Open Mike 17/09/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, September 17th, 2016 - 240 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

240 comments on “Open Mike 17/09/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Pete George 1
    17 September 2016 at 8:10 am

    Quite some time ago I promised someone here that I would write a post about renaming New Zealand to Aoetearoa. It’s taken me a while but I have gotten around to doing it – prompted by the soon to be released book and already in place website A CONSTITUTION FOR AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND.

    I don’t like the creeping stealth approach where ‘Aotearoa New Zealand’ is being imposed. We should just have an open discussion and decide what we want our country to be called, one or the other.

    The first European name was actually Staten Landt (Abel Tasman) but was changed to Nova Zeelandia by Dutch cartographers a few years later, and then anglicised to New Zealand by James Cook over a century after that.

    Aotearoa apparently originally just applied to the North Island but was gradually applied to the whole country and is now the accepted alternative.

    There’s many possible meanings, depending in part on whether you split it into Aotea’roa or Ao’tea’roa. ‘Land of the long white cloud’ is common but ‘long bright world’ and ‘land of abiding day’ are alternatives. I have also extracted ‘land of the transparent kiwi’ but that probably isn’t a goer.

    But regardless, I think that Aotearoa is more appropriate than New Zealand and I’d be happy to see it change. It would obviously be a bit contentious though.

    Post: And what about ‘Aotearoa’?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1
      17 September 2016 at 8:32 am

      🙄

      “Imposed”

      Oh noes! Fascistism!

      Can Petty George provide legitimacy to something that belongs to tangata whenua, or is he just an author of sad racist clickbait?

      Discuss.

    • Lanthanide 1.2
      17 September 2016 at 9:09 am

      Just to save everyone a click, the linked article is a slightly longer / more detailed version of the comment that Pete George has made here.

      There isn’t any other argument or reason for why we should change the name stated in the post. If you read the comment above, that’s pretty much all the post is:
      1. A note that some people are apparently suggesting “Aotearoa New Zealand” and Pete doesn’t like that, for no explained reason
      2. A very short timeline history of the original European origin, as Pete has already produced here. Then a very detailed breakdown of the meaning of the Maori word, again already summarised here
      3. A final limp conclusion where Pete states that he would like it if the name were changed to Aotearoa; he notes it is contentious, but doesn’t offer any argument or greater insight than “I think this would be good”.

      • Pete George 1.2.1
        17 September 2016 at 9:56 am

        It wasn’t intended as a full blown argument. I aim to initiate and facilitate discussion in issues of interest.

        I see that you didn’t even attempt to discuss the issue or express your own opinion (except indirectly, taking a swipe at the messenger) let alone arrive at ‘a limp conclusion’ of your own. What I posted is far from the conclusion, I don’t think that’s up to me.

        • Lanthanide 1.2.1.1
          17 September 2016 at 10:38 am

          Because Pete, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, thinking maybe you’d finally done something interesting / relevant, so I followed your link.

          I was quite disappointed to discover that you comment here already had 85% of the content that was to be found at the link. So I posted a summary so others wouldn’t waste their time.

          Also you don’t seem to understand the definition of conclusion. I was commenting on the conclusion to your post being dishwasher weak, not saying you need to have the final conclusive statement on any topic ever (which makes no sense anyway). You concluded your post with a very weak “I would like this” statement, but there’s no depth as to why you would like it, or why you think it’s time to do it now.

          Frankly this reads like an 8-year old’s school assignment on whales, where they conclude by saying “I like whales”.

          • Pete George 1.2.1.1.1
            17 September 2016 at 10:46 am

            You’ve said virtually nothing apart from a bit of a long winded limp diss. I thought you were better than that. Maybe you missed the point – it was about the name of our country.

            • Lanthanide 1.2.1.1.1.1
              17 September 2016 at 10:47 am

              That makes two of us, then.

              • rhinocrates …
                17 September 2016 at 11:26 am

                It didn’t take long for PG to pull out the self pity – poor me, nobody treats me fairly and I have the most honourable intentions, me me me me me.

                He’s like a cardigan-wearing Rik the People’s Poet.

              • weka …
                17 September 2016 at 12:22 pm

                Classic. Thanks for the footwork Lanth.

              • Blade …
                17 September 2016 at 1:34 pm

                No, Lantanide. Only one person has nothing to say- you. Ok , ive
                followed your summation of Pete’s post. That’s fine and dandy.
                But I’m waiting for your input towards this discussion.

                Now is your chance to shine. Lets hear your opinions.

                Or are you vacuous like the comments below you, until we get
                to Stuart Munro, who actually contributes.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  17 September 2016 at 4:03 pm

                  🙄

                • Lanthanide …
                  17 September 2016 at 4:19 pm

                  I never intended to say anything about the topic, and don’t have much to say.

                  But neither does Pete, and I pointed that out in my comment at 1.2

                  Pete couldn’t resist replying to me, acting like a victim as usual.

                  • Pete George …
                    17 September 2016 at 5:15 pm

                    I don’t think I’m any sort of victim. If there is any it’s the ‘commentariat’ who are a victim of an own-goal, revealing how you still operate. I’m not sure why you’re proud of it.

                    • In Vino …
                      17 September 2016 at 11:57 pm

                      Well I remember you from the past, and I fully back the ‘commentariat’. Better if you stick to your own website, where you may get people who share your interests. I don’t.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      18 September 2016 at 8:51 am

                      Oh noes! We still operate in such a way that we name boring vacuous racist clickbait for what it is.

          • Kevin 1.2.1.1.2
            17 September 2016 at 12:20 pm

            Thats quality! 🙂

    • Stuart Munro 1.3
      17 September 2016 at 11:44 am

      It’s not straightforward Pete – Aotearoa is not the only name for what we now call NZ, which in Cook’s time was largely Te Ika O Maui & Tovypounamu. Bloke I knew did a paper on it – the skinny of which is that Aotearoa reflects a particular mystical view that is not necessarily universal. Sorry I don’t have a link to it.

      • Trey 1.3.1
        17 September 2016 at 5:39 pm

        Tovypounamu? Are you sure about that. I didn’t think the Maori alphabet had a (v) or a (y)

        • Stuart Munro 1.3.1.1
          17 September 2016 at 5:57 pm

          We’re talking when Cook came through – there was no Maori alphabet as such at that time. Standardisation happened later, and some linguistic drift in a century or two would not be surprising.

          The odd thing is that Aotearoa didn’t come up then. Now, in some places names are sacred & you don’t share them casually with outsiders – Kangaroo being a great example – it’s not the local word for the animal, it means something like “yep, look at them”.

          The names Cook got were not that tabu. But I didn’t write the paper – can’t do it justice – just blindly taking Aotearoa might not make sense. We need background and context.

          • Trey 1.3.1.1.1
            17 September 2016 at 8:35 pm

            Still not convinced. Cook wrote the name Te Wai Pounamu to refer to the South Island on Maps in 1776 but can’t find any reference to it being called Tovypounamu anywhere

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.1.1.1.1
              18 September 2016 at 9:08 am

              I found one: a pdf document listed by Google: “Journal: Forgotten Books”.

