Daily Review 16/08/2016

19 comments on “Daily Review 16/08/2016 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Anne 1

   16 August 2016 at 6:02 pm

   Well the schisms are developing over the new spy legislation.

   The number of members on the Intelligence committee has been reduced to 5. This means only National and Labour are represented (2 each as is normal) and the Greens have missed out. I’m very pleased that Andrew Little has spoken out strongly against the change. It is bloody disgraceful the Greens and NZF have been locked out. Together they represent around 1/4 of the population and should be on the committee. Little has also expressed dismay Key has given himself the role of Chairman. This is the bloke who was so disinterested and lazy as the SIS minister he divested himself of the role and passed it to Finlayson. But he still wants to be top boss and get his own way – at least whatever way his US handlers tell him to jump.
   • Anne 1.1

     16 August 2016 at 6:13 pm

     http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/201812392/calls-for-broader-representation-on-security-committee
   • Cinny 1.2

     16 August 2016 at 6:19 pm

     Greens and NZ1st should be on that committee, more points of view, more ideas, evolution.

     Those on the committee should elect a chairperson.

     Democracy is dying under Key. Time for a change.
     • Anne 1.2.1

       16 August 2016 at 7:00 pm

       Sooner or later someone here will criticise Labour for not giving up one of it’s two member allocations to the Greens. It is important to understand that Labour must have at least two members to be able to combat the National members on the committee. Key and Finlayson especially are bullies and will shut down any opposition if they can. Little needs Shearer (who has knowledge and experience in this area) to back him up. It is a situation that would prevail no matter who was the Labour leader – nothing to do with Little as such.

       My view is: this is precisely what Key is aiming for. To reduce the relevance of the opposition parties on this committee so he and Finlayson can do whatever they damm well like with OUR lives.
     • Stuart Munro 1.2.2

       17 August 2016 at 12:04 am

       It wouldn’t hurt to make a rule – a party that gets 10% is no longer truly minor and gets a seat. That might leave Winston out on paper but I’ve a feeling he’ll make it this time.

       Key’s drive of course is to marginalise and rubbish the Greens – nothing quite so dangerous to a lousy corrupt disingenuous non-performing extreme right government as a party with real policies to fix the problems they’ve created.
   • alwyn 1.3

     16 August 2016 at 7:05 pm

     This is a most fascinating comment Anne. The problem is that it has no connection with reality.

     “has been reduced to 5″. Just when did this happen? It was 5 in 1996. It hasn’t changed at all.

     ” (2 each as is normal)” Really. When Key first became PM the committee was comprised of himself and Phil Goff, as required by the Act, and, nominated by Key, we had Hide and Turia, Goff nominated Norman. That was it. 5 then, 5 now.
     It was Little who chose to put Shearer on the committee instead of a Green MP. Blame him.

     “Andrew Little has spoken out strongly against the change”. As I pointed out there used to be a Green member. It was Little who took that away by appointing another Labour member instead of a Green. Are you really so unaware of this fact?

     “dismay Key has given himself the role of Chairman”. No it is the Act that controls it. He doesn’t have any ability to avoid it unless the Act is changed. Little is talking rubbish. The Act requires that the PM and the Leader of the Opposition be members. It has been like that for 20 years.

     You are quite entitled to argue that the Act should be changed, and perhaps that it have a different number of members. You really do look stupid though when you claim that Key has made some sort of phantom change when he hasn’t.
     • b waghorn 1.3.1

       16 August 2016 at 7:18 pm

       god rodney hide really ?that’s frightening the mans thick as fuck
     • Anne 1.3.2

       16 August 2016 at 7:22 pm

       It was Little who took that away by appointing another Labour member instead of a Green. Are you really so unaware of this fact?

       No Mr Clever Clogs I am not unaware of that fact. I’ve explained why he did it. No disrespect to the Greens – just a factual reality as anyone who has been on or witnessed political machinations at a top level will understand. Especially with the likes of Key and Co. in office. I posted on what I heard on RNZ . Perhaps the Inquiry commissioners recommended there be 7 on the committee and Key has reduced it back to 5.

       Anyone who can’t see that Key wants to rule the roost with the least amount of opposition he can get away with is seriously deluded.
       • alwyn 1.3.2.1

         16 August 2016 at 7:58 pm

         “I posted on what I heard on RNZ”. You believe RNZ???????

         “Little needs Shearer (who has knowledge and experience in this area) to back him up. It is a situation that would prevail no matter who was the Labour leader – nothing to do with Little as such.”

         Aw. Poor little Andy would be bullied by the big bad Mr Finlayson.
         And this is the man the Labour Party thinks is capable of being the Prime Minister?

         However, although you seem to think it would apply no matter who was the Labour leader it obviously didn’t worry Phil Goff did it? He didn’t feel the desperate need of a minder. It didn’t worry Shearer either. He was happy with Norman. Even Cunliffe, who was much less experienced in this type of thing than the other two, kept Norman in the role. Only poor little Andy is incapable of doing the job.

         Says rather a lot about Little Andy doesn’t it?

         ” Perhaps the Inquiry commissioners recommended there be 7 on the committee and Key has reduced it back to 5.”
         Really? Do you have any evidence for such a statement? And bear in mind that Little and Shearer have been on this committee for almost two years haven’t they? Norman was replaced, after all, when he left Parliament in September 2014.
         • Cinny 1.3.2.1.1

           17 August 2016 at 7:09 am

           Maybe it should be reviewed? MMP came into being in 1996, surely some rules should change to reflect that? After all there are a number of parties in parliament now. And MMP is an evolution thing, time to evolve a bit more perhaps?

           Key is an egg talking down Greens all the time, doesn’t the fool know that the majority of youth are enviromentally concerned, an anomaly of this day and age. I expected to see a huge turn out of youth voters next year.
           • alwyn 1.3.2.1.1.1

             17 August 2016 at 9:49 am

             The first paragraph you write is fine. A review of anything makes sense after 20 years.
             However that wasn’t what Anne was claiming.
             She claimed that Key had reduced the size of the committee.
             She claimed that this meant that the Green’s were excluded by this action.
             She claimed that Labour shouldn’t have to give up one of “their” positions.
             She also blamed the cut in numbers for excluding NZF.
             None of these things were true. The committee’s organisation is still determined by the rules that were set up in 1996. he National Government didn’t do anything. Andrew could, like his predecessors, have appointed someone from one of the other parties. He chose not to. If Anne is to be believed on this it is because he can’t stand up to Finlayson.
             Propose changes to the Committee if you want to. Just don’t try and pretend that Key made changes when he did no such thing.
2. One Anonymous Bloke 2

   16 August 2016 at 6:56 pm

   The obvious solution to Havelock North’s National Party problem is to defund the monitoring agencies and prosecute whistleblowers.

   Otherwise the shit might end up all over Cabinet Club.
3. Rosemary McDonald 3

   16 August 2016 at 7:00 pm

   And speaking of democracy….ever so slightly RW editor of the Northland Age has a serious go at the Government’s Better Local Services Bill.

   Peter Jackson is not a happy man…

   “In a nutshell, the Bill gives enormous power over our lives to the Minister of Local Government and the Local Government Commission, which will do his dirty work.

   It would seem that the government has adopted Plan B after council amalgamation proposals in Northland, Wellington and Hawke’s Bay were scuttled by referenda in those regions. The solution? Get rid of the democratic element.

   Make no mistake, this drive for efficiency is the cloak that has been draped over a drive for amalgamations.

   To claim, as it clearly does, that Wellington knows what’s best for us represents an outrageous, unprecedented assault on democracy, even if the consultation that took place prior to 1989 was a farce.

   The government thinks it’s boxing clever, but it isn’t. It’s proposing to amalgamate council services, a process that is already voluntarily underway in Northland.

   Voters who do not appreciate the extraordinary arrogance that this government is displaying need not be so polite. They should tell the Minister to go to hell.

   They might suggest that he look at Britain’s decision to leave the EU as a clear message that there is more to life than economies of scale.

   Sovereignty, and that’s hardly too lofty a word to use here, is important to us too, and we should make it very clear that politicians jeopardise that at their peril.”

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northland-age/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503402&objectid=11694895
   • weka 3.1

     16 August 2016 at 7:17 pm

     Crikey.

     HB though. Someone on twitter today (a leftie I think) was saying that the government need to get involved in the Havelock North situation because the council can’t be trusted. We know where that’s heading, right.
   • Draco T Bastard 3.2

     16 August 2016 at 10:01 pm

     It would seem that the government has adopted Plan B after council amalgamation proposals in Northland, Wellington and Hawke’s Bay were scuttled by referenda in those regions. The solution? Get rid of the democratic element.

     Same thing that they did to Auckland.

     Make no mistake, this drive for efficiency is the cloak that has been draped over a drive for amalgamations.

     That may be the cloak but it’s a lie. What this government is after is privatisations and the profits that come from them. These privatisations and profits increase inefficiency but this government doesn’t give a shit about that as long as rich people are getting bigger profits from the community.

     Voters who do not appreciate the extraordinary arrogance that this government is displaying need not be so polite. They should tell the Minister to go to hell.

     Central government simply should have no say in how cities and regions are run.
4. ScottGN 4

   16 August 2016 at 7:22 pm

   Was that Jonathan Coleman wearing his Minister of Sports hat in Rio on Newshub’s puff-piece? Best he puts his Minister of Health hat on and gets his arse back here real fast.
5. Draco T Bastard 5

   16 August 2016 at 9:52 pm

   NZ pushing for deregulation, documents show

   They said the documents showed the Government wanted to loosen its control over public services such as transport, education and water, and in the financial sector.
   Jane Kelsey

   Jane Kelsey Photo: Auckland University

   The 17 leaked documents are from the highly secretive Trade in Services Agreement, which involves the world’s most powerful countries.

   The agreement aims to set trade rules and decide how services are regulated in 23 countries, including the US and Australia, and in the European Union.

   It is part of what has been dubbed the ‘T-treaty trinity’, which includes the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

   Auckland University law professor Jane Kelsey said the leaked documents showed New Zealand had been the most aggressive nation in putting commercial interests ahead of environmental, social, and cultural impacts.

   “Part of it’s ideological, which is pushing the light-handed, risk-tolerant approach to regulation, which we know has failed us here if we look at areas like finance companies or Pike River or the aged care system,” she said.

   More destroying society for the benefit of the rich by this psychopathic government.
6. Draco T Bastard 6

   16 August 2016 at 9:55 pm

   Comparing THC vs. CBD: What’s the Difference?

   A useful info-graphic on a couple of the compounds found in hemp/cannabis.
   • weka 6.1

     16 August 2016 at 10:16 pm

     very good, thanks.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS