- Date published:
6:00 am, March 2nd, 2023 - 80 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:
Open 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 …
We just got our household census form… It is online again. FFS. It was a disaster last time. Why did they think it would be any better this time, especially with a world full of post-pandemic cookers who will think it is all part of a deep state conspiracy? And they’ve been well funded this time so there is no excuses for an incompetently run census.
Huge sections of the most vulnerable parts of our population have no regular internet access. The government bureaucracy has made no provision for these people.
There will be a disastrous response on census night – which has been barely advertised despite a 126 million dollar budget – because a lot of people will either forget about it, lose the code, ignore it, be butt hurt over some question that doesn't affect them but they've been told on SM is a new front in the culture wars, or have no idea it is even happening. Then they’ll call a helpline which will of course have only three people and only be available 9-5 and the media will report on horrendous wait times and Luxon will excoriate the government on yet another failure to deliver.
What will happen is after a welter of scandal over the incompetent waste of 126 million dollars on effectively nothing tens of millions of more money will be required to pay to hire people to follow up all the people didn't fill out their forms, and the data will dribble in over six months, be incomplete and undercount crucial sections of society. WTF is wrong with just hiring an army of student census takers in the first place and sending them out to collect the forms like they did twenty years and that actually worked?
If we are going to have so much virtual government then the corporeal government needs to do something like set up it's own ISP & require all ISPs to zero rate traffic to any .govt.nz domain. At least give people access – and for God's sake, tell when it is happening and why and do SOMETHING to counteract the absolute torrent of conspiracy theory nonsense flying around about the census.
We had our pac hand delivered by a young person who explained every thing and was given the option of doing it online or filling out the form and posting it back in the enclosed addressed envelop. We live in the suburbs.
Ours arrived in the mail.
Being a literate (in English) and technologically literate and wealthy enough to afford telecoms infrastructure household – we filled it out (mostly in advance) with no problems.
[In advance because my teen was super-interested in the process and wanted to do it a.s.a.p – I'll do mine on census night]
I don't think that will be the case for many of our neighbours. Range of issues from: English as a second-language, and limited literacy in English; floating population of students in short-term rent-a-room (or garage) accommodation; elderly and decidedly non-tech savvy people; people in transition between houses (couch or spare-room surfing) following the Auckland flooding; hyper-busy people who've just shoved the info packet on a shelf to 'do later' (and will probably forget).
That seemed to have enough ''reckons'' to qualify as a Hoskins rant, and enough dog-whistles for a Farrar-go Kiwiblog post. No I am not interested in learning more about uninformed opinions. I have received my papers, and I see they give me the option of on line or paper. I haven't looked through them yet as I intend to complete them on the 7th or 8th March – probably on-line. Yes some will have difficulties, but I see nothing wrong at this stage. I suspect I will as usual wish that they had asked questions about some issues that did not make the cut, but that is normal as well. I do encourage all readers of The Standard to honestly and promptly complete their return, in whichever way they prefer, and get it in without needing assistance, but I am sure there will be good plans in place for providing assistance where needed.
It doesn't addressed the hairbrained insistence on doing it online since 2013 despite knowing that it suppresses the response.
Land mail delivery is not what it used to be
that's definitely a problem which also need to be sorted out by requiring NZPost to function as an essential public service again.
I have had two packs delivered with links
I am looking on line on what to do.
would you be able to complete the census if you didn't have internet access?
You can opt in for a print version (I can't find out exactly how – it's probably an 0800 number)
Or, you can access a free Internet hub (local library is the most common one). They'll be spending a lot of time working with non-tech-savy individuals in completing it online.
Of course, this does nothing for those sections of the population which are still cut off (or substantially cut off) from the rest of the country, following Cyclone Gabrielle. I would hope that StatsNZ has an active plan to follow up in these communities.
My (2) papers delivered to me both give me the option of requesting a paper form to fill in if I do not want to/can't do the online version.
We have received two forms, each with a different private access code, delivered to the same household, but on different dates.
Sorry didn't see this before bursting into print above. same for us.
Same, 2 letters, 2 "private access codes" – presumably both unique to our household.