              Google’s precis reads: “TovyPounamu, the most southern of the two islands of New Zealand….”

              I didn’t bother downloading it.

      • Trey 1.3.2
        17 September 2016 at 5:46 pm

        Were you thinking of Te Waipounamu? Which is the South Island as Te Ika O Maui is the North Island

    • CnrJoe 1.4
      17 September 2016 at 11:55 am

      Quite some time ago I promised someone here that I would write a post about renaming New Zealand to Aoetearoa.
      Aoetearoa?
      What ? you type too fast?

    • Stephanie Rodgers 1.5
      17 September 2016 at 1:17 pm

      “creeping stealth”

      🙄

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.6
      17 September 2016 at 1:39 pm

      Thanks for the discussion everyone. I expect we’ll see more of this irrelevant crap between now and when the wanker attracts his next ban.

      • weka 1.6.1
        17 September 2016 at 1:57 pm

        I love that there was only one response that took PG seriously. Well done the commentariat. Bodes well.

  2. save nz 2
    17 September 2016 at 8:58 am

    Seems like there is worldwide anger/protest at electoral candidate choices at present….

    Voters elect reluctant metalhead to council

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/world/voters-elect-reluctant-metalhead-to-council-2016091610

  3. Chuck 3
    17 September 2016 at 9:32 am

    Claire Trevett piece today is really quite good (I know… not many here will agree!).

    “Labour leader Andrew Little was quick to cry the poll was “bogus” and countered with Labour’s own poll which had a much more generous outlook for Labour.

    Whoever’s poll is right, the One News poll does highlight two stark problems for Labour.

    The very same poll showed an increase in concern about housing and imigration – the issues Labour claimed it was gaining votes from. The poll showed Labour was not capitalising from that.

    The second problem was NZ First and the Greens were both safely above 10 per cent. That would mean Labour’s coalition partners combined were almost the same size as the Labour Party itself.

    To swap analogies (why not?) from used cars to the familiar tail wagging the dog one, under MMP voters tend to like their dogs to have as tiny a tail as possible to ensure stable government.

    National has three support partners but they are so small they are more like fleas in the general area of a tail.

    As things stand, the Labour dog will need both NZ First and the Greens as tails. If Labour polls less than the mid 30s, that is akin to two German Shepherd tails thrashing in opposite directions on the rear end of a pug.

    Physics dictates that would not end well for the pug. And as Scotty would say, ‘ye cannae change the law of physics.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11711287

    • Bearded Git 3.1
      17 September 2016 at 9:48 am

      @Chuck 29+14+12=55 looks pretty stable to me, compared with the Right’s 4-headed monster (Seymour*/Dunne*/MP/Nats). I think hell will have to freeze over for Winnie to go with Key. Another indicator was on Backbenches this week where Tracey Martin was laying into boy-wonder Todd Barclay and the Nats in general. I think NZF will pick up votes on the immigration issue during the election campaign.

      *I refuse to name these as parties-they are one-man bands. The MP may also become one soon.

      Standardistas need to talk in Labour/Green bloc terms always. This counters the mid-20’s rubbish the right is trying to hijack the agenda with.

      • Lanthanide 3.1.1
        17 September 2016 at 10:49 am

        I think Act should be referred to as a party. They actually got enough party vote to justify Seymour’s electorate seat.

        Dunne didn’t – he’s the cause of the overhang in the house.

      • BM 3.1.2
        17 September 2016 at 10:51 am

        Another indicator was on Backbenches this week where Tracey Martin was laying into boy-wonder Todd Barclay and the Nats in general. I think NZF will pick up votes on the immigration issue during the election campaign.

        Of course they’re laying into National, it’s where they see they can grow their vote, do you really think they’re going to get votes off the greens or labour?

        Try and pick up a few more % points by convincing the more conservative element of National to to vote NZ first, that way NZ First has more leverage when they go into coalition with National.

      • Gabby 3.1.3
        17 September 2016 at 11:21 am

        Crikey, Wee Toddy Baccy was allowed out in public? I hope he had a hankie up his sleeve.

      • Leftie 3.1.4
        17 September 2016 at 5:34 pm

        Spot on, +1000 Bearded Git.

    • DoublePlusGood 3.2
      17 September 2016 at 9:59 am

      Nah, Claire Trevett has repeatedly proven that MMP and coalitions are too complex a concept for her.

    • b waghorn 3.3
      17 September 2016 at 10:07 am

      I personally would be happy with labour / greens / nzf.

      • Sabine 3.3.1
        17 September 2016 at 12:59 pm

        yep, been saying it for years. Labour does not need a clear majority if they form a workable coalition with the other Opposition Parties. In fact should we get such a Government, and should the people elected care to represent and work for the people that got them elected it would be a ‘representative’ government.

        but hey, the other one is winningest ro something.

      • Leftie 3.3.2
        17 September 2016 at 5:35 pm

        Yep, me too B Waghorn.

    • Editractor 3.4
      17 September 2016 at 12:57 pm

      “Whoever’s poll is right, the One News poll does highlight two stark problems for Labour”

      That makes no sense at all. If the One News poll is not right, then it “highlights” no such thing. But let’s all forget that and wander happily into a conclusion based on an ignorant assumption.

      • Chuck 3.4.1
        17 September 2016 at 4:41 pm

        Editractor it was the same poll that showed an increase in concern about housing and immigration, that also recorded support for the various political parties.

        So on one hand, Andrew Little calls part of the poll “bogus” which he does not like, but accepts the other part re – housing and immigration.

        The “stark problems for labour” that the author has referenced are that the people polled mostly said housing and immigration are a problem, but Labour went backwards (down 3%) and received 26% support from the same sample group.

        It could be a “rouge poll” just as Andrew Little admits the Labour commissioned poll understates National party support (in other words he called his own poll rouge). 🙂

        • Gabby 3.4.1.1
          17 September 2016 at 5:26 pm

          Rogue, you chump, rogue.

          • Chuck 3.4.1.1.1
            17 September 2016 at 5:30 pm

            Don’t spoil my fun Gabby!! I was waiting for In Vino to make an appearance and tell me off.

            • In Vino 3.4.1.1.1.1
              17 September 2016 at 7:55 pm

              Already done that. Glad someone else sees you as a chump. But I guess you are likely to go for a minority opinion in your semi-literate state.
              Happy now?

              • Chuck …
                18 September 2016 at 9:26 am

                Hey In Vino! thanks for stopping by again mate.

                If I wasn’t a glass is half-full type of guy, I would say you come across as a self-righteous linguistic snob who want’s to make it clear how much smarter you are than the rest of us…

                Buy hey I am a positive sort of guy, so its all good and I look forward to your next critique.

        • Editractor 3.4.1.2
          17 September 2016 at 11:54 pm

          “Editractor it was the same poll that showed an increase in concern about housing and immigration, that also recorded support for the various political parties.

          So on one hand, Andrew Little calls part of the poll “bogus” which he does not like, but accepts the other part re – housing and immigration.”

          It might have been the same poll but they are two separate issues. It is quite possible for the poll to be inaccurate on one issue but not on the other so Little’s position on it is entirely reasonable.

