Not funny

Written By: - Date published: 11:40 am, June 17th, 2008 - 89 comments
Categories: blogs - Tags:

Kiwiblog now has a cartoonist and it’s simply disgusting stuff. I’m not going to post the cartoon because I don’t want the image on our blog (you can see it here) – it mocks Folole Muliaga, an ill woman who died needlessly. It’s irredeemably uninsightful, unfunny, and offensive.

It really speaks to both David Farrar’s political nous and personal judgment that he would publish such material, let alone state that he thinks it’s funny. It’s Whaleoil level stuff. I don’t know what Farrar is thinking.

89 comments on “Not funny ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. the sprout 1
    17 June 2008 at 11:44 am

    what a prick. i hope the muliaga family pay farrar a visit to express their concerns.

  2. Felix 2
    17 June 2008 at 11:54 am

    And Davey’s actually proud to have this shite on his blog.

  3. Joker 3
    17 June 2008 at 12:01 pm

    Perhaps we should call a Jihad on Denmark I mean Farrar for this craven use of the holy Muliaga image.

    (Actually I think a Jihad on a person would ba a Fatwah)

  4. Disengaged 4
    17 June 2008 at 12:05 pm

    For someone that dislikes Farrar and Kiwiblog so much you spend a great deal of time talking about him/it and referring people to his site.

    Its much like the people who watch Southpark just so they can write an outraged letter to the BSA. How about you just don’t look?

  5. Tane 5
    17 June 2008 at 12:09 pm

    Actually I don’t think this site has referred to Kiwiblog in about a month, during which time Farrar has referred to us several times. You may be confusing us with Kiwiblogblog.

    Personally I don’t dislike the man, though I question his judgement at times like these.

  6. all_your_base 6
    17 June 2008 at 12:18 pm

    Yeah, Disengaged, my feeling is that you can let crap like this pass and say nothing or call it how you see it. This is the kind of nasty sh*t we can all do without.

  7. Disengaged 7
    17 June 2008 at 12:32 pm

    It is the fine line that we travel when we value freedom of expression.

    As Tony Blair said “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.”

  8. Policy Parrot 8
    17 June 2008 at 12:39 pm

    The Muliaga cartoon is very offensive. Perhaps we should boycott all publications that carry that cartoonist’s work until either a public apology or until the cartoonist is dropped from all media.

  9. Tane 9
    17 June 2008 at 12:42 pm

    Disengaged. What a silly argument. All freedom of expression means is you don’t get put in prison for expressing your views. It’s not a blank cheque to be offensive or a shield to hide from well-deserved criticism.

  10. Disengaged 10
    17 June 2008 at 12:49 pm

    I’m not saying it’s a shield to criticism. In fact, part of the price for freedom of expression is that people have the freedom to criticise your work.

    But freedom of expression means more than “just not being put in prison”. It also means that we as “reasonable” people must accept that some things that people say or do are going to offend us.

    I guess what I’m saying that asking a whole lot of people to view something that you know they are going to be offended by seems rather counter productive.

    Have you raised your concerns with the cartoonist?

    Also for what it is worth, I have stopped visiting Kiwiblog as I do not feel comfortable with most of the views expressed by the commentors. The increasing number of “Labourmustbeliquidated” and “Labour is scum” type pseudonyms and correspondingly downgrade posts is a turn off. Even thought I am more right leaning than left.

  11. Policy Parrot 11
    17 June 2008 at 12:50 pm

    By the way, the cartoonist’s name is Michael Botur.

    BTW – Disengaged – the Muliaga cartoon has nothing to do with politics – it is not a legitimate target and is plain disrespectful.

  12. barnsleybill 12
    17 June 2008 at 12:51 pm

    More faux outrage. have any of you actually looked at the cartoon? Or have you looked at it and lack the wit to understand the context?

  13. Tim 13
    17 June 2008 at 12:52 pm

    Disengaged – freedom of speech also means we’re allowed to criticise the cartoonist for his shit cartoon.

  14. Policy Parrot 14
    17 June 2008 at 12:55 pm

    BB, you are comparing a deliberate disconnection with a potential for blackout beyond the control of authorities.

    Its not faux outrage at all – I’m sure the death of a relative of yours was funny to some, but I can’t see how it would be funny to you, or for me for that matter.

    I’d doubt whether it would be in good taste either.

  15. Steve Pierson 15
    17 June 2008 at 12:56 pm

    barnsleybill. perhaps you could enlighten us as to the wit in the cartoon?