1st letter – "Please follow the instructions below to complete your census forms"
2nd letter – "Census Day is Tuesday, 7 March" [this must be the "reminder letter"]
Phoned the census help line number [ 0800 236 787 ], and, after selecting a language [option 2], a recorded message said that I could use either online access code:
Also, on the back of the (1-page) reminder letter, there’s an answer to the question "Why does my household have multiple online access codes?" It's for privacy reasons.
what does "require all ISPs to zero rate traffic to any .govt.nz domain" mean?
So there would be an ISP called, I don't know, Kiwinet or something. It would be free to join. Once you have kiwinet as a provider you can navigate to any .govt.nz domain with zero data charges, because all the ISP or mobile providers have been instructed to zero rate data usage for those sites.
kiwinet would also potentially be able run a white list of approved websites, such as RNZ news, which the network providers would also be required to zero rate. That woyuld mean you might be able to read an RNZ story or listen to their live radio feed but an embedded youtube video wouldn't work – for that you would need to buy data from your commercial ISP and/or mobile service provider.
There is already a NZ Gov/Realme login that is super safe and relatively easy to join. I wonder why they don't try to link in with this?
My ex so, is doing cencus work, she's going to ever house, and was telling me that because of one place being a Maori house/area(not sure of exact detail) is getting a Maori census worker to ream up and go there, doesn't sound half arsed to me.
If would have been nice if Radio NZ had mentioned just now that Louise Parsons is the national secretary of the sensible sentencing trust.
I suspect Lulu has an axe to grind.
They didn't leave their bubble but they did leave their house, trailing the hearse as a final farewell because lockdown rules meant they weren't allowed into the crematorium.
Parsons learnt on Tuesday that on that same weekend, the Health Minister flouted the rules.
"There's no way you can now tell people what to do when literally that weekend that I had to follow a hearse and couldn't get out of the car… he was driving to the beach with his family," she told Newshub.
Eh? Kim said, and I quote "Meeting organiser, and founding member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust Louise Parsons" when introducing her. I suggest you go listen to the audio. 22 seconds in.
Perhaps Kim should have appraised Louise of Section 18 (1) of the Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Maybe the use of a bunch of students to take census forms around in person (seems sensible) was seen as too risky, given the likelihood of a violent reaction from those in the anti-vax mob or others with a grudge against the authorities.
And any incident could have led to a lawsuit by the students against Statistics NZ for sending them into a dangerous situation.
Separate comment: Rob Campbell might lose 2 government posts but probably has nothing to worry about for lolly. He seems well connected with Maori groups so it's my guess he will pick up a lucrative post on one of their health organisations.
At $30 an hour it is more than students who will be delivering the Census. We got a bunch of forms in the mail, and 3 days later an envelope with a code for doing it online, so we have options. I will do it in the paper form so I can best register my objection to being assigned an identity in which I do not believe.
I delivered the Census for the one before the last one. We got good H&S briefings about standing well back from front doors and not going into a dwelling. I understand that this time they are issuing personal alarms for deliverers.
Well I have had a great start to my day. Wrong twice. Still, thats my quota so the rest of the day perfection will be resumed.
Sanctuary, with all that has happened over the last three years, feeling pressured is almost a normal condition. Melting moments are becoming common. Incognito's suggestion sounds good.
No worries – most things are excusable if the prose is good.
Nice to see Chris Trotter has finally completed his journey to National voting racist boomer. Good for him.
Although I respect Chris Trotter's work as a historian, I have to agree that he has moved considerably towards the right over the last decade.
The self appointed grand poobah of socialist thought Chris Trotter didn't leave the left, it left him. It is a boomer thing to be utterly convinced it is the children who are wrong.
"We believe there has been too little scrutiny of the affordability of the perceived NZ$120 billion to $180 billion investment in the Three Waters reforms," the reports conclude."
"No matter who delivers the required infrastructure, the cost of such investment is astronomical. If councils fund the investment, general property and targeted rates will likely soar to record levels. If water services entities fund the investment, water charges will likely soar instead."
Jacinda kept saying that the costs would be huge. Rates would rise about 8%. But National is saying that some rates might rise a little bit.
I read Mr Milne's Newsroon piece this morning and it was terrifying!
From day one the claim has been the reforms will spare the user from unaffordable water services of the necessary quality that were undeliverable under the status quo when the reality is and always was that we got what we were prepared (able) to pay for.
"But Mahuta says the reforms will save Auckland ratepayers from higher water costs in the coming years.