          “The “stark problems for labour” that the author has referenced…”

          One or both of which are irrelevant if the poll is wrong on them.

          My point is that the author starts by acknowledging uncertainty about the accuracy of the poll but then proceeds to make conclusions as if it were accurate.

          To ice the big dollop it is, she then rolls out an analogy, though I liked the bit where she compared Act and the MP to parasites.

      • Leftie 3.4.2
        17 September 2016 at 5:37 pm

        Good point Editractor.

    • Andre 4.1
      17 September 2016 at 11:06 am

      Praise the Lord there’s no photos. The sauna scene was already too much for me.

    • Scott 4.2
      18 September 2016 at 1:03 am

      It’s good there is just one of him
      No double upon our legs at night
      But we’d be better off if there were none of him
      No chem trails or righteous right

  5. marty mars 5
    17 September 2016 at 10:28 am

    Horrible watching Norman spilling the lines on the nation. What a disappointment. Indigenous rights and middle class values around conservation often conflict and in this case imo this will cause lots of division and disgust.

    Meanwhile bugger all being done around climate change – only bullshit greenwash. Nice one not.

    • The Chairman 5.1
      17 September 2016 at 11:31 am

      Do you think Maori voters will turn on the Greens, thus by association (MOU) Labour?

      • marty mars 5.1.1
        17 September 2016 at 11:46 am

        There will be a backlash and all major parties won’t care. Tino rangatiratanga activists and those who worked on the original settlement care. This is where Māori will bind a bit and that will/should make the major parties fearful. The Treaty PARTNER will not be ignored, not any more.

    • mauī 5.2
      17 September 2016 at 12:30 pm

      Norman seems to want that sanctuary really badly. Enough to ignore Māori perspectives. That sure makes it awkward for Turei or Davidson. I haven’t been following it that closely but the Greens seem very quiet on this whole issue, maybe they’ll just let it slide by.

      • Colonial Viper 5.2.1
        17 September 2016 at 12:43 pm

        Were the Kermadecs explicitly mentioned in a fisheries Treaty settlement? Someone may have answered already but I missed it sorry.

        • BM 5.2.1.1
          17 September 2016 at 12:47 pm

          Money over conservation.

          It’s a disappointing attitude from the so called “guardians of the land”.

          • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.1.1
            17 September 2016 at 12:52 pm

            I think that Iwi needed to be involved in consultation at a much earlier stage.

            And I think that the outcome needed to be exactly the same – establishment of a massive marine reserve.

            I would like to know if any fishing corporates had plans on the drawing board for exploiting the fisheries there.

            • BM 5.2.1.1.1.1
              17 September 2016 at 1:00 pm

              How does one come to an agreement?, fishing rights and a marine reserve, they can’t really co-exist.

              • marty mars …
                17 September 2016 at 1:08 pm

                Funny bm that is not what negotiators think. Are you writing from knowledge or ignorance?

                • BM …
                  17 September 2016 at 1:18 pm

                  So you think Maori should be allowed to fish in a marine reserve?

                  But only Maori, no one else.

                  • marty mars …
                    17 September 2016 at 1:21 pm

                    Ignorance then, as i suspected

                    • BM …
                      17 September 2016 at 1:24 pm

                      Or do you think there should be no marine reserve because it impacts on Maori fishing rights?

                      Or is this more about Iwi expecting the tax payer to fork out another lump sum for loss of earnings?

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      17 September 2016 at 6:18 pm

                      BM you need to read the Treaty. Gives Maori all fishing rights in perpetuity. You don’t get to mess with that or the successor legislation without talking to Maori. In a democracy, a government should have talked to Pakeha too. Talking isn’t the Gnats strong point.

                      “The Ogre does what ogres can,
                      Deeds quite impossible for Man,
                      But one prize is beyond his reach:
                      The Ogre cannot master speech.

                      About a subjugated plain,
                      Among it’s desperate and slain,
                      The Ogre stalks with hands on hips,
                      While drivel gushes from his lips.”

                    • BM …
                      17 September 2016 at 6:21 pm

                      Government is sovereign they can do whatever they want.

                    • marty mars …
                      17 September 2016 at 6:27 pm

                      ha ha – haven’t got down to your marae yet eh – what a ignorant twit you are bm

                    • BM …
                      17 September 2016 at 6:35 pm

                      Don’t really feel like taking a drive to Thames, there cuz.

                      Anyway the marine reserve is going ahead, the Maori getting all bent out of shape will just have to put on their big boy pants and deal with it.

                    • marty mars …
                      17 September 2016 at 6:40 pm

                      subservient you – bow your head boy

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      17 September 2016 at 10:40 pm

                      Gives Maori all fishing rights in perpetuity.

                      Te Tiriti Ō Waitangi does not apply to the Kermadecs because they weren’t part of NZ at the time and Māori didn’t fish them as part of their territorial waters either any way. So traditional fishing rights, as guaranteed under Te Tiriti, simply do not apply.

                      For people to claim that they do is for them to try and rewrite history.

                      You don’t get to mess with that or the successor legislation without talking to Maori.

                      And yet that is what Māori do seem to be trying to do.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 September 2016 at 10:47 pm

                      National have deliberately engineered a gift issue 12 months out from the election which will then allow the Maori Party to go out and campaign and claim “independence” by “standing up to” National over something (fishing around the Kermadecs) with no practical value or meaning or thought time for 99% of Kiwis.

                      Clever election maneuvering is what this is.

                    • marty mars …
                      17 September 2016 at 10:57 pm

                      cv you are a knob – not everything is coloured orange fool – fuck north is right about you being a embarrassment every time you blurt your bullshit.

                      dtb – you have very little credibility and what you say is next to meaningless because you don’t get even the simple fundamental truths – sorry to burst your ego balloon. For instance you wrote – “Te Tiriti Ō Waitangi does not apply to the Kermadecs” yet IT WAS part of the settlement that is why there is an issue now – this is the most basic simplistic fact about the whole deal. Sure I get you don’t WANT it to be like that – but it is.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 September 2016 at 11:04 pm

                      Marty Mars, Labour was highlighting National’s lack of consultation with iwi in 2015 over the Kermadecs.

                      It seems obvious that this process was stitched up way back then as a way for the Maori Party to demonstrate independence from National just 12 months ahead of the general election.

                    • marty mars …
                      17 September 2016 at 11:05 pm

                      it seems obvious to the man backing trump – excuse me if I think you don’t have a fucken clue

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 September 2016 at 11:34 pm

                      Labour knew in 2015 that National was not consulting with iwi over the Kermadecs, and said so on broadcast TV.

                      Therefore the Maori Party were more than aware of the same, if not more details.

                      However both National and the Maori Party let things proceed as they were.

                      All the way along until now, just 12 months before the next general election and National pushes ahead with the legislation.

                      The Maori Party suddenly raises very public and very serious concerns, and immediately, National abruptly realise the shortcomings in their consultation process and are forced to pull their proposed bill out of the legislative process.