  16. Tane 16
    17 June 2008 at 12:57 pm

    As a_y_b said,

    Yeah, Disengaged, my feeling is that you can let crap like this pass and say nothing or call it how you see it. This is the kind of nasty sh*t we can all do without.

    No one bothers telling people like Whaleoil that he’s filth because he’s irrelevant and in any case well beyond the point of no return. I’d expect someone like Farrar to know better, especially if he wants to maintain an air of respectability.

  17. all_your_base 17
    17 June 2008 at 1:00 pm

    barnsleybill – if you lack the empathy to see that a Mrs Muliaga’s death isn’t appropriate to make fun of I’m not sure any amount of persuasion from the commenters here is likely to get through.

  18. Tim 18
    17 June 2008 at 1:09 pm

    I’ve looked at the cartoon. It’s puerile and offensive because it makes a mockery of a woman’s death. It also looks like an 8 year old with pen-holding difficulties drew it (in fact all of this guy’s cartoons look like a schoolboy drew them). They’re certainly not witty or funny, unless you still laugh at fart noises and America’s Funniest Home Videos.

    Nobody’s going to put a fatwa on the cartoonist, so there’s no point in making hysterical comparisons to the Danish cartoonist or quoting Tony Blair.

    Freedom of speech is important so we can see what low lives these people are. They’re perfectly entitled to draw the cartoon to expose their bigoted idiocy. However, I reserve my right to say what a shit cartoon it is and that it exposes the seedy mentality of a lot of kiwibloggers.

  19. barnsleybill 19
    17 June 2008 at 1:10 pm

    Where in the cartoon itself or in any of the accompanying text does it suggest humour.. Forget the tag at the bottom. DPF suggested it pushes comfort levels and it certainly does. if you cannot see the correlation between the govt strip mining profits from the SOE power companies and them tub thumping about their heartless attitude whilst overseeing another power crisis I give up on you lot. Not everything is blue or red.

    How do you reconcile people dying for lack of power with Cullen receiving 10 bucks per week per household in dividends from these companies?
    Money that has been spent on social policy that events in the crimezone of south Auckland would suggest have not worked. But hey as long as you guys can keep blogging from your safe little govt jobs there are no problems right?

  20. killinginthenameof 20
    17 June 2008 at 1:10 pm

    Speaking of whale oil and mrs Muliaga, didnt the whale have a little bill paying (cell phone mind you) issue of his own a while back?

  21. Steve Pierson 21
    17 June 2008 at 1:18 pm

    barnsley. Noone has died for lack of national power supply. There is plenty of production capacity, just a lack of water at present

    A woman died because her power was cut, needlessly, and then, it seems, the inaction of the family and the hospital conpounded things. that has nothing to do with the amount of power generation with have or the current low hyrdo lake levels. Even if it did, the cartoon would still not be witty.

  22. barnsleybill 22
    17 June 2008 at 1:24 pm

    Steve.
    That is the very first time I have seen a commentator from the left call the circumstances surrounding the death of that woman with anything resembling calm reason.
    Maybe that cartoon has actually produced one reasonable comment.
    Thanks.

  23. gobsmacked 23
    17 June 2008 at 1:31 pm

    Clearly freedom of expression includes the freedom to offend.

    But is this freedom-loving fearlessly offensive cartoonist the same person who strongly complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, about a supposedly “humorous” item, because he was … offended?

    http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2007/2007-139.htm

    Is he offended by day and offensive by night? Or are they two different people?

  24. Felix 24
    17 June 2008 at 1:32 pm

    Freedom of speech means that:

    1. Davey can publish a picture
    2. Steve can say it’s offensive
    3. disengaged can display his misunderstanding of the concept
    4. barnsley can spew his usual faux-discontent

    and everyone now has a better understanding of where the others are coming from.

    Neat isn’t it?

  25. SweeetD 25
    17 June 2008 at 1:33 pm

    [ill-informed and disgusting comments. take it to Kiwiblog. And if you post like that agian here you’ll be banned. SP]

  26. MikeE 26
    17 June 2008 at 1:50 pm

    I’m more offended from someone trying to build political capital out of her tragic death, a family member offering $150 to pay for a fight at a gym, yet unwilling to pay the power bill of roughly the same cost.

    Then all people (from both sides of the political spectrum) dragging this through the media, when the family probably just needs support and the ability to grieve.

  27. Disengaged 27
    17 June 2008 at 1:50 pm

    Pray tell Felix how have I misunderstood the concept of freedom of expression?

  28. Policy Parrot 28
    17 June 2008 at 1:51 pm

    sweeetd – how can one “pay the bill” if they don’t have any money?