"Within the next two years Auckland's water bills will at least double and under the reform proposals that we are making Auckland ratepayers will benefit significantly in terms of reduced costs."
If we take these projections too seriously the country could easily be talked out of maintaining acceptable water infrastructure.
Thing is a lot of those figures are talking about cost projections which should be in proportion to the entire NZ economy. After all the water infrastructure needs to be maintained and suitable for the whole economy and country. To place a reasonable scale on those things we might compare them to NZs projected GDP at the same time. This would indicate (maybe) how much of the nations income (a close proxy for effort) goes towards maintaining the countries essential water infrastructure. My suggestion would be its bugger all on that scale, even if looking at the most lavish water infrastructure available.
If you look at the figures without that context they are going to get quite intimidating quite quickly however. With that context in mind however we might move on to how much of that is user pays, how much is on council balance sheets and how much should be central government. Also the council choice comes with the disadvantage that individual councils might get into competitive cost avoidance and maintenance deferral strategies (as we have seen). Mr Milne kind of skirted over that bit inferring instead that there was gold plating going on.
Over all I don't think overseas credit rating agencies have much productive to say about the kind of water infrastructure NZ should be developing, investing in and providing.
"Over all I don't think overseas credit rating agencies have much productive to say about the kind of water infrastructure NZ should be developing, investing in and providing."
Unfortunately the Government forming the policy to safeguard that future appear to be of the opposite persuasion
Really? I had taken Mahuta's statements to mean central government would take on some of the costs to relieve rate payers while still maintaining a good water infrastructure.
You appear to be taking this as, 3 waters means the country will have to make do with inferior infrastructure because credit ratings.
Then your interpretation would be incorrect….we can have the desired (possibly) water infrastructure at a price…and that price has little to do with ratings agencies (or money)….the truths that politicians dare not speak (if they even understand it)
Maybe some budget estimates?
If we dedicate 1 in 200 hours to water infrastructure then the budget is half a percent of GDP or about $1.875 billion annually. Is that ball park for the price? Or should it be more like 1% GDP or 3.6 billion?
If the numbers used for the policy formation are anywhere close then we are talking in excess of 5% of current Gov revenues…and as anyone dealing with infrastructure knows those numbers are likely to be underestimated. Crucially much of what is required cannot be sourced domestically.
Problem with amortising the costs that way it that way is it makes the whole question about the accuracy of the inflation forecast used.
The statements about cost have reasonable meaning giving annual spending numbers and then assuming similar real expenditures follow. But I suspect this doesn't generate suitably imposing nominal sums.
The statement that the resources to do this firstly exist overseas seems to suggest they need to be developed domestically.
If your not depressed and want to feel that way, the ICIJ, International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, have launched a new way for you to get your daily dose of depression.
Jokes aside, this is some very impressive journalism and well worth your time to read. Like many of their other series this one will expand.
(Idiotic) Parents in the UK paying £22.50 for their babies to attend Caba Baba Rave.
They are literally small babies, the event looks like it is really just a bit of adulting time for their Mums. And anyway, it is a free world and people can decide where they want to take their kids.
People are free to ignore basic safeguarding and expose their children to men balancing on their penises and displaying less gymnastic ability than a seven-year old gymnast, and no redemptive factor of artistic quality, in order to indulge in a performative act of progressive ideology.
That is why I put an adjective at the beginning of my comment.
Twitter apparently now labelling this "potentially sensitive content".
If babies are the target audience, does this mean sensitive for those who as yet unborn? Or is it deemed sensitive because of the visual dissonance of seeing sexual performances in front of young babies?
I am pretty sure you are overthinking this. What do you expect for the price? Cirque du Soleil?
It looks like a potentially fundraising event for Mums with small kids where they can natter at some local amateur stuff. It is unlikely any babies were harmed.
I mean, it isn't Iris Stoddard of the CWI doing a talk on her recent trip to the flower gardens of Bulgaria, but it least it has got Mum out of the house.
the debate that's been happening particularly in the UK (where it's left and right engaged, rather than conservative as in the US), there have been many analyses of safeguarding, what it is, how it gets breached or eroded.
A feature of that is lefties/progressives saying there's no big deal with mixing adult sexuality with children. But generally the people saying that don't understand what safeguarding is, how it works, and why it matters even in liberal spaces.
Looking at what they are wearing and the location/props, my guess is that it's a uterus-haver-gestators and babies class that does various forms of movement practices.