                      A big win for the Maori Party who can truthfully claim not just that they have the “backbone” to stand up to John Key, but that they have “real sway” and demonstrable influence over the National Government.

                      Along the way, the Maori Party get to amply illustrate that Labour and the Greens don’t really care that much about Treaty rights and Treaty settlements.

                      Brilliant stuff to campaign on, going into an election year.

                      An co-engineered between the Maori Party and National from the start, for the electoral benefit of both.

                      (National who gains from the red neck white vote by having not including iwi in this important Treaty relevant process).

                    • marty mars …
                      18 September 2016 at 7:14 am

                      This is where you always trip up

                      “Labour knew in 2015 that National was not consulting with iwi over the Kermadecs, and said so on broadcast TV.

                      Therefore the Maori Party were more than aware of the same, if not more details.”

                      your therefore is not true – you don’t know and cannot know (unless someone says it) that it is true – it is SPECULATION from which you draw conclusion after conclusion to fit your internal story and convince yourself that you are right and have some insight – all based on a therefore which IS NOT true.

                      so nice fairy tale

                      please get this – you are projecting, you don’t know – but hey chuck the link up (about the therefore not the bit before) and I will go wow you are right.

                      conspiracy types always make the story fit their preconceived ideas

          • marty mars 5.2.1.1.2
            17 September 2016 at 1:06 pm

            Bm why not go down to your marae and tell us what they think.

          • North 5.2.1.1.3
            17 September 2016 at 6:41 pm

            BM you are so excellent at reaching deep into your own dark recesses and projecting onto everyone else the suppurating moral detritus you find there.

            Money over conservation…….that’s our BM. Said with a straight face too.

        • mauī 5.2.1.2
          17 September 2016 at 1:03 pm

          Not sure, but you would think if you’re given some rights over a national fishery under a treaty then you get a say in how its managed.

      • marty mars 5.2.2
        17 September 2016 at 12:45 pm

        He certainly didn’t want to call it a treaty issue – still stuck on the ‘commercial’ which I found incredible.

      • The Chairman 5.2.3
        17 September 2016 at 1:45 pm

        “Greens seem very quiet on this whole issue”

        Well if they are aligned with Normans view on the matter, perhaps that’s why they are so quiet (awkward for Turei or Davidson).

      • Psycho Milt 5.2.4
        17 September 2016 at 4:24 pm

        Norman seems to want that sanctuary really badly. Enough to ignore Māori perspectives.

        I really don’t get this. I’m as White as it gets, but even I can see a glaringly obvious Treaty grievance arising out of it. Given the events of the last 176 years, it ought to be clear enough why you shouldn’t negotiate a national fisheries agreement with Maori and then unilaterally remove fishing rights from thousands of square kilometers without even bothering to mention it to your Treaty partner. The fact that marine sanctuaries are a Good Thing doesn’t change that in the slightest.

        • marty mars 5.2.4.1
          17 September 2016 at 6:13 pm

          Why do you think some can’t get their heads around it?

          • Psycho Milt 5.2.4.1.1
            18 September 2016 at 7:44 am

            I think there are multiple factors:

            We all want more and bigger marine sanctuaries, so opponents of any particular marine sanctuary must be Bad People;

            Maori have commercial fishing interests, which could be seen as a conflict of interest;

            But the big one is that it’s easy for Pakeha to support Treaty rights as long as it doesn’t affect something that’s important to us. I don’t exclude myself from this: if the government wants to give the Urewera back to Tuhoi, sure, absolutely, no skin off my nose – but if the government wanted to give my suburb back to Rangitane and included my property in the deal, I expect I’d find it hard to be supportive of the idea and might start looking for spurious reasons why it would be completely wrong for Maori claims involving my property to be recognised. People who feel strongly about the Kermadec marine sanctuary are possibly experiencing that same feeling.

      • marty mars 5.3.1
        17 September 2016 at 1:47 pm

        Ta Paul, good to watch it again – rus the mus is very sus – true colours coming out now – yuck.

        • Paul 5.3.1.1
          17 September 2016 at 1:56 pm

          Am really wondering which party to vote for now.
          Suggestions for the party most likely to dismantle neo-liberalism in NZ?

          • weka 5.3.1.1.1
            17 September 2016 at 2:01 pm

            The Greens. Not because the can or will do that immediately, but because the more votes they get the closet they can operate to their core values (seriously, read their core documents).

            Neoliberalism will be disbanded by the people. The parties will follow. Best chance is from the Greens.

            Btw, I haven’t watched the interview yet but Norman isn’t a formal part of the Green Party, and we need to be careful to not conflate his position with theirs.

            • Macro 5.3.1.1.1.1
              17 September 2016 at 2:57 pm

              Totally agree with you weka.
              The Green’s have been arguing the need for more marine sanctuaries for years now. Marine sanctuaries are the only way humans can hope to holt the rapidly depletion of a vital natural resource. Never the less the Green’s along with Labour in their minority view on the Bill as it was reported to Parliament stated:

              The lack of consultation with iwi by the Crown prior to the Government’s announcement on the international stage of the proposed creation of a Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary has been unsatisfactory. It fell well short of expectations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This has been reflected in submissions opposing the bill.
              The Green Party recognises that non-governmental organisations such as the Pew Foundation, WWF New Zealand, Forest and Bird, and others have engaged in extensive public discussion, including two science symposia, art exhibitions, and discussions with mana whenua about a proposed Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary over the last seven years. This is not a substitute for the Crown consulting with mana whenua and other iwi.

              • weka …
                17 September 2016 at 3:35 pm

                Thanks, that’s very interesting and as per usual the Greens present a deeper and more thoughtful perspective than they are given credit for.

                It does raise the issue of the select committee process and how much it is largel ignored in public debate.

                For me the thing missing here is that we have a desperate need for sanctuaries because how general way if operating is so destructive, and we are stuck in the whole neoliberal/conservation polarity. Ultimately it doesn’t move us past the primary way of operating and quite possibly entrenches it.

                • Macro …
                  17 September 2016 at 4:36 pm

                  As per usual with this govt there wasn’t much time for public debate on this issue nor time for people to make public submissions:

                  The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill was referred to the committee on 15 March 2016. The closing date for submissions was 28 April 2016.
                  We received and considered 82 unique submissions from interested groups and individuals, and a form submission representing 1,084 submitters. We heard oral evidence from 18 submitters.
                  We received advice from the Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Conservation, the Ministry for Primary Industries, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as well as the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

                  Note – no iwi appear to have submitted.

                  ref: the previous link.

              • marty mars …
                17 September 2016 at 3:40 pm

                as I have noted above the conflict that can occur between the rights of indigenous peoples and middle class conservation values is well known – at least within indigenous communities 🙁

                labour – “We believe it is wrong that the bill undermines the rights arising from the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992, which were meant to be “full and final”, and in particular those fishing rights relating to Fisheries Management Area 10.”

                greens – “Concerns raised by Te Ohu Kaimoana and some iwi authorities that the bill breaches Treaty rights and interferes with quota rights conferred by the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act are complex. Such concerns are most appropriately resolved by the courts or by negotiation between iwi and the Crown, rather than select committee.”

                got to say labour’s lines are better than the greens on this one – both supported the bill, both have put negotiated settlement rights of indigenous peoples behind the right to have a protected conservation area. This is pretty well what always happens and that is why many indigenous communities are suspicious of conservationists – who pretty well want people out so they can enjoy the peace and quiet of nature.

