So we have 3-way Coalition Government comprising National and Act, and
National and NZF. This is a novel development and I believe that the agreements that cement what this government will do policy-wise is
something new and the agreements that National has got over the line
with ACT and NZF separately have been published:

https://tinyurl.com/3yej372w

There are two major differences this time around:

- Each of the minor parties have negotiated an open agreement with
National with both aware of what the other has negotiated.
- There is a specific policy framework set out for the new
government. National are bound for this and therefore cannot
introduce legislation not covered by one or both agreements.

The opportunity for Winston (or Seymour) to grandstand against
National will only happen if National choose to do something not
covered by there agreements. This is not likely, even more so because
the agreements have been published right from the start. I do not
recall this ever happening in the past where coalition governments
have been formed.

My one reservation is that although there is explicit reference to
removing co-governance from the statute books, there is no such
reference to the water reforms legislation. I can only surmise that
this is covered in the National 100-day plan that did not draw a need
for mention in the agreements.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

So we have 3-way Coalition Government comprising National and Act, and >National and NZF. This is a novel development and I believe that the >agreements that cement what this government will do policy-wise is
something new and the agreements that National has got over the line
with ACT and NZF separately have been published:

https://tinyurl.com/3yej372w

There are two major differences this time around:

- Each of the minor parties have negotiated an open agreement with
National with both aware of what the other has negotiated.
- There is a specific policy framework set out for the new
government. National are bound for this and therefore cannot
introduce legislation not covered by one or both agreements.

The opportunity for Winston (or Seymour) to grandstand against
National will only happen if National choose to do something not
covered by there agreements. This is not likely, even more so because
the agreements have been published right from the start. I do not
recall this ever happening in the past where coalition governments
have been formed.

My one reservation is that although there is explicit reference to
removing co-governance from the statute books, there is no such
reference to the water reforms legislation. I can only surmise that
this is covered in the National 100-day plan that did not draw a need
for mention in the agreements.

I am delighted that the agreement has been published. I am unsure about previous coalitions other than the last one, but in that case the agreement was deliberately withheld and is yet to be published (a disgrace).
I wonder whether the water reforms legislation is covered under the co-governance removal, hopefully it is.
Nice to see a document which allows the voting public to better measure performance of government, a refreshing change. Now let us see if the work gets done.
They deserve the oppportunity and support until such time that they fail to deliver significant promises.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-11-24, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

So we have 3-way Coalition Government comprising National and Act, and National and NZF. This is a novel development and I believe that the agreements that cement what this government will do policy-wise is
something new and the agreements that National has got over the line
with ACT and NZF separately have been published:

https://tinyurl.com/3yej372w

There are two major differences this time around:

- Each of the minor parties have negotiated an open agreement with
National with both aware of what the other has negotiated.
- There is a specific policy framework set out for the new
government. National are bound for this and therefore cannot
introduce legislation not covered by one or both agreements.

The opportunity for Winston (or Seymour) to grandstand against
National will only happen if National choose to do something not
covered by there agreements. This is not likely, even more so because
the agreements have been published right from the start. I do not
recall this ever happening in the past where coalition governments
have been formed.

My one reservation is that although there is explicit reference to
removing co-governance from the statute books, there is no such
reference to the water reforms legislation. I can only surmise that
this is covered in the National 100-day plan that did not draw a need
for mention in the agreements.

This is a milestone for MMP. After 30 years it has reached a maturity whereby like minded parties have come to an agreement, and are being transparent
over this. This is expected by the public and certainly expected/demanded
by democracy.

Now we have some checks and balances in place. If one steps out of line the other two are likely to reign the third party in.

Water reforms, National has said that There is a better way, co-governance
not needed, but water reforms is needed. ACT and NZF agree so it is a given
and no need to go on about it.

It is great to see the agreements in the public domain, National said this would happen, it has. These agreeement in fact are the manifesto from the election.

Interesting is it that there are two agreeemnts between the three parties. I would have thought that one would have serviced. Oh well lok better we have
had up until now.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 2:44:21 PM UTC+13, Crash wrote:

So we have 3-way Coalition Government comprising National and Act, and National and NZF. This is a novel development and I believe that the agreements that cement what this government will do policy-wise is
something new and the agreements that National has got over the line
with ACT and NZF separately have been published:

https://tinyurl.com/3yej372w

There are two major differences this time around:

- Each of the minor parties have negotiated an open agreement with
National with both aware of what the other has negotiated.
- There is a specific policy framework set out for the new
government. National are bound for this and therefore cannot
introduce legislation not covered by one or both agreements.

The opportunity for Winston (or Seymour) to grandstand against
National will only happen if National choose to do something not
covered by there agreements. This is not likely, even more so because
the agreements have been published right from the start. I do not
recall this ever happening in the past where coalition governments
have been formed.

My one reservation is that although there is explicit reference to
removing co-governance from the statute books, there is no such
reference to the water reforms legislation. I can only surmise that
this is covered in the National 100-day plan that did not draw a need
for mention in the agreements.

A clear and concise summary: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/24/new-zealand-coalition-two-deputy-pms-national-party-act-wintston-peters

An opinion piece, and biased as is routinely to be expected, but none the worse for that provided it is truthful:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/24/new-zealand-new-coalition-government-national-nz-first-act - biased one

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)