    And how do you know that she “ate herself to death?” I didn’t see that in the coroner’s report.

    The family have some responsibility for sure, but that doesn’t make it funny – that is the point we are making here.

  29. SweeetD 29
    17 June 2008 at 1:56 pm

    what was ill informed about my comments?

    I know you have made a saint out of the women, but ‘ill health’ was created by her own obesity.

    The oxygen being turned off did not kill her, it was the failure to get her to hospital.

    She had a history of not paying her power bills.

    So, again, what was ill informed pierson?

    [ok, then, your comments were just disgusting. SP]

  30. ben 30
    17 June 2008 at 1:57 pm

    To be fair though Farrar does pay his own bills.

    [lprent: Are you suggesting that I don’t pay the standard’s bill? It is the fastest known way to get kicked off here permanently and with a high degree of malice on my part. After the attacks from the rabid right morons I have adopted a simple negative tolerance policy that even they understand.

    If that isn’t the case then I’d suggest to say what you mean in a hurry otherwise I’ll dump you out later today. This head cold is making me cranky and I feel like some malevolent play.]

  31. James Kearney 31
    17 June 2008 at 2:00 pm

    No he doesn’t, he bludges off Inspire.Net.

  32. randal 32
    17 June 2008 at 2:02 pm

    disengaged you dont seem to understand that farrars blog offends everybody and not just tory apparatchiks. are you thik?

  33. illuminatedtiger 33
    17 June 2008 at 2:19 pm

    David,

    If you have any respect for the dead I ask that you write the Muliaga family an apology.

    IT

  34. dad4justice 34
    17 June 2008 at 2:22 pm

    Grow up and get a sense of humour you gormless pc gits.
    Pull the plug on this place because it kills the secretion of endorphins. Use some visual imagery like Helen in a cell?
    Haha – boring dicks.

    [dad. You wrote to us asking for your permanent ban to be lifted and promising that you would contribute substantively. You’ve been doing so well, but the last few days you’ve been slipping into your old ways. Don’t let down our trust in you. Moreover, I’m not sure that the Republicanz party would appreciate their candidate for Christchurch Central making statements like this in public. SP]

  35. Lukas 35
    17 June 2008 at 2:26 pm

    see D4J… you just go and say something like that and paint all of us right leaning people here with the same brush… please just learn to hold your tongue man!

  36. dad4justice 36
    17 June 2008 at 2:33 pm

    Sure Lukas,right leaning going around in left circles, my point was laughter transcends all human beings.

  37. Disengaged 37
    17 June 2008 at 2:35 pm

    Randal, I understand that Kiwiblog offends SOME people. I don’t agree with a lot of the posts there and I certainly don’t agree with a lot of the comments made there. BUT, He still has a right to have his blog and to post things on it that many people may find offensive.

    If people think that I am thick because I want to live in a country where people are free to satarise things or voice their opinionseven though they may cause offense to some then so be it.

    I am puzzled by your phrase Tory Apparatchiks though as I would deem that t be an oxymoron. Also the plural of apparatchik is apparatchiki. Now who is the thicky? 😉

    Captcha: Trinidad Sweater. Wouldn’t it be a little warm for a wooly jumper in the Caribbean?!?

  38. Matthew Pilott 38
    17 June 2008 at 2:36 pm

    MikeE – blame the media – if something bad happens they take on the role as collective counsellor to the nation, priest at the funeral, and “explain” to us what the family “must be going through”.

    As Maynard said: “It’s no fun ’till someone dies… why don’t we just admit it”.

    Buggered if I know how such an attitude in reporting will change.

    P.s – who’s the ‘someone’ trying to make political capital that you refer to?

  39. Lukas 39
    17 June 2008 at 2:37 pm

    how on earth was that point made in your comment D4J?

  40. MikeE 40
    17 June 2008 at 2:53 pm

    Matt: The certain relative who up untill recently was a labour candidate, launching his campaign off the death of a family member who could not pay her bills.

    I find it disgusting that he can offer money for people to fight slater in a boxing ring, being almost the same amount of cash required for the power bill, yet he was either unable or unwilling to contribute said cash to his family member – whom he and many other claim died as a result of said unpaid power bill.

    I’ve watched family members die too, but I would NEVER use them for political capital, especially in these circumstances.

    I’m sure the Children in the family would prefer support, rather than people drugging their mothers name through the gutter (as I said on both sides of the spectrum) for pure political gain.

  41. Lew 41
    17 June 2008 at 3:22 pm

    I know Michael Botur pretty well, and I know him to be an entirely decent and humane person.