                This btw is EXACTLY the same with climate change. You change but not us. Indigenous communities are fighting for the protection of Papatūānuku and have been well before the middle class conservationists decided to stop destroying and start saving – but that is forgotten in their Avatar like redemption of the brownish by the whiteish and their rewriting the narratives with them as the hero – every.single.time.

                • Macro …
                  17 September 2016 at 5:41 pm

                  Marty – what you appear to say here is that there can never be another Marine sanctuary within the NZ EEZ because it would contravene the full and final settlement of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act! This would be an extreme position to take.
                  The prime purpose of Marine Sanctuaries is not to reduce the number of fish that can be caught – their purpose is to allow fish places to breed and ultimately for fish numbers to rejuvenate to sustainable levels. At present we (and here I include us all) are stripping our oceans clean, and this present behaviour is simple unsustainable. The provision of Marine sanctuaries does not remove the right of Maori to fish nor to limit the quota set under the Settlement. These issues are complex and I totally agree that “Such concerns are most appropriately resolved by the courts or by negotiation between iwi and the Crown, rather than select committee.”
                  There is a point in the progression of ethical behaviour when the good of the whole trumps individual rights or any other right.

                  • marty mars …
                    17 September 2016 at 6:08 pm

                    Yes Marine sanctuaries are great – hell, make the whole ocean a sanctuary imo.

                    Yes the current stripping of our oceans is unsustainable – one of the reasons I no longer eat fish actually and haven’t for years. And yes we need spots where the fish populations can replenish.

                    I believe that a position where all parties were happy could have, and maybe still could, be reached. That certainly seems to be the position of Te Ohu Kaimoana. I’d be happy with that too.

                    But I’d ask the question why? Why make sanctuaries? To ensure the replenishment of species and ecosystems? Why do that? To ensure all living entities including humans, have the ability and right to survive and flourish? Okay but if you have to destroy or ignore or trample on the rights of indigenous peoples to be able to create areas where people and ecosystems can flourish then I’d argue it is hypocrisy especially as no non-indigenous peoples are being treated the same. This is colonisation and belittling and othering. This is why this country isn’t Aotearoa but instead New Zealand and this is why Māori are not given their LEGAL and MORALLY due rights as PARTNERS.

                    The real irony is that indigenous peoples are the BEST at protecting the ecosystems and creatures within them, including humans. They are much much better than the exploitative and destructive western societies who, frankly, have created this mess we have to sort out. But what sacrifices are they making? What are they doing about climate change? Answer – NOTHING. They want everyone else to make the sacrifices and save them – well they can get fucked.

                    This world is this world. The good of the whole would require the western exploitative countries to fall off the map – then we can save shit.

                    I know it is a rant and I know I’m generalising and making all sorts of statements where I’m included on both/all sides. I am doing this to show the hypocrisy of the whole debate.

                    • Poission …
                      17 September 2016 at 6:18 pm

                      The kermedecs are already nz largest fisheries reserve, with a benthic ban on trawling in fma10.

                      http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1990/0305/4.0/DLM142810.html

                      Te Ohu Kaimoana would be highly unlikely to get FAO certification for any catch from this area already under reserve or tentative status.

                    • marty mars …
                      17 September 2016 at 6:38 pm

                      I’m pretty sure they don’t even want to fish there – the whole thing is about binding agreements being made with indigenous partners and then breaking those agreements BECAUSE they were made with indigenous partners and that category of partner is well down the prioritisation list and can be discarded (or so they thought in their 1870’s mindset) easily without fuss, just like all the other times the crown has done it.

                    • b waghorn …
                      17 September 2016 at 6:53 pm

                      ”The real irony is that indigenous peoples are the BEST at protecting the ecosystems and creatures within them, ”
                      Oh come on now marty i’ve known more than one maori chap who was a shocking poacher.

                    • TheExtremist66 …
                      17 September 2016 at 7:55 pm

                      Tell that to the Moa….

                    • locus …
                      17 September 2016 at 7:58 pm

                      a perfectly understandable rant marty –

                      has anyone thought that this is all about JK?

                      – a pretence that he cares about the environment
                      – a self-serving act so he has something ‘noble’ in his ‘legacy’
                      – useful that it makes him look good to environmentally concerned film stars and world leaders who he wants to rub shoulders with…
                      – a blatant set-up and dog-whistle to his fanboys…. another excuse for them to denigrate Maori

                    • marty mars …
                      17 September 2016 at 8:22 pm

                      Okay for your benefits I will say a little more

                      Collective not individual. The system in place now has disenfranchised and disempowered so many indigenous peoples – remember colonisation??? The ability to live sustainably was inherent in survival and Māori and other indigenous peoples survived.

                      It is utter arrogance to think someone from some no name town in Britannia knows more about sustainability and living in the Amazon than the indigenous people living there.

                      As for the Moa – yep they are gone and believe it or not there are many factors that contributed to their extinction, including being hunted for food and loss of habitat due to fire (some deliberately and some naturally occurring). The middens do tell a story but not the only story. Plus I said the BEST and it is true that others that aren’t indigenous are horror shows for animals and ecosystems. That doesn’t mean Māori or other indigenous peoples were saintly but they were so much better than western peoples.

                    • marty mars …
                      17 September 2016 at 8:27 pm

                      Yes locus I agree with all of your points and that is why I get so disappointed with some comments on this and why I bought that up in regards to the panel with norman.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      17 September 2016 at 10:49 pm

                      The real irony is that indigenous peoples are the BEST at protecting the ecosystems and creatures within them, including humans.

                      No, they’re not. They’re just as bad as Pakeha. The just didn’t have the technology and population to do the same total damage but they still did massive amounts of damage.

                      Māori stripped ~50% of the forest area of NZ before Pakeha got here.

                    • marty mars …
                      17 September 2016 at 11:03 pm

                      “By the time European settlement began, around 1840, some 6.7 million hectares of forest had been destroyed and was replaced by short grassland, shrubland and fern land. Between 1840 and 2000, another 8 million hectares were cleared, mostly lowland or easily accessible conifer–broadleaf forest.”

                      from your own link dicko

                      6.7 million hectares is less than 8 million hectares isn’t it????

                      so when you say ,”They’re just as bad as Pakeha” you are just being a bigot.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      17 September 2016 at 11:58 pm

                      6.7 million hectares is less than 8 million hectares isn’t it????

                      Wow, really, I would never have known that.

                      Of course, if they were truly as environmentally friendly as you say it would have been ZERO.

                      If Māori had continued in that fashion then the land would have ended up being just as denuded as we have now. It may have taken longer but the damage would still have been done.

                    • marty mars …
                      18 September 2016 at 7:17 am

                      your bigotry has blinded you to what I actually wrote

                • Fran …
                  17 September 2016 at 10:04 pm

                  + 1000 Marty Mars.

