Open mike 03/04/2016

105 comments on “Open mike 03/04/2016 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Paul 1

   3 April 2016 at 7:38 am

   Bernard Hickey explains our particular style of parasitical, renter capitalism.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11615870
   • ianmac 1.1

     3 April 2016 at 7:51 am

     Wondered why people have to work harder and longer without much gain. Especially those on minimum wage.
     • Tautuhi 1.1.1

       3 April 2016 at 9:56 am

       Employers don’t want to pay anymore than minimum wages, there are plenty of Asiand students here in NZ who will work for minimum wages or less.
     • greywarshark 1.1.2

       3 April 2016 at 11:11 am

       Radionz right now doing something pertinent to discussions on work. Listen in. audio link up later when I or someone gets time.

       11:05 Robert McChesney – A Citizenless Democracy
       Robert McChesney
       With new technologies replacing jobs at an ever increasing rate and big money playing a bigger and bigger part in our politics are we facing a future of mass unemployment and an all but disenfranchised populace?

       Authors Robert McChesney and John Nichols believe we are and in their new book People Get Ready: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy they provide evidence for that dystopian vision and a set of proposals for how it can be avoided. Robert McChesney is Research Professor in the Institute of Communications Research at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

       11:40 Jeremy Hansen, Nicola and Lance Herbst – NZ Home of the Year
       Architects Nicola and Lance Herbst join HOME magazine’s Jeremy Hansen to talk about their award winning house that’s just won the House of the Year award.
       edited
       • Sanctuary 1.1.2.1

         4 April 2016 at 5:15 am

         Except this ends in revolution.
   • Draco T Bastard 1.2

     3 April 2016 at 9:53 am

     Yep, NZ keeps doing things the cheap way rather than investing in modern technology. With the right technology investment we could easily compete producing high tech products.

     Instead we’ve got our businesses cutting costs resulting in low productivity and even lower returns. This what you truly get when you leave it to the private sector who’s only real incentive is to become a rentier capitalist.

     The only entity in NZ that could actually make the necessary investment is the government. This would be a full development from extraction of raw resources, processing them and then using those resources to produce products. What we don’t do, and should never do, is sell the raw resources offshore. Everybody’s got raw resources. Of course, give them time and everyone will have a high tech manufacturing sector as well.

     Oh, and we need to claiming territory, not just an EEZ, out to the continental shelf.
     • Colonial Viper 1.2.1

       3 April 2016 at 10:23 am

       Yep, NZ keeps doing things the cheap way rather than investing in modern technology. With the right technology investment we could easily compete producing high tech products.

       Not a good strategy for a resilient future. We need to be able to design and manufacture appropriate tech, products which are easily maintainable using every day tools and equipment that we can produce and source 100% locally.

       Gearing our economy up for exports to compete in global market economies to obtain units of digital currency will be increasingly a distraction and a waste of time.

       Everybody’s got raw resources. Of course, give them time and everyone will have a high tech manufacturing sector as well.

       None of these statements are true. Japan has much raw resources? South Korea has much raw resources? The UK has much raw resources? (Especially raw energy and mineral resources?)
       • McFlock 1.2.1.1

         3 April 2016 at 4:13 pm

         Japan has fish, if mildly irradiated, and some promising rare earth deposits.
         The UK sits on a fecking carbon seam that isn’t mined because of thatcher wanting to kill the unions.
         About the only exception is South Korea, which has a natural resource of sitting in a contact zone of the Chinese, Japanese, and Russians. Buffer states can get rich before they get burned.
       • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.2

         3 April 2016 at 8:45 pm

         Not a good strategy for a resilient future.

         It’s a brilliant strategy for a resilient future. Invest in:

         1. Renewable energy
         2. Extraction and processing of those resources by renewable energy
         3. Produce the tools and equipment that we need to maintain a high tech manufacturing base right here in NZ from NZ resources

         Gearing our economy up for exports to compete in global market economies to obtain units of digital currency will be increasingly a distraction and a waste of time.