I'm curious at what age babies and young kids should start to be protected from expressions of adult sexuality. Would it be ok for strippers to demonstrate a workout in work gear and using work actions? How about pup fetishists? Or adults involved in dressing up as babies as part of their sexuality? (the last two examples are from Pride parades, and the baby/fetish involved engaging with kids in the baby fetish tent)
The owners of Pornhub salute you.
"…The owners of Pornhub salute you…"
WTF are you on about? Honestly all this reductio ad absurdum hysterical nonsense on behalf of other people who don't appear to be traumatised in any way whatsoever. Pornhub? Get.A.Fucking.Grip.
Honestly no one is covering themselves in glory in that particular debate, I just ignore them all. I just haven't got the time or energy for a debate characterised by zero common sense, zero good faith and an unreasoned screaming at and past each other.
"I just ignore them all."
Without attributing intention to the web-site, but "the standard" says you don't at 10.1.
Good point, it is like wrestling with pigs – you just get covered in mud and pig gets nothing out of it except the chance to squeal a lot. No more from me!
Neither of us appear to be screaming, so I have some faith.
I'm glad you asked, because lefties and liberals seem largely unaware of what is going on.
Pornhub exists because it's a free world and people can decide where they want to spend their time. Pornhub traffics in the worst sexual violence humans do, including rape, snuff, and child rape and sexual abuse. There's been some societal push back against this where major payment businesses (credit card companies, paypal) have withdrawn their services. But before that there were activists with less power and reach trying to get society to do something about it.
Few people listened, and part of that is because liberal culture and parts of the left won't do a critical analysis of porn that shows how much of the industry includes abuse of women and children.
Feminists are well familiar with this, we're just prudes or whatever. Unsurprisingly, this is the same argument run when feminists start objecting to adult entertainment involving children. It's just some mums and bubs having some time out.
Hence we have a major liberal political commentator in NZ posting this on twitter, than then stopping people from reply and telling them to "Why don't you go and fuck your own face"
This on the same twitter day that the video Molly posted appeared. The progressive position on the event Cormack is referring to is that all performers, including queer/rainbow/drag, should have child safeguarding ahead of all other concerns. Instead we have a dominant narrative driven on the left that all drag done in kids' spaces is safe and appropriate for kids. It's not, it's not hard to find the evidence that it's not, and yet liberals appear to be saying protecting drag queens from some societal restrictions is more important than child safeguarding.
People like David have had the issues pointed out to them before, but remain wedded to an ideology that both suppresses any critique and continues to hide the erosion of safeguarding. Most of that comes from ignorance but some of it is intentional. It's pretty much the same dynamic as to why rapists are now self-IDing into women's prisons, a thing that liberals either say doesn't happen, or women already get raped so why does it matter. Trans rights are more important than women's or children's.
I've been watching the erosion of safeguarding in the UK for probably five years. The whole pup fetish and child sex play fetish thing at Pride should have been sending out alarm bells. Rainbow butt dildo monkey is a bit harder for progressives to get their head around (if you make something a rainbow, surely it is good), but it's still an erosion of boundaries that we should be debating.
The incursion of MAP (minor attracted persons aka usually men who want to have sex with children) into queer and then rainbow culture likewise should be a concern, as should the tolerance by twitter of MAP content. React against this all you like as if I'm making shit up or being hysterical and need to get a grip, but the same forces in society that drive pornhub are going to be supporting the erosion of boundaries around children and women's safety, for obvious reasons. And liberals are holding the door open for them.
I asked you the question of where the boundaries are. If the drag performance is ok, is stripping? How about simulating sexual acts between adults? Is it ok for children to take part in the drag act?
for those that don't understand the rainbow butt dildo monkey reference, here's Cormack's response when presented with this link about it,
twitter algorithm making my job easier.
I had unexpected visitors arrive who've just left, and returned to find several comments from you that outline salient discussion points on this topic.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of this case. May give some clarity on what few sex based rights and protections (if any) women still have.
"Rachael Wong, CEO of Women’s Forum Australia, believes this case is an opportunity to resolve the conflict between sex and gender protections in law, and will be the test to determine whether sex is still a "protected attribute" in Australia.
"If the laws that undermine sex-based rights are found to be unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful it could invalidate laws across the country providing protection for gender identity," Wong told the Daily Mail.