            • Chuck 5.3.1.1.1.2
              17 September 2016 at 3:15 pm

              Sorry weka can’t see any chance of that happening anytime soon. The Greens are a 10% – 13% party. The Greens only chance to be part of a Government is by hanging onto the coattails of Labour.

              The Greens don’t have much ability to negotiate with Labour (no leverage) and thus no radical policy shifts will be approved by their master, Labour. It is amplified even more if a Lab/Gr party need to rely on NZF to govern.

              Your best chance to dismantle (so called) neo-liberalism in NZ would be to gut the Labour party of any remaining centre left people. Then in conjunction with the Greens “go for it” and see how many voters you can convince…

              • weka …
                17 September 2016 at 3:28 pm

                Getting rid of the hardcore neoliberalism from Labour would be a huge help but you missed my point. Neoliberalism will die in NZ at the behest of the people with political parties following the people.

                • Chuck …
                  17 September 2016 at 3:55 pm

                  “Neoliberalism will die in NZ at the behest of the people with political parties following the people.”

                  Which correct me if I am wrong, would require a ground swell of people before political parties (other than a fringe party) would react.

                  By ground swell, it would need to be massive, in the hundreds of thousands at the very least.

                  Can’t see that happening any time soon.

                  • Paul …
                    17 September 2016 at 4:07 pm

                    Trump
                    Brexit
                    SNP taking Scotland

                    all signs the dam is about to burst very soon….

                  • weka …
                    18 September 2016 at 12:23 pm

                    “By ground swell, it would need to be massive, in the hundreds of thousands at the very least.”

                    yes and no. Change always happens on the edge first. We have a Green Party in large part because of people who thought differently back in the day. They were small numbers who ended up with big influence. A lot of change happens like that.

                    “Can’t see that happening any time soon.”

                    That’s what people used to say about slavery or apartheid in South Africa. Women getting the vote. Lots of examples.

        • Karen 5.3.1.2
          17 September 2016 at 2:16 pm

          Yep – watching that I was pleased that he isn’t the Green co-leader anymore.

          Poor Mihi – having to deal Russel and a rightwing PR person on the panel. Neither seemed to understand treaty rights. Mihi did well, though.

          • marty mars 5.3.1.2.1
            17 September 2016 at 2:57 pm

            Yep she seemed surprised and shocked by the ignorance.

            • weka 5.3.1.2.1.1
              17 September 2016 at 3:43 pm

              The thing that stood out for me was that the 2 Pakeha appeared to be arguing that the Crown should ignore the treaty if it thinks Māori interests run counter to its own. Not that that’s not without precedent but I agree, very disappointing from Norman. He did say he thought the lack of consultation was wrong but it was one sentence amongst many others which seemed to ignore the Treaty 🙁

              I liked what Forbes said about the differences between Māori and Pakeha views on conservation, would love to have seen a whole debate on that alone. It would have taken us somewhere more useful perhaps.

              • Garibaldi …
                17 September 2016 at 5:07 pm

                I was impressed by both Mihi and Russell. Both view points have merit, it’s such a pity that the stupid Nats have lost the chance for Maori to make a great contribution to Conservation. You can argue Treaty rights as much as you like but conservation is paramount in our rapidly deteriorating environment so good on Russell for his strong stand.
                My greatest fear about the whole issue is whatever we come up with we will be too bloody under sourced to patrol/manage the area. We can’t even do our local sanctuaries adequately.

                • marty mars …
                  17 September 2016 at 6:24 pm

                  “You can argue Treaty rights as much as you like but conservation is paramount in our rapidly deteriorating environment so good on Russell for his strong stand.”

                  Yep as long as someone else is affected or has their rights discarded she’s all good.

                  Any examples where non indigenous peoples are making sacrifices like that?

                  Just joking – I know we are trying to stop using plastic bags and ummm yeah that’s right we sort of recycle into the rubbish tip and ummm…

                  • In Vino …
                    17 September 2016 at 8:23 pm

                    It has been suggested elsewhere that this is a set-up. With agreement in advance, National leave out Maori, providing Tuku and his Maori Party with the opportunity to posture greatly and stand up for Maori with much righteousness, and in so doing justify Maori Party policy of cuddling up to the Nats. And the Maori elite continue to grow rich at the expense of most of the rest of their race, which puts us all in the same horrible basket. People of all races can now enjoy the same penury equally, while all the right people get voted in again.

                    Or am I even more paranoid now than I was back when I was not quite sure whether I was paranoid enough?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 September 2016 at 8:34 pm

                      Yep, giving the Maori Party an issue going into election year to prove to the electorate that the Maori Party is indeed “independent” and can indeed “stand up to” National.

                    • b waghorn …
                      17 September 2016 at 8:35 pm

                      Considering that just last week the greasy whale was driving wedges between tainui and labour i would say you have every right to be sceptical about the maori parties activities.

                    • marty mars …
                      17 September 2016 at 8:37 pm

                      Jeepers – may be a bit convoluted and true!!!

                      I am listening to Annette Sykes on this one and other Māori activists not the Māori Party and to be clear I don’t agree with everything Annette says on many things – but this one seems clear to me.

                      Perhaps it is all a plan to get the Māori Party in with gusto – I hope not as I’m a left wing Mana Movement supporter. You’ve made me feel paranoid now 🙂

                      edit @cv – nah you are definitely too paranoid
                      @ waggy – skeptical is a very good word there.

                    • In Vino …
                      18 September 2016 at 1:07 am

                      It seems to me that your heart is in the right place Marty. Go for it.

  6. The Chairman 6
    17 September 2016 at 10:55 am

    Has anyone here been following this controversial series?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/84158436/new-zealand-is-no-paradise-it-is-brutal

    • b waghorn 6.1
      17 September 2016 at 11:36 am

      It’s very hard to have patience for people who leave a country then shit all over it from a distance. She could have stayed and tried to fix what she doesn’t like. And blaming a country because some muppets made her watch a slaughter show a lack of depth of thought.

    • BM 6.2
      17 September 2016 at 11:54 am

      Those are just troll articles.

      Wouldn’t be surprised if this woman didn’t even exist and the whole series was written by some reporter to stir up the readers.

      • The Chairman 6.2.1
        17 September 2016 at 12:04 pm

        Do you care to address the content or did you just want to imply suspicion against the author as a way to distract?

        • BM 6.2.1.1
          17 September 2016 at 12:18 pm

          If true, I think it’s the height of arrogance and lack of class to extrapolate out her experiences onto a country of 4 million people.

          Obviously a raving lefty, good riddance.

          • The Chairman 6.2.1.1.1
            17 September 2016 at 12:29 pm

            If true?

            Can you list what you believe isn’t?

            Moreover, if true don’t you think it’s time we acknowledge it and see if we can improve things going forward?

            She may be gone, but if true the problems remain.

            “Obviously a raving lefty”

            What makes you say that? Was it an attempted smear as a way to again discredit the author, hence the content?

          • reason 6.2.1.1.2
            17 September 2016 at 4:10 pm

            From the article ….

