• As a matter of urgency, issue a Cabinet Office circular to all central government organisations that it is the Government's expectation that public services should be prioritised on the basis of need, not race.

This isn't a thing that happens, but it's playing up to the whole 'hospitals use race when determining surgery' misinformation bullshit. It will have zero impact in how care is given.

[–] lightnegative@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

What are you talking about, an entire duplicate Maori health authority was formed to prioritise the needs of Maori first, instead of New Zealanders in general.

Not to mention the duplicate Maori versions of other things due to co-governance, and things like Maori wards which put council seats aside just for Maori and no-one else.

We are a multicultural country with far more than two cultures, it can't be Maori vs everyone else. We need to be united as New Zealanders

[–] Rangelus@lemmy.nz 5 points 11 months ago

What are you talking about, an entire duplicate Maori health authority was formed to prioritise the needs of Maori first, instead of New Zealanders in general.

Te Aka Whai Ora is not "an entire duplicate health authority". It's role is:

Leading change in how the entire health system understands and treats Māori health needs.
Developing strategy and policy which will create better health outcomes for Māori.
Recruiting kaupapa Māori services and other services for Māori communities.
Recruiting other services alongside Te Whatu Ora. Keeping track of the health system to make sure there are fewer inequities for Māori.

Notice this is not a duolicte of Te Whatu Ora, recieves a fraction of the funding, and is designed specifically to resolve systemic inequalities in the current health system.

Not to mention the duplicate Maori versions of other things due to co-governance, and things like Maori wards which put council seats aside just for Maori and no-one else.

Co-governance models do not have "duplicate Maori versions", they are a collaboration between Iwi and Council. Every time they have been implemented, they have resulted in improved outcomes for everyone compared to the traditional system. Co-governance already exists in a few places, and has only been beneficial.

Finally, there are no duplicate systems as you are suggesting.

We are a multicultural country with far more than two cultures, it can't be Maori vs everyone else. We need to be united as New Zealanders

Absolutely. But the current system disadvantages our indigenous population. Continuing with the system will not improve the situation, so a targeted approach is required. Better outcomes for the disadvantaged is only a good thing for society.

[–] vividspecter@lemm.ee 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

There's a fair amount of anti-"woke" and and anti-environment stuff though, although I'm not familiar enough with NZ politics to know how impactful these will be. But they look pretty fucked on the face of it:

All references to gender, sexuality and "relationship-based education guidelines" will be removed and replaced from curriculums
Concurrent sentences would come to an end, prisoners would be required to work, and Corrections officers would get body cameras
Hate speech law would also be ruled out, with work on it stopped
Fair pay agreements and Labour's replacements for the RMA will be repealed by Christmas. New resource management laws will be "premised on the enjoyment of property rights as a guiding principle"
Ban on offshore oil and gas exploration to be repealed.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 9 points 11 months ago

I feel like there might be a word for "prisoners would be required to work".

[–] Rangelus@lemmy.nz 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Hate speech law would also be ruled out, with work on it stopped

Oh fuck OFF

[–] lightnegative@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's a good thing.

It sounds bad on the surface but what constitutes hate speech is completely subjective so impossible to define in a legal sense without also affecting freedom of speech.

Plus we already have laws against inciting violence etc so it's not like there's a gaping hole

[–] Rangelus@lemmy.nz 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So then fix it. Or change it, or rework it. Don't just cut cut cut because things aren't perfect. How is society supposed to progress if we kill any ambitious programmes?

[–] lightnegative@lemmy.world -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

In this case the premise is fundamentally flawed and can't really be fixed.

Therefore, it's logical to stop wasting time on it and spend the time on the new priorities instead

[–] Rangelus@lemmy.nz 3 points 11 months ago

I disagree the premise is flawed. We, as a society, have decided hate-speech is not ok.

[–] BlueEther@no.lastname.nz 4 points 11 months ago

Some of the key points seem very anti environment, which is a real shame as Labour really hadn't gone far enough

[–] sea_slug@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

So much of it just seems like petty idealogical change just for the sake of it.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 2 points 11 months ago

LGWM has been dragging on for almost a decade now, Wellington council were given a clear mandate to build new tunnels, bypass the basin, build trams, and in general get shit done.

Instead, we have a handful of bike lanes, and Wellington is as painful to get around in as it ever has been.

It's about the only item on that list I wholeheartedly agree with.