Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Tāne

@daylightdawn.bsky.social

350 followers 340 following 1.4K posts

#ToituTeTīriti. #ToituTeManaMāori. #ToituTeReo. #ToituTeKotahitanga. Leaving a legacy of aroha, manaakitanga and kaitaikitanga for my mokopuna. Mauri ora!

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 15h

Well, Noels’ absence is glaringly obvious now…🫣
#AusNZ
#Netball

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 17h

We can’t change things/people but we can change how we perceive them; in that, it’ll hopefully lessen the impact on our mental and physical health.
Good luck e hoa. 🙏🏾

Reposted by Tāne

Paul Thistoll @pault.bsky.social · 22h

More analysis on the RSB from the MoR's report on the bill. Analysis is by Allen & Clarke.

Approach to submissions analysis 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. The Ministry contracted Allen + Clarke to assist with submissions analysis. Allen + Clarke’s role included: • reviewing unprocessed submissions1 to identify which submissions were in scope for analysis in line with the Clerk of the Committee’s filtering processes • reading and categorising all submissions based on whether the submission supported or opposed the Bill, and identifying broad themes for that support or opposition • identifying all submissions containing substantive content (submissions that commented on the specific provisions of the Bill) and undertaking further analysis of these submissions. Allen + Clarke provided submissions containing substantive content to the Ministry as they were identified. The Ministry also read and analysed these submissions, with a view to identifying recommendations for the Committee. In addition, the Ministry considered all oral submissions to the Committee in this process. All 165,977 submissions were read by a human, and all 159,000 in-scope submissions are reflected in this report. A more detailed summary of the approach to submissions analysis is provided at Annex Two to this report. Overall sentiment of submissions 14. Of the 159,000 submissions received on the Bill that were considered in-scope for analysis, 156,882 submissions were opposed to the Bill (98.7%), 1,191 were in support of the Bill (0.7%), and the remaining 927 were either unclear or did not take a position on the Bill overall (0.6%). Figure 1: Overall sentiment of submissions 0.6% 98.7% 0.7% Oppose: 98.7% 15. Support: 0.7% Unstated: 0.6% There were 5,558 submissions where submitters requested to submit an oral presentation to the Committee. Of these, 5,443 submitters opposed the Bill (97.9%)

ubmitters supported the Bill (1.0%), and 57 submitters were either unclear or did not take a position on the Bill overall (1.0%). Figure 2: Sentiment of submissions that requested an oral hearing 1.0% 97.9% 1.0% Oppose: 97.9% 16. Support:1.0% Unstated: 1.0% To ensure accuracy of the sentiment analysis, and in line with guidance from the Clerk, approximately 3% of the 165,977 submission files received were not included by Allen + Clark in the above overall sentiment calculations for one of the following reasons: • The content of the submission was entirely out of scope • The content of the submission breached the Committee guidelines by containing: o strong swear words o threats or slurs against individuals o anonymous or fraudulent names • The submission was made in a language other than English or te reo Māori • The submission file was a duplicate or supplementary attachment. Sentiment of coded submissions 17. 18. 19. A total of 3,000 submissions were coded and analysed in depth to support the summary of main themes and the clause-by-clause analysis presented in this report. Based on the proportion of submitters in support and opposition to the Bill, sample size calculations indicated that 1,984 submissions would be sufficient to achieve 99.5% confidence that all themes raised by submitters would be present in the coded sample.2 Coding 3,000 submissions therefore exceeds this, providing an additional margin of assurance that no significant themes have been overlooked. The 3,000 coded submissions were selected through two complementary processes: • Identification of substantive submissions: During triage, 1,317 submissions were identified as containing detail or unique arguments, and were considered to be ‘substantive’ on this basis. This identification process was designed to ensure representation across the spectrum of positions (support, oppose, and unclear) while also capturing the material needed for nuanced thematic analysis.