"As a result the sex-based protections for women and girls would be reinstated when it comes to their rights to female-only spaces, services, sports and so on. Any other case of a man trying to force himself into a female-only space would be seen as wildly inappropriate," she added."
I hope Rachael Wong is right, and it determines that sex is still a protected characteristic.
Yes so do I.
That's a demonstration of multiple poor decision making (organisers, drag performers, parents).
Ah, that glorious Venn diagram where the evangelical Taliban intersect with feminism.
They are both defending the same set of 'universals' (something about the immutability of biological sex) against what they see as relativist (or post modernist) erosions. But for quite different reasons of course – even though the rhetoric about protecting children can sometimes sound oddly similar.
feminists are well used to this. Activism against porn meant feminists were often on the same side as conservative/religious women. It's a tired old argument from trad lefties, that seeks to obscure feminist concerns by painting them as regressive.
The new version is that the only people objecting to drag are right wing US allied conservatives. Which neatly removes the obligation to address feminist concerns about the inherent sexism in drag, as well as the safeguarding concerns.
Needless to say, much of that argument has come from men, who have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to porn.
Good points Weka.
These 'new' response/critiques are depressingly familiar to someone involved with Women's issues since the 1970s.
Couple that with the 'transwomen are real women' or 'let's fool our faces and let anyone who fancies it free access to womens safe spaces'
and letting genuine safe guarding issues be dismissed (from Weka)
'evangelical Taliban intersect with feminism'.
Reduction ad absurdum is a form of argument powerfully used against all sorts of rubbish. Just because someone does not share the view that the action being directed against is rubbish or harmful etc does not mean that the form of logical argument should not be used.
The Taliban snipe is particularly telling, given what's happening to women in Afghanistan. Sanctuary often brings intelligent political critique to TS, even stuff I disagree with. But the response here is reactionary and not well thought through. Always interesting to see the blind spots of smart people.
I don’t understand why men would have any more conflict of interest than women when it comes to porn
far more men than women use porn. There is an obvious sex class difference in power and abuse within porn, in who makes porn and how, as well as how women are portrayed and how this feeds back into society (eg compare the impact of porn on the understanding and experience of teen girls vs teen boys, it's the girls feeling pressured to give blow jobs or to let their boyfriend choke them or degrade them).
Women are more likely to act on safeguarding concerns of women and children politically. Men are more likely to resist or actively block safeguarding concerns.
Thanks for the explanation Weka
l really hope that you are wrong about men being less likely to act on safeguarding the concerns of women and children
I choose not to watch pornography or buy sex because it would break me if my children were to choose those occupations
Many men will act when it's women and children they know or know about. The politics is a different matter, I've had too many arguments with men who think porn is benign and won't address the issues of the industry having major problems. Left wing men too, who wouldn't argue such if it were about their areas of interest. Hence my point about conflict of interest.
Exactly (or god forbid be coerced into those occupations, which is a lot of women). I don't understand why this isn't the position of more men.
It would be interesting to compare responses if there was a "Minstrel Show" going around libraries etc doing performances by people dressed as a parody of African Americans. I have never yet seen a convincing arguement that says that "Womanface" is different from "Blackface" and should be acceptable.
you still haven't answered the question of whether it would be ok for strippers to run events for mums and babies and perform sexually.
And, it's all so unnecessary.
There would be zero issue with the performers 'dressing up' as fairies, mermaids, princesses, etc – in fact, the library staff (including male and gay staff) have been doing so for years, at story times and at events like Santa Parades.
The issue is with hyper-sexualized dressing and (potentially) performance – to a child audience.
Yep. All that has to happen in NZ is for drag queens and allies to front up and take the issues seriously. There's still going to be some push back from feminists about the stereotyping and ridiculing of women that happens in drag, but it's pretty easy to ensure that the sexualised stuff just never happens (and I don't mean drag performers issuing press statements that they are safe, I mean society looking at the issue and talking about what needs to be done in an open and adult way).
RNZ online doco of removal of anti-vax, anti-government protesters from Parliament Grounds a year ago.
YouTube RNZ doco Boiling Point
A much needed dose of logic and reality
Unfortunately (as I am sure Mr Grimwood all too well recognises) it will be Cassandra revisited
One of the only reasons I bother coming back to the Standard, some great links.
You're welcome…its good to know that someone views the links I post