         True. That would be why I keep saying that trade will come to and end.

         None of these statements are true.

         Actually, they’re all true but trade is off the table if they want to be sustainable.

         Japan has much raw resources? South Korea has much raw resources?

         Dude, the worlds crust is much of a muchness everywhere. Sure, there’s better deposits of things here and there but if you go out and dig up a shovel of dirt from your back yard it will have gold, iron, rare earth metals, and semi-conductors in it.

         The UK has much raw resources? (Especially raw energy and mineral resources?)

         The UK is presently building huge offshore wind farms. This means that they really won’t be short on raw energy. And they’ve never been short on minerals either. Of course, they don’t have as much now as they used to but they do have them. There’s a very good reason why Britain built the first all iron ship – it’s because they have a huge amount of iron. Their production may have decreased but they do have it.
   • Colonial Viper 1.3

     3 April 2016 at 10:20 am

     And RT’s Keiser Report details the international scene further:

     Japanese government pension payments are so low, that elderly Japanese are committing a wave of shoplifting crimes in order to get prison sentences, and the shelter and food they provide.

     Private Japanese prisons then make massive profits from Japanese governments for each inmate.

     Also: how PPPs (Public Private Partnerships) in the UK are deliberately structured by government insiders to cost tax payers more, and leave the assets built by tax payers money totally in the hands of private corporations.

     HSBC – the transnational banking criminals – now own and profit off a number of UK “public” NHS hospitals.

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGlwlwzzXcc
     • Chooky 1.3.1

       3 April 2016 at 8:27 pm

       +100…well worth watching …especially how the corporates are stripping the democratic nation states of their assets built up by generations of taxpayers

       …also the plight of the elderly in Japan and the squeezing out of the middle class in USA
       • pat 1.3.1.1

         3 April 2016 at 8:54 pm

         hard to believe they are now being so blatant…..and even harder to believe we keep voting for the likes of them……mad scramble for as much as they can steal before it all goes tits up
2. Paul 2

   3 April 2016 at 7:54 am

   Another bunch of experts for our government to ignore.
   Better to listen to Katherine Rich and other paid shills for transnational corporations…….

   ‘Medical experts push for sugar tax

   An open letter signed by more than 70 medical specialists – including frontline care workers and professors – has called on the Government to introduce a sugar tax.
   The letter was delivered to the Cabinet yesterday, citing serious concerns about New Zealand’s “appallingly high rate of childhood obesity” while pushing the Government to follow Mexico and Britain in taxing high-sugar-content soft drinks.
   Medical experts who signed the letter include epidemiologists Alistair Woodward and Rod Jackson, paediatrician Diana Lennon, researcher Peter Davis – husband of former PM Helen Clark – cardiologist Harvey White, nutritionist Jim Mann and public health specialist Sally Casswell.’

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11615519

   ‘Calls for stronger action to fight obesity

   A public health expert is calling for stronger government leadership to combat obesity, with a new study revealing NZ has one of the highest rates of overweight people in the world.
   The study, published in The Lancet, compared body mass index among almost 20 million adult men and women people, from 1975 to 2014.
   One of the report’s authors, Robert Beaglehole, an Emeritus Professor at Auckland University said New Zealand had lost the battle with adult obesity, but there was much more that could be done to prevent children from becoming overweight.’

   http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/300510/calls-for-stronger-action-to-fight-obesity
   • adam 2.1

     3 April 2016 at 10:40 am

     Blah, blah, blah. Really all that effort on sugar tax.

     Bugger hungry kids, we have got moralise about fat people.

     So lets get the state to tell me what to eat as well, I mean they spy on me, they have silly little signs to tell me it’s unsafe, the tell me not to smoke, and most of the politicians are smug wankers.