andom sampling of the remaining submissions: To validate that no new themes were contained within the shorter or template responses, an additional 1,683 submissions were randomly selected from the wider pool of in-scope submissions. This random sample provided a further quality assurance layer and increases statistical confidence that all themes have been captured. 20. Of the 3,000 submissions coded for analysis, 2,818 (93.9%) opposed the Bill, 178 (5.9%) supported the Bill, and 4 (0.1%) did not take an overall position on the Bill, as outlined in Figure 3 below. Figure 3: Sentiment of 3,000 coded submissions 93.9% 5.9% 0.1% Oppose: 93.9% 21. Support: 5.9% Unstated: 0.1% Submissions in support of the Bill were intentionally over-sampled to ensure their key themes were adequately represented despite being a relatively small proportion of the total. Sentiment of substantive submissions 22. Allen + Clarke was also asked to provide a breakdown of sentiment solely on the 1,317 submissions identified as substantive. Of those submissions, 1,189 submissions opposed the Bill (90.3%) and 128 supported it (9.7%). However, Allen + Clarke noted that the threshold for the inclusion of ‘support ‘submissions in this breakdown was lower than it was for ‘oppose’ submissions in order to have sufficient data for analysis – that is, all 128 submissions did not meet the definition of ‘detailed and nuanced’3. Figure 4: Sentiment of 1,317 substantive submissions 90.3% Oppose Support 9.7% 3Allen + Clarke advises that this approach is standard for these processes, as submitters will tend to provide more detailed feedback when opposing a proposal compared to expressing their support for it.

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 1d

Pompous asses; as if it's the House of Lords.🤨
#AoNZpol

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 1d

Even with a change of leadership,
they’re still heartless, soulless ghouls e hoa.
#AoNZpol

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 1d

🤣Jepson spat the dummy!😉

#AoNZpol

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 1d

In an ideal world, their pay ought to have remained the same. Hell, they got by on it didn't they?

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 1d

"Killer Political Ideas"? 🤣
Tika e hoa!
AoNZpol

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 1d

"A fish rots from the head down."
(In this case, "bowling ball down".)

#TeIkaĀMāui
#AoNZpol

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 1d

But then again, in the current political climate, can we trust what they’ve said and how they said it?
I’m not so sure e hoa.
#AoNZpol

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 1d

🤣Backstabbers praising the PM they unceremoniously rolled like a bowling ball!🤣

#AoNZpol

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 1d

We’ll never know how many of those freedumb cookers/illegal campers would’ve died if the steps hadn’t been taken to minimise Covid impacts in Aotearoa.
Now they’re in power.😱

I fear it’s never going to be the same again.

I also got the impression she missed Aotearoa/NZ. Ka aroha.

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 2d

We’re his “customers” don’t forget.
Customers who cannot return their products;
Have zero consumer protections;
And our “product” didn’t do what it was supposed to.
#AoNZpol

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 2d

When Shitley & Jonkey are handing out praise, you know he wasn’t about “ngā iwi katoa”.

#AoNZpol

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 2d

“A large majority feel that exposure to offensive, discriminatory or controversial views is a problem, with around half saying they avoid public broadcasts based on the perceived amount of misinformation and inappropriate content”
BSA. 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

It was a hysterical reaction Winnie.

#AoNZpol

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 2d

Phallic moment much? 🐍

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 2d

👌🏽 Outstanding!

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 2d

Media Insider: Sean Plunket and The Platform ‘going to war’ with Broadcasting Standards Authority after watchdog claims jurisdiction over online comment.

Ooh lubbly jubbly! 😂

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 2d

“Can the BSA please tell us what the legal basis is for their recent outrageous action.”

Sorry, what??!! 👀
#AoNZpol

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 4d

Isn’t it tho?! 🎼

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 5d

A roaring success like the ferries then?
They’re consistent if nothing else!
#AoNZpol

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 5d

Wise words.

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 5d

The clown! 🤣🤣

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 5d

Guess who??

So confident in his bid for Mayoralty he reserved a….
…90K Rolex. 🤣

Someone’s all about the “Rutherfords” ($100s). 🤨

Tāne @daylightdawn.bsky.social · 5d

Oh fck.
It’s the nek generator! 😳