    I’ve spoken with him about these cartoons and I think there’s a lot of presumption about their purpose. In the particular case in question, I think it’s clearly a dig at Mercury (and the government by proxy) rather than laughs at the expense the Muliaga family – though I agree it could have been more tasteful. I’m pretty sure the ‘toons weren’t drawn just for KiwiBlog, but as part of general observations about life in NZ. I think reactions to their content (though not their quality, to which responses have been similar on both sites) have been coloured somewhat by the presence on that site, rather than elsewhere.

    NZ needs more satire. You might not like this or value it, but it’s not of nearly the same degree as Stan Blanch or Whale Oil, and Michael isn’t that kind of person.

    L

  42. T-rex 42
    17 June 2008 at 3:26 pm

    Great to have the added depth Lew, cheers.

  43. Lampie 43
    17 June 2008 at 3:27 pm

    Should be forwarded to Larry Williams on NatZB and other media sources, perhaps then they will not take him serously especially if he supports this (having it on web would show that)

  44. Lampie 44
    17 June 2008 at 3:30 pm

    Forward it to Larry Williams on NatZB and other media, perhaps they won’t take him serously

  45. Steve Pierson 45
    17 June 2008 at 3:33 pm

    Lew. I still don’t see what the satire or humour is.

    And Farrar is listing them under the title ‘kiwiblog cartoons’, so he’s taking them on as part of his brand. So, you’re right, if the cartoon had appeared on some other no-name blog like the Hive or something I would have ignored it.

  46. Hoolian 46
    17 June 2008 at 4:09 pm

    Yeah, Disengaged, my feeling is that you can let crap like this pass and say nothing or call it how you see it. This is the kind of nasty sh*t we can all do without.

    Oh good. So you agree then that the Catholic Church had every right to go to the BSA and complain about the “Bloody Mary” episode on Southpark?

  47. Steve Pierson 47
    17 June 2008 at 4:13 pm

    Hoolian. Of course the Catholic Church had every right to object to something they found objectionable.

  48. T-rex 48
    17 June 2008 at 4:16 pm

    Precisely.

    And I have every right to think that the catholic church have a mentality fresh from the dark ages in many regards.

    Gotta love that freedom!

  49. Felix 49
    17 June 2008 at 4:38 pm

    disengaged:

    I meant to suggest that you misinterpreted the objections to the cartoons as being somehow contrary to the principle of free expression when really they were nothing of the sort.

    But I didn’t mean anything serious by it and I hope I haven’t offended you.

    Hoolian:

    Are you trying to run one of those obtuse BrettDale-esque arguments along the lines of “if you object to anything you have to object to everything”? Yawn.

  50. Lew 50
    17 June 2008 at 4:40 pm

    Steve: “I still don’t see what the satire or humour is.”

    You don’t see satire in the idea that a government-owned agency might cut power to a needy customer because of a general shortage? The humour’s black and it might be crass to you, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there.

    “And Farrar is listing them under the title ‘kiwiblog cartoons’, so he’s taking them on as part of his brand.”

    When I talked to Michael (yesterday, after they went up) he wasn’t aware they’d been published. The guy draws a lot of cartoons, he sends them off to various outlets for publication and they may or may not get published. That’s how freelancing works.

    Perhaps DPF would like to confirm the cartoons’ status for the record, though he doesn’t have any public duty to do so. I can say with certainty. Again, for the record, your line of `Kiwiblog has a cartoonist’ is false, though unless Michael contacts you about it you don’t have any public duty to clarify anything there, either.

    L

  51. Matthew Pilott 51
    17 June 2008 at 5:31 pm

    mikeE – I missed that whole thing. Fighting slater in a boxing ring?? I don’t get any of it but never mind, I’ll find out.

  52. Jon 52
    17 June 2008 at 5:31 pm

    “The Muliaga cartoon is very offensive. Perhaps we should boycott all publications that carry that cartoonist’s work until either a public apology or until the cartoonist is dropped from all media”

    Or you could just boycott Kiwiblog?

  53. ben 53
    17 June 2008 at 5:32 pm

    Sounds like you could use a few beers SP. Lighten up, brother

  54. gobsmacked 54
    17 June 2008 at 5:40 pm

    DPF, introducing the cartoons on Kiwiblog:

    “Michael Botur specialises in political cartoons, and has kindly offered to supply Kiwiblog readers with a series of them during election year.”

    The word “offered” doesn’t leave much room for doubt there. They are Kiwiblog cartoons, for Kiwiblog readers.