     But no, lets get a head of steam over sugar, bugger the homeless, the really shitty wages, rape culture and everything else. Lets get fat people sorted.

     This is about control Paul, and quite frankly I’ve had enough of control from this and any other government.

     So the doctors can piss off as well – not seeing them talking about the rising costs for patients, nor the declining services in the public health system. Or the fact we getting privatisation by stealth. No, they have got up on a higher horse of self bloody indulgence.

     Piss off with your sugar tax, it’s just more regressive taxation, so bugger off.
     • Psych nurse 2.1.1

       3 April 2016 at 10:52 am

       Yes and while your at it take off the tobacco tax. The fat, toothless, homeless poor need some solace.
     • Rosie 2.1.2

       3 April 2016 at 11:20 am

       The issue around the faux concern for fatties is that the concern is dressed up as a public health issue when it is in fact a massive stick to beat fatties with. “Anti fat campaigner” Robyn Tootmath was a prime example of a public service fatphobic but luckily she has buggered off in a huff because after 10 years hard work she couldn’t get the fatties to morph into her idea of a socially acceptable person – meaning a thin person. (One commenter on TS had a particularly upsetting experience as a patient of Robyn Toomath).

       The concept of a sugar tax, as well as being regressive is also patronising. It says fat people can’t think for themselves when they do the shopping so we must bully them into making the purchases we want them to make, for their own good!

       It has never occurred to any of the health professionals to lobby for the removal of GST on food so that healthier food becomes more accessible and more choice become available to the shopper. As poverty has increased, so has obesity. Processed foods, containing excess sugars, fats, additives and little nutritive value will always be chosen over fruit, vege, lean proteins and wholefoods.

       It has never occurred to the government to regulate the soft drink industry so their products aren’t so prominent and cheap – control the corporates, don’t control the people.

       Children need adults to support their health and well being and prevent future illness such as type 2 diabetes. For that to happen the food market needs to be regulated and good healthy foods need to accessible. Taxing “bad” food just tells us we are “bad” for making those choices.
       • RedLogix 2.1.2.1

         3 April 2016 at 11:26 am

         Consider that if processed sugar was invented tomorrow, it would probably be considered so metabolically toxic that it would be banned. Taxing it wouldn’t even enter the discussion.

         In the meantime I guess the rest of us will just have to depend on your ability to ‘think for yourself’ and stop consuming the stuff.
         • Colonial Viper 2.1.2.1.1

           3 April 2016 at 11:33 am

           Consider that if processed sugar was invented tomorrow, it would probably be considered so metabolically toxic that it would be banned.

           More so for alcohol.

           Thing is though, both have been around for centuries/millenia.

           Like hashish, marijuana, etc.
           • RedLogix 2.1.2.1.1.1

             3 April 2016 at 11:36 am

             Exactly. And I note without the slightest hint of patronising how people think for themselves and demonstrate such self controlled with alcohol too.
             • Colonial Viper …

               3 April 2016 at 11:41 am

               BTW we have created such a stressful society that people are going to keep turning to substances to try and get some relief.

               You only need to look up the massive pain killer addiction that Americans are now suffering from.
               • RedLogix …

                 3 April 2016 at 11:51 am

                 Yes, that’s a theme you, I and quite a few others here are very much in agreement about. Indeed the relationship between civilisation and drugs in general is deep, complex and absolutely fascinating.

                 Hell you only have to consider the historic role of the Oracle at Delphi to see just one tiny aspect of it.

                 Banning drugs, without offering a positive alternative path to relieving the pyscho-social pain they are in never works. The pain wins every time.

                 However it’s usually best to solve the pragmatic problems that are right in front of you; and given the historic place sugar has in Western diet, banning it is no longer an option. Taxing unwanted behaviour remains the next best choice.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   3 April 2016 at 11:53 am

                   Like alcohol and tobacco, it’ll just end up as a tax on the people who consume the most. The poorer classes.
               • BM …

                 3 April 2016 at 11:54 am

                 Society has always being stressful.

