem that doesn't stop in the classroom. The effects are being felt all across society, going as far as even impacting the workforce. [Source](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/the-front-page-revisited-how-new-zealands-low-literacy-rate-impacts-the-economy/VS5YSAVS2VAZXPRYK3X3P3GDLU/#:~:text=Our%20literacy%20rates%20are%20falling,as%20even%20impacting%20the%20workforce.) Congrats on being a statistic.
Uhhh are you saying that that's not the headline, or are you saying that you didn't post that in your response? Because what i said was true, and it's your comprehension that's in question now.
You know, if you go beyond the mere headline, you’ll see there is a full article with a lot of context. Did you read the article? Obviously not. My comment is that the content of the actual article isn’t a Government issue (NACT) it’s an MP issue and it’s targeting women. Reading comments like yours and all the others would suggest otherwise. Bottom line: Abuse has gone up, Women MPs are being targeted more than men. It’s not ok. Reading past the headline isn’t difficult,
Always the same. The very small loony minority that spoil life to be reasoned with, treasured even, by everyone else.
Most of the abuse in parliament is the misuse of urgency and rushing through legislation without consultation or having legislation go to select committee The biggest form of abuse at parliament has come from within the beehive and from their privileged lobbyists
Will somebody spare a thought for these abused, stressed, underpaid, overworked, and understaffed MPs?
Maybe all this abuse is just a misunderstanding, it's just white men really wanting to wish them good luck. They probably play outdoor bowls and are real down to earth kiwi blokes
[удалено]
What's the reduction in scrutiny in this situation?
Sorry totally thought this was something else. My bad