            “When the Roast Busters made headlines, they did so because they talked about their alleged exploits online, which meant that people outside our culture became aware of it.

            Although the first complaints were made in 2011 by girls as young as 13, the police investigation sputtered along until 2013 when the story got picked up by international media. Headlines such as Jezebel’s New Zealand Teen Rape Club is the Worst Thing You’ll Read About Today embarrassed us.

            We really, really hate being embarrassed in front of foreigners.”

            It sums up BM really and where he stands on NZ rape culture …..”

            He really, really hates being embarrassed in front of foreigners.

        • Stuart Munro 6.2.1.2
          17 September 2016 at 3:59 pm

          Have more respect! BM is a troll expert!

      • Gabby 6.2.2
        17 September 2016 at 5:49 pm

        I’m pretty sure you don’t exist and only serve as a counter to low blood pressure and constipation.

    • weka 6.3
      17 September 2016 at 12:31 pm

      NZ has a lot of problems. That article doesn’t offer much useful in way of understanding it or finding solutions. I’m all for s good moan fest to get things off ones chest but I question the value of doing that ins national newspaper.

      I also question her ability to reflect or do basic research. The anecdote about pain relief is common in many countries. It’s not a NZ thing It’s a medical services dynamic. Which makes me wonder about her ability to form an argument that is meaningful beyond her own antipathy.

      • The Chairman 6.3.1
        17 September 2016 at 12:56 pm

        Bare in mind, weka, the series hasn’t completed yet.

        You may see it as a moan. I see it as something that needs to be said and acknowledged.

        Putting it in the paper clearly helps to give the issues wider attention.

        We can’t address an issue if we fail to recognise it or deny it exists.

        “The anecdote about pain relief is common in many countries. It’s not a NZ thing It’s a medical services dynamic”

        Can you expand on that thanks?

        “Which makes me wonder about her ability to form an argument that is meaningful beyond her own antipathy.”

        Implying you see no truth in it at all?

        • weka 6.3.1.1
          17 September 2016 at 1:50 pm

          No, implying that her antipathy is all she’s got.

          People getting treated badly at A and E when they seek pain meds happens lots of places. Anyone suspected of being a drug user, or lying about pain to access drugs can get treated badly. Her using that story is a good example of why her article is overblown and comes across as rhetoric.

          Of course the problems need to be discussed (that’s a given in this forum) but as I said I don’t think she is adding much useful to the conversation.

          • The Chairman 6.3.1.1.1
            20 September 2016 at 1:23 pm

            Implying that her antipathy is all she’s got is clearly incorrect. She supplied a number of notable references throughout the series thus far.

            Her use of that story is obviously because it stood out for her. The refusal of pain relief shouldn’t be determined and withheld on the mere grounds a patient asked for it.

            Moreover, that example was merely one small snippet compared to what the series contains. But you’re correct, the example is anecdotal. Nonetheless, there is a prevailing harden up culture in NZ.

      • Brigid 6.3.2
        17 September 2016 at 1:06 pm

        I agree. Her anecdote about animal slaughter actually shows how humane the animal was slaughtered, and her memory of the event, I’d say, is slightly faulty; the animal would have been skinned before it was guttered.
        “(The animal) followed him trustingly, balking just a little at the sight of a man striding towards it holding a rifle.”
        An animal doesn’t know what a rifle is or does ffs.

        “At the age of eight, I was dragged into an initiation familiar to all readers of New Zealand’s manly literature: witnessing a slaughter.”
        ‘initiation’, ‘dragged’ Really? Garbage!

        ” Which makes me wonder about her ability to form an argument that is meaningful beyond her own antipathy.”
        Perfectly put Weka.

        • The Chairman 6.3.2.1
          17 September 2016 at 1:14 pm

          Have you read the other parts?

          With all the bigger issues being highlighted, I find it interesting people want to focus on the slaughter.

          • b waghorn 6.3.2.1.1
            17 September 2016 at 2:03 pm

            Because it shows she’s using her personal experience to paint a whole country as bad.

            • Gangnam Style 6.3.2.1.1.1
              17 September 2016 at 2:45 pm

              NO, I was a sensitive kid & was appalled to follow my father into a field at the age of about 4-5 & watch him catch a sheep & run a knife through it neck then let it keep running finally stumbling in a heap of blood & limbs & noise. Also being thrown into a pool when I could not swim & laughed at as I got out crying & told to ‘harden up’. If you are a sensitive wee soul then NZ is indeed a brutal country. Actually look at how many comments tell her to ‘harden up’, pretty much proving her point. It’s only her view & experience, I am sure she has had as much joy & laughter as the rest of us. NZrs hate criticism, & the disassembling of sacred cows like rugby, hunting & man alone bullshit. Well tough shit. One more thing, look at NZs appalling suicide rates of not just children but young men, there’s something rotten in the state of ‘godzone’ that we refuse to acknowledge.

              • marty mars …
                17 September 2016 at 3:00 pm

                + 1 Yep hard to forget the first sheep you see killed, especially when you are young and sensitive.

              • Brigid …
                17 September 2016 at 4:28 pm

                That’s an indictment on your father both because he ill treated the sheep and insulted you.
                I think your father was an outrageous brute and your reaction to that and being thrown into a pool when you couldn’t swim, doesn’t make you a sensitive wee soul, just an emotionally abused child.
                It makes me feel sick to think of a child being insulted and abused like that.

                Your account of the sheep slaughter is not my experience of how farm kill was carried out. We never watched our father killing the household meat because there was no reason to; it wasn’t a spectacle.

                Your experience and mine doesn’t make NZ culture.
                But this “, look at NZs appalling suicide rates of not just children but young men.” is shameful.
                It’s true “there’s something rotten in the state of ‘godzone’ that we refuse to acknowledge”

                • Gangnam Style …
                  17 September 2016 at 4:51 pm

                  I did not say my experience made NZ culture did I?

                  My dad was brought up on a Waikato farm in the 50s, he was a young stupid ignorant immature man in his 20s , now he is mellow & more knowing &I think he’s great! Also, my experience is not that uncommon, both the brutal animal slaughter & being forced to learn how to swim in those horrible cold concrete pools all schools used to have.

                  Also read the comments on the articles, plenty people think kids watching animals die is great character building material & makes kids respect meat, apparently!

              • Gabby …
                17 September 2016 at 5:58 pm

                You were unlucky to have an arsehole for a father.

            • The Chairman 6.3.2.1.1.2
              20 September 2016 at 1:32 pm

              @b waghorn

              Not only is she speaking from her own experiences (which some would also widely share) she illustrates how they manifest through attitudes and actions in society.

              One recent example being the Roast Busters ordeal. More recently the Chiefs.

              She discusses our binge drinking culture, procreation, homophobia and rugby culture.

              She highlights (amongst other things) that in the United Nations Report on the Status of Women published in 2011, New Zealand was ranked worst of all OECD countries in rates of sexual violence.  

              The series is titled ‘New Zealand is no paradise, it is brutal’ – highlighting some of the more sinister parts of our culture, thus it isn’t going to be a complimentary piece.