                 Not knowing how it cope with problems is the real issue.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   3 April 2016 at 12:01 pm

                   Create strong community ties. Family support structures. Resilient and independent ways of obtaining accomodation, food and the necessities of life.

                   Societal leaders who understand and direct resources to help those in need.

                   Is that what you were thinking of?
                   • BM …

                     3 April 2016 at 12:09 pm

                     I was more thinking at a individual level.

                     Lots of people don’t seem to know how to cope when something doesn’t work or goes to plan.

                     I wonder if that’s to do with the “cotton wooling” that tends to happen in society these days.

                     Protecting people from failure robs them of the ability to cope with problems or know how to solve problems when issues arise so people end up being overwhelmed.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     3 April 2016 at 12:18 pm

                     I agree that in some ways we “cottonwool” people in destructive and weakening ways.

                     However, when we are throwing citizens to the wolves, that is equally destructive and weakening.

                     I’m reminded of that scene in the film 300 when someone throws in a single knife into a locked room of young Spartan boys to see which one is worthy of surviving.

                     That’s not really the society that we should be striving for.
                   • RedLogix …

                     3 April 2016 at 12:34 pm

                     Not knowing how it cope with problems is the real issue.

                     I agree. Not knowing , or feeling powerless to change anything, is the most corrosive thing.

                     I do get the idea that it’s impossible and unreasonable to demand we eliminate all stress and risk from life. In fact quite the opposite, as a keen tramper I’ve actively sought out risk and challenge in my life.

                     But I go out there with both skills, experience AND the knowledge that I am entirely responsible for the choices I make. I avoid situations where the risks are outside of my control.

                     For instance I avoid avalanche gullies or debris paths when there’s lots of soft snow about. If I’ve no choice but to cross one, you race across with your heart in your mouth and you don’t feel good about it afterwards. It’s a ‘loss of control’ situation.

                     Same with society, it’s the sense of isolation, powerlessness and loss of control, when surrounded by a society that sends hostile messages all the time … which breaks people down.
         • Rosie 2.1.2.1.2

           3 April 2016 at 11:48 am

           “In the meantime I guess the rest of us will just have to depend on your ability to ‘think for yourself’ and stop consuming the stuff.”

           This sounds quite sarcastic to me. What do you mean by the “rest of us”? The fat hating tax payer? And what about “your ability to think for yourself”? Are you talking about me?

           Geez. I worked in the organic sector for a good dozen years. I stay away from the processed shitty foods. The only sugar I consume is alcohol. I don’t see anyone, apart from maybe Prof Doug Sellman, attempting to control the sale of alcohol which has far more devastating effects on individuals and society, (alcohol related cancer, early death, road toll, family violence etc) than sugar alone.

           That’s a public health issue so why does nobody wring their hands about that one?

           What about suicide? That’s a public health issue. What about all the unwell people keeping our hospitals full after their failed attempts and their death rate that is higher than the the road toll. Shouldn’t we be hating on them too?

           See, very convenient to dress one issue up as a public health issue when it has it’s basis in social intolerance.
           • RedLogix 2.1.2.1.2.1

             3 April 2016 at 12:05 pm

             Well yes there are many, many symptoms our stressed and sick society throws up. As much as I’d much as like to think we could address this root cause, I doubt I will see much change in my lifetime. But in the meanwhile health professionals tell us that diabetes is rapidly becoming their number one concern.

             Well if making sugar laden foods more expensive, and non-processed foods cheaper by comparison helps reduce the incidence of this awful disease then I’ll support it. If like the Australians we removed GST on ‘fresh food’ I’d support that as well. I’d cheerfully advocate for both.

             This sounds quite sarcastic to me. What do you mean by the “rest of us”? The fat hating tax payer? And what about “your ability to think for yourself”? Are you talking about me?