  55. Matthew Pilott 55
    17 June 2008 at 5:42 pm

    Jon – clearly no experience in activism…

    Ben – not from SP – read it again…

  56. Lew 56
    17 June 2008 at 6:14 pm

    gobsmacked: “The word “offered’ doesn’t leave much room for doubt there. They are Kiwiblog cartoons, for Kiwiblog readers.”

    Just because they were offered to Kiwiblog doesn’t mean they were drawn for Kiwiblog. They might have been (I didn’t ask), but it doesn’t necessarily follow. In any case that’s not what I disputed; I disputed the `Kiwiblog now has a cartoonist’ opening line. I know Michael is not Kiwiblog’s captive cartoonist because I know what he does for a living, and it’s not draw cartoons for Kiwiblog. I know his work is also published elsewhere than Kiwiblog.

    L

  57. Anita 57
    17 June 2008 at 6:22 pm

    Avoiding the shouting about free speech for a moment…

    I am fascinated that someone as closely connected to National as DPF would post those cartoons. It seems like a high political risk for a low possible pay off.

    Is this simply an un-checked rush of blood to DPF’s head? In which case, what will/should National do to distance itself from the embarassment?

    Or is it (yet another) of the Nats using Kiwiblog to float a potentially risky tactic/idea at arms-length and see if it should become part of the National strategy? If so, why are they sure DPF’s actions will never reflect back directly on the party?

  58. Dean 58
    17 June 2008 at 7:07 pm

    “A woman died because her power was cut, needlessly, and then, it seems, the inaction of the family and the hospital conpounded things. that has nothing to do with the amount of power generation with have or the current low hyrdo lake levels. Even if it did, the cartoon would still not be witty.”

    You still haven’t broached the topic of the amount of money the government gets from everyone’s power bill. Or how regulated by government the power generation industry actually is. Or how much the prices have risen. I’d be interested in your opinions on these matters, because I suspect that they wouldn’t marry up with this statement.

    I’m on the fence on this one, but I would like to know the family’s weekly income and expenses before making a judgement. Yes, that includes the food bill.

  59. Felix 59
    17 June 2008 at 7:21 pm

    …his work is also published elsewhere than Kiwiblog.

    Just out of interest, where else?

  60. T-Rex 60
    17 June 2008 at 7:22 pm

    Dean – how regulated by the government IS the generation industry? I’d love a link. As far as I can tell it’s actually not that heavily regulated at all, which is why it’s actually not that bad!

  61. Lew 61
    17 June 2008 at 7:28 pm

    Felix: He’s done covers, interior illustrations and ‘toons for Salient, which DPF cites. He’s also self-published a few things. I don’t know Michael’s work as well as I know him, so I’m not an authority here. The point I’m trying to make is that he’s not DPF’s pet cartoonist, as is implied.

    L

  62. Dean 62
    17 June 2008 at 7:29 pm

    T-Rex. it’s 2/3rds owned by the government.

    I guess in some quarters that’s not considered “heavily regulated” but if you think regulating the rest is the key to lowering power prices then you might want to take a look at what’s happened to the cost with only 2/3rds.

  63. randal 63
    17 June 2008 at 7:39 pm

    it was only regulated so the nats could payout on their election promises to the right wing friedmanite nutters and look at the trouble it has caused. everybody arguing like american business commentators instead of getting on with the substantive issues like the productive capacity of the economy. meanwhile generating capacity has been sacrificed for quaterly figures. the country has become inane.

  64. Brett Dale 64
    17 June 2008 at 7:55 pm

    Actually the best satire comes from subjects that may cause offensive.

  65. andy 65
    17 June 2008 at 7:59 pm

    the country has become inane.

    pure genius 🙂

  66. T-Rex 66
    17 June 2008 at 8:39 pm

    Dean – it’s 2/3rd state owned enterprises.

    SOE’s act like companies. The only difference is that the profits go to the govt, not to shareholders.

    Explain to me how that’s a bad thing? You’re complaining that some fraction of your power bill is paid, through the SOE’s, to the govt? You’d rather it went to a private entity so you never saw it again?

    The regulation that occurs has nothing to do with the SOE’s, it’s done by the electricity commission. I’m trying to learn more about that now, because I actually think the system works well and I’d really like the facts to rebut arguments like the one that Jum has quoted from Bradford in the 100 things thread.

  67. ak 67
    17 June 2008 at 9:09 pm

    Bretty: Actually the best satire comes from subjects that may cause offensive.
    mmmmm… and the best humour is unintended – like this “sagacity” with kohanga grammatical skills.