      • Psycho Milt 6.3.3
        17 September 2016 at 4:09 pm

        I also question her ability to reflect or do basic research. The anecdote about pain relief is common in many countries. It’s not a NZ thing It’s a medical services dynamic. Which makes me wonder about her ability to form an argument that is meaningful beyond her own antipathy.

        Yes. I read the first one, spent most of it thinking “FFS, do you imagine that’s peculiar to NZ?” or “Have you actually visited any other countries?”, and decided not to bother with any further installments.

        • Garibaldi 6.3.3.1
          17 September 2016 at 5:33 pm

          I have read both articles and, for me, on both occasions warning bells have rung. There is something contrived, ott, or ‘worst case scenario’ about it all. I suspect it is fiction. Worse still I fear I agree with BM ( minus the raving leftie bit) on this.

    • Ad 6.4
      17 September 2016 at 3:15 pm

      The one on the place of women and sexual attitudes in New Zealand was a bit over the top, but it was really well told.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.5
      17 September 2016 at 11:00 pm

      Seems accurate.

  7. joe90 7
    17 September 2016 at 12:43 pm

    Misogynist thug incites violence against a woman.

    Take their guns away. She doesn’t want guns. Let’s see what happens to her… It would be very dangerous.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-if-clinton-hates-guns-take-bodyguards-away-and-lets-see-what-happens-to-her/

    edit: She wants to destroy your Second Amendment… Guns, guns, guns, right? I think what we should do, is, she goes around with armed bodyguards like you have never seen before. I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons, they should disarm, right? Right? I think they should disarm. Immediately. Whaddaya think, yes? Yes. Yeah. Take their guns away! She doesn’t want guns. Take their, let’s see what happens to her. Take their guns away. OK?

  8. Sabine 8
    17 September 2016 at 1:31 pm

    oh yes please, pretty pretty please 🙂

    http://qz.com/782523/elizabeth-warren-wants-the-fbi-to-treat-big-bank-ceos-the-way-they-treat-hillary-clinton/

    quote:
    “Elizabeth Warren hasn’t left the financial crisis behind—she wants the FBI to hand over the records of its investigations into criminal behavior at Wall Street banks before the crash.
    And she says she has grounds to do so after federal law enforcement officials gave extraordinary public access to their investigation of Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server.”Quote End.

  9. James 9
    17 September 2016 at 2:03 pm

    Highlighting the difference between labour activist and “reality” in the UK

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/12/jeremy-corbyns-labour-suffers-worst-opinion-poll-ratings-the-par/

    Not much different here really.

    #ToriesForCorbyn

    • ropata 9.1
      17 September 2016 at 3:35 pm

      Nothing to do with wanton acts of political sabotage by the PLP then? Just blame the guy who harnessed a mass movement and increased Labour membership to record levels.. really James you are being a bit simpleminded

      • James 9.1.1
        17 September 2016 at 4:21 pm

        Not at all – what I was pointing out is that there are people like you, who are fine in a small little echo chamber with people like yourself who think you are all smart – and then there is the rest of the population who vote for the other guys leaving you surprised yet again when you are in opposition.

        • ropata 9.1.1.1
          18 September 2016 at 2:43 am

          For your next trick, the Brexit result and the Trump movement are great examples of right wing success…?

          There is a lot of anger out there against *all* establishment parties, patting yourself on the back seems a bit premature

        • framu 9.1.1.2
          19 September 2016 at 8:32 am

          pretty sure the fact youve ingored the continuing public internal war in UK labour has been pointed out to you multiple times.

          the fact your pinning it all on a single factor, yet again, somewhat proves ropata’s claim – either that or your doing it on purpose

  10. joe90 10
    17 September 2016 at 2:09 pm

    Rachel Maddow on how the Trump campaign’s use of racist symbols signals their tacit agreement with the very worst of America.

    http://player.theplatform.com/p/7wvmTC/MSNBCEmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_maddow_apepe_160916

  11. Karen 11
    17 September 2016 at 3:34 pm

    Generation Zero have done a guide for local elections again – makes for some interesting comparisons.

    http://aucklandelections.nz/

  12. Muttonbird 12
    17 September 2016 at 4:35 pm

    The comments section after this article highlight the divisions in NZ society which have appeared in the last decade.

    It’s the age of the amateur landlord and the long term tenant. Watch for things to get worse in this area.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/84337585/foxton-landlord-seeks-appeal-in-soiled-carpet-case

    • b waghorn 12.1
      17 September 2016 at 7:04 pm

      If you tell your tenants no pets inside then they let pets piss all over the carpet then i think they should pay.
      The fire case is completely different from that , and the court was right to not make the tenants pay.

      • Muttonbird 12.1.1
        17 September 2016 at 8:59 pm

        It’s the comments I was highlighting, not the case itself. Any excuse at all to deride tenants as a group is gleefully taken up by the the amateur landlord class.

        • b waghorn 12.1.1.1
          18 September 2016 at 7:51 am

          oh god don’t read stuff comments ,it will only make you feel like you are living in an asylum ,

    • weka 12.2
      18 September 2016 at 12:29 pm

      I’d be interested to know what the Tribunal decision said. On the face of it it doesn’t make sense.

      Re the comments, there is a mix there of the two cases (which are quite different), so it’s a big hard to tell what the general response is. Criticising the lastest Tribunal decision seems valid to me and not-anti-renter.

      Oh, and tenant’s insurance, wtf.

  13. marty mars 13
    17 September 2016 at 5:05 pm

    This article was very thought provoking for me.

    “I wanted to believe that sharing my experience with them would make them understand. And even more important, that understanding would breed action; but that’s where the disconnect arose. My sons understand, as best as teenage boys can. But they aren’t willing to sacrifice their own comfort for my sake, or for anyone else. When it comes to speaking out against rape culture and questioning their own ideas and behaviour, they become angry and defensive. Not all men, they remind me, and my guts wrench as my own sons mimic the vitriol of a thousand online trolls.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/life/84369519/im-a-rape-survivor-and-my-teen-boys-are-blind-to-rape-culture

    As a parent I wonder how I will act/react when my boys don’t believe what I believe and in fact believe the opposite.

  14. Gabby 14
    17 September 2016 at 6:07 pm

    You wouldn’t let your kids call a girl a slut or a whore. You probably wouldn’t lecture them about sexual politics over dinner until they wish laryngitis on you either.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 14.1
      17 September 2016 at 6:20 pm

      You think it’s okay to reduce a woman talking about her own experience, and trying to get her sons to understand how to have respectful relationships, to “lecturing them about sexual politics”?

      That’s kind of the problem, you realise.

  15. North 15
    17 September 2016 at 11:33 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11711888

    In the body count it’s still 1000-1 against the sub-human “sand nigger” Palestinians. Talk about racism !

    Nelson Mandela knew those neo-nazi zionists for what they are. Seventy years ago even Ben Gurion understood the Palestinians’ plight. “We’re taking their land – of course they hate us”.

    “Justice The Seed Peace The Flower”.

    • Colonial Viper 15.1
      17 September 2016 at 11:42 pm

      Anyone interested in this issue needs to read up on the historical “Yinon Plan” for a Greater Israel.