             Well you were the one who was cheerfully explaining how people were perfectly capable of choosing not to consume sugar of their own volition, so I was assuming you don’t consume the stuff … which is a genuinely good thing. So frankly if you don’t consume it, why object to a tax on it?

             And diabetes is an illness, while connected with obesity, can strike anyone, any shape, pretty much any age. So it’s not a ‘fat’ issue.

             Alcohol is something CV and I touched on above.

             Suicide is another symptom of a sick society. In the immediate years after Roger Pigfucking Douglas’s sick reforms in the 1980’s the youth male suicide rate quadrupled. And has stayed high ever since. Personally I’d like to hold Douglas accountable with a criminal charge reflecting the consequences of his actions. But that’s not going to happen sadly.
             • Rosie …

               3 April 2016 at 12:27 pm

               “So frankly if you don’t consume it, why object to a tax on it?”

               Because there are better, fairer ways of controlling the sale of high sugar food and drink, as mentioned. (Remove GST on ALL food and regulate the industry at source).

               Other reasons. Psychology. Taxing a food source is in punishment orientation. This sends a message to the shopper that they are “bad” if they choose that item that has a public health tax on it. Could potentially lead to a feeling of shame. Nobody needs to feel ashamed about a grocery purchasing decision.

               Reward orientation would be a far more healthy approach. Reward people by granting them access to lower cost healthier choices by removing GST on all foods- OR leave GST on alcohol, cigarettes and fizzy drinks.

               And taking a sideways diversion. We have been spending time with visitors from the UK. They are horrified at the cost of a grocery shop here. Double that of their shop for similar items in the uk. And that’s with 20% VAT on some items. Do we really need even more cost added to our unaffordable food?

               Re Diabetes. Type 1 is the one unrelated to weight. That can affect all ages and sizes. The condition can be triggered by pregnancy. My tiny mother in law has type 1 diabetes as a result of the pregnancy with her second child.
               • Rosie …

                 3 April 2016 at 12:40 pm

                 PS. Re Suicide. In 2014/2015 569 people suicided. The highest rate ever. To me this is a real public health crisis and deserves the full attention of mental health professionals, the Government, and and a public caring about such a crisis rather than hating on fatties, which they do on a daily basis in our msm.
                 Have a look at the figures from 2007 onwards. If Roger Douglas should be held accountable, so should our current government for these;

                 http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/69920289/Suicide-toll-reaches-highest-rate-since-records-kept
               • RedLogix …

                 3 April 2016 at 12:45 pm

                 Because there are better, fairer ways of controlling the sale of high sugar food and drink, as mentioned. (Remove GST on ALL food and regulate the industry at source).

                 Removing GST on ALL food merely makes the sugar stuff cheaper too. No change in behaviour.

                 Strong and repeated studies show that foods laden with sugar, salt and trans-fats are seriously addictive and that most people cannot control their appetite for them.

                 And given these foods also come with nice big packets for lots of colourful advertising, have very long shelf-life and low wastage … they will always enjoy a price advantage.

                 Logic suggests that a tax to remove that advantage is the correct path. Otherwise all you are doing is rewarding people for eating toxic shit.
                 • Rosie …

                   3 April 2016 at 1:25 pm

                   My other suggestion, you would have seen, was to retain GST on those unhealthy food and drink choices. That would be a way to level prices between untaxed healthy food and GST added unhealthy food.

                   To tax those unhealthy foods further tells an addicted person “we know better than you”. It’s an authoritarian approach. It’s always better to stand along side someone and support and educate than speak down and enforce behaviour change WE want to see. Again patronising and dis empowering. Such personal change, as what a persons eats needs to come from the person themselves not finger waver types who can’t tolerate them. – All part of those hostile messages you were talking about above.
                   • RedLogix …

                     3 April 2016 at 1:52 pm

                     Government has three fundamental tools at it’s disposal:

                     1. Ban it

                     2. Tax it

                     3