    And this entire thread: nothing like the old right-wing sense of humour oxymoron to spotlight the classic contradictions at the heart of Toryism. (Heeeee what a laugh – respected woman dies tragically due to heartless corporate cutting power and now the lakes are getting dry – such an obvious connection! Hilarious or what??? And such clever artwork!
    Hey – polls in Nats’ favour – I know! I know! – piccy of National leaders in a big wave crashing over Labour leaders! Brilliant! Laugh – I almost died!)

    Sorry Lew – I’m sure he’s a lovely man ‘n all, but even dad4garbage’ll be squirming at this dross.

    Here’s an interesting poser for your analytical antenna but: is it the innate lack of compassion and humanity in your classic tory that leads to his inability to appreciate the delicious subtleties of humour – or is it his essential humourless pessimism that generates the cold-hearted disregard for his fellows?

  68. Brett Dale 68
    17 June 2008 at 9:16 pm

    Respected woman????, from what i heard she didnt follow much of what her doctors told her? and her family intead of running to the neighbors, they just grabbed a guitar and started singing.

    They were factors in her death.

  69. illuminatedtiger 69
    17 June 2008 at 9:50 pm

    And then there was that cheap ripoff of Hokusai’s wave.

    Not only do the right have no sense of taste but they also lack artistic sense.

  70. Dean 70
    17 June 2008 at 11:07 pm

    “Explain to me how that’s a bad thing? You’re complaining that some fraction of your power bill is paid, through the SOE’s, to the govt? You’d rather it went to a private entity so you never saw it again?”

    T-Rex, at first you questioned how much was owned by the government, and now you say you knew how much but you want to make excuses for it anyway?

    Maybe you shoudl donate 150 odd dollars to the next south auckland family who can’t afford to pay their power bill after over 10 phone calls and letters. Brendan couldn’t, so perhaps you could be the person to show him how the SOE model works so well.

    “You’d rather it went to a private entity so you never saw it again?”

    Heaven forbid any kind of profits went to a private entity! The sky might fall.

  71. Tane 71
    18 June 2008 at 9:54 am

    Lew, he might be your mate but he’s crossed the line on this one.

    To back up SP, it was also clearly labelled as a ‘Kiwiblog Cartoon’. Note Farrar’s comment on today’s effort:

    At this point in time I’ll remind Gerry that as a good editor, I don’t censor our cartoonist! 🙂

    He’s pretty clearly being branded the Kiwiblog house cartoonist, whether he likes it or not.

  72. Swampy 72
    19 June 2008 at 6:32 pm

    “if you cannot see the correlation between the govt strip mining profits from the SOE power companies and them tub thumping about their heartless attitude whilst overseeing another power crisis I give up on you lot.”

    Thanks, Barns. What seems to be conveniently overlooked again and again is that Labour passes the buck on social responsibility when it comes to the electricity SOEs and some of the others that they can suck billions out of. TVNZ is being turned from a profitable business into a cash sink in the name of better programming (means nothing to me – I don’t watch TV) yet the most contentious for the average householder is their electricity bill and the activities of SOEs like Solid Energy which mines dirty coal in ecologically fragile areas.

    The billions sucked out of the electricity SOEs in special dividends to pay for election promises (Meridian alone supplied $800 million for a roading package in 1995, and about $200 million just this year to help the government buy back Toll Rail) certainly hasn’t gone into improving the electricity supply which should be a much higher priority. This money is over and above the regular dividend of something like $300 million a year. I think Labour should stick to taking the normal dividend and leave the special amounts in the companies as they are just coming out of electricity consumer’s pockets to pay for election bribes.

  73. Swampy 73
    19 June 2008 at 6:51 pm

    “SOE’s act like companies. The only difference is that the profits go to the govt, not to shareholders.

    Explain to me how that’s a bad thing? You’re complaining that some fraction of your power bill is paid, through the SOE’s, to the govt? You’d rather it went to a private entity so you never saw it again?”

    What matters is that we are in an electricity crisis and the amount of new generation capacity being built hasn’t kept up with demand over the past decade. The result has been a series of electricity crises.

    Now, I’m a customer of Meridian Energy and I know, it’s a fact, that my power prices keep rising. Supposedly this is to pay for new generation. But now I find that Labour has taken over a billion dollars of capital out of Meridian as a special dividend (also called a capital repatriation). That capital will now have to be found from somewhere else when it is needed in the future. As the government is the sole shareholder, the other forms are either directly in consumer prices, or indirectly by borrowing (the costs of which are then recovered in consumer prices). So we can expect to be paying higher power prices still, just to fund election year spending promises.

    I also know that if these companies were privately owned they would be far more regulated than they are in government ownership. Are SOEs subject to the Commerce Commission? I’d guess not because the ComCom tends to have a thing about monopolies except for State owned ones which seem to escape their scrutiny.

    To answer your point, there is an obvious third option and that is putting the money back into the country’s electricity needs.

  74. barnsleybill 74
    19 June 2008 at 7:12 pm

    I think the point has been missed from my earlier comments.
    At no stage did I suggest that the soe power companies should be sold, that is something I am personally against.
    But the monopoly/ duopoly profits that Cullen has ripped from these companies is shameful. He of course has had no choice, the almost doubling of govt spending in the last nine years has needed to be funded from somewhere. In fact Cullen would probably make an outstanding senior manager in a large monopoly private company. His ability to suck every last available cent from his many revenue sources is outstanding. His ability to spend that money is unfortunately for all of us terrible.
    The crisis that the individual and the country is now facing has been made a lot worse than it needed to be by the unconstrained spending.

  75. T-rex 75
    19 June 2008 at 7:27 pm

    Dave/Swampy.

    Man.

    It’s a competitive market. You aren’t compelled to buy your electricity from Meridian. You can just as easily buy it from Contact – a private company who isn’t giving any money to the govt. Why don’t you, since they’re so much cheaper? Oh wait. They’re not. They’re the same price in fact. So clearly Meridians prices are not, in fact, the result of the govt telling them to hike prices.

    Have you seen what’s happened to Contact’s share price over the last few years?

    Swampy – It’s not a monopoly, there are 5 major competing companies! And it IS regulated, the Electricity Commission persistently looks for an acts upon what it calls “undesirable trading scenarios”.

    Dean – I don’t think YOU even know what your point is. Except maybe that you think power costs too much… in which case by all means, start a power company.

    Jesus.

    bill – Meridian paid dividends to the govt because that’s it’s JOB. It’s an SOE. That’s what SOE’s do. It’s also mandated to run its business in a sustainable manner. Just like any other company.

  76. barnsleybill 76
    19 June 2008 at 8:13 pm

    sustainable obviously does not include making sure little old ladies are NOT sitting in the dark eating their pet food cold, because buying a train set is more important than reinvesting in extra generation.

  77. T-rex 77
    19 June 2008 at 8:22 pm

    What matters is that we are in an electricity crisis and the amount of new generation capacity being built hasn’t kept up with demand over the past decade. The result has been a series of electricity crises.

    We are not in an electricity crisis. We’re in a DRY YEAR. This is what happens now and again when you are largely dependent on hydro power. Now I know you’re about to say that the irresponsible Labour government failed to regulate the industry (that National deregulated) adequately and stifled investment in new generation, so I’ve made a list for you of new generation that has come online since Labour came to power in late 99.

    2000 – Otahuhu B – 380MW
    2000 – Mokai – geothermal – 96MW
    2002 – Manapouri upgrade – 125MW
    2004 – Huntly Gas Turbine – 50MW
    2004 – Hai Nui Windfarm Stage 2 – 4.8MW
    2004 – Mangahao hydro – 4MW
    2004 – Te Apiti Wind – 72MW
    2005 – Wairakei Geothermal – 16MW
    2007 – White Hill Wind – 58MW
    2007 – Huntly e3p gas/steam turbine – 385MW

    A few I’ve missed, no doubt, but those are the major ones.

    So, in that time, a total of 1.2GW of new capacity has gone in… and looks like the strong majority of it is actually baseload thermal generation! So Labours approach over the last 8 years to a semiregulated electricity market has improved our energy security AND positioned us to move to a renewable future… as evidenced by the huge renewable generation projects that Meridian and Contact are both planning at present.

    So you’re wrong. I eagerly await your retraction.

  78. T-rex 78
    19 June 2008 at 8:24 pm

    Barnsley – How many little old ladies do you know sitting in the dark eating cold pet food? If you know any, it is not because there is no power, because there is. It is probably because they can’t afford to heat their homes, which would be because the social wage that you and your ilk so ferociously oppose increasing is not sufficient.

    It’s got absolutely nothing to do with power generation.

    You retard.

  79. barnsleybill 79
    19 June 2008 at 9:29 pm

    back at ya on the tard comment. Your social wage concept would have needed to increase by more than 70 % in the last five years to keep pace with duopoly power prices.
    Generation and prices are linked, that would be supply and demand!

  80. T-rex 80
    19 June 2008 at 9:34 pm

    1) It’s not a duopoly. You can tell see, because there are more than two participants.

    2) Yes, because as we all know, power prices are the sole expense faced by beneficiaries.

    3) Yes, they are. Good job on that. Well spotted. Sharp as a tack you are. So do you think National made a mistake by deregulating the industry? I don’t actually, I think the semiregulated model is going great, but hey, all I’ve got to prove my case is the absense of a power crisis and continued investment in power generation along with a feasible roadmap to a renewable energy future. While YOU’VE got an imaginary old lady eating catfood. The advantage clearly lies with you. I assume she’s eating catfood because of the price of power too?

  81. barnsleybill 81
    19 June 2008 at 9:56 pm

    Contact, the SOE grouping and who? The todds in the king country or the tauranga group that is owned mostly by Infratil.
    Tell me smartarse how much genearating capacity is owned outside of Contact and Mikeys cash cows??
    Central planning and ownership for transmission AND GENERATION could have been retained with professional management. Unfortunately we have fragmented the lot but kept the civil service scum running it. The clowns at the top of the soe’s are pretty much the same ones that drew a govt paycheck before split up. The worst of both worlds.

    This is starting to creep me out by the way, I think we might both be arguing the others corner…!

  82. T-rex 82
    19 June 2008 at 10:05 pm

    The SOE grouping of Genesis, Meridian, and Mighty River you mean? Who are all charged with maximising their own profit and are in competition?

    Or are you saying there’s a conspiracy now?

    Sorry?!? The CLOWNS at the top?

    Keith Turner was been Meridian CEO since it’s inception and he’s got a PhD in Engineering, I think clown is a long way off the mark.

    I don’t know the rest of them personally, but I don’t understand why you think the business model (and yeah, we are both kinda taking the others corner here – I’m playing the EC semiregulation card to support my ideology though!) has failed so completely?

    The power hasn’t gone out, so we clearly haven’t actually run out. If new generation was worth so much, someone would build more of it. As it is, they’re adding new generation at a rate to keep prices sufficient to pay off the cost of capital. What on earth else would they possibly want to do???

  83. Matthew Pilott 83
    20 June 2008 at 10:44 am

    t-rex – you missed Whirinaki, 2004, 150MW! How could ya? heh maybe you have a mental block related to anything Brownlee says…

    What I gather is that our present generation capacity is on the order of 6,450MW or so. Needs to grow at 150 MW a year, and there’s a good 2,000MW in various pipelines – there are many that won’t happen, but enough that will.

    Anyone reckon Centrebet could do well from taking punts on the RMA? I’d put fifty down on the Port Waikato wind farm.

    I think that half of that 2,000 MW is wind, and that the latest theory is that wind and hydro are good partners for the supply side – but there will be the odd calm/dry year I guess!

  84. T-rex 84
    20 June 2008 at 10:50 am

    Isn’t Whirinaki govt owned?

    I was only including stuff that came through market actions.

    But you’re right, whikinaki represents great forethought on the part of the EC. So I’m even more justified in my views! Cheers 🙂

    I’d put $1k on port waikato, and another $1k on Hayes.

    I’d also probably quietly bet a few bucks on meridian’s project aqua not being dead yet.

  86. Matthew Pilott 86
    20 June 2008 at 12:32 pm

    Ah sorry didn’t realise they were non-government-owned, your list. Yep sure was the Glorious Labour Government that had the foresight to build such a power plant. Maybe they should have gone with gas though…

    I did love Big Jer going rampant about a peaking plant…peaking.

  87. Hoolian 87
    20 June 2008 at 1:59 pm

    And I have every right to think that the catholic church have a mentality fresh from the dark ages in many regards…Gotta love that freedom!

    Good, then you must also support the freedom for Kiwiblog to post whatever cartoon/idea/expression they wish. If you don’t like it, protest it or boycott the blog but don’t bother getting on your soapbox and proclaiming that it should be removed just because you disagree with it.

    Its not an obscene image – I’m sure the Office of the Censor wouldn’t even look at it.

    I find 60 per cent of your blog grotesquely offensive – so therefore should it be banned?

    If you support freedom of expression, then you must support ALL freedoms of expression and not just the ones that follow your line of thought.

  88. Steve Pierson 88
    20 June 2008 at 2:11 pm

    Hoolian. No-one’s saying it ought to be banned. People are saying that if Farrar had any judgement and was a good person he would not post such material. that’s freedom of expression in action.

  89. T-rex 89
    20 June 2008 at 2:15 pm

    Good, then you must also support the freedom for Kiwiblog to post whatever cartoon/idea/expression they wish

    I absolutely do. It’s handy to have such a simple and fast way of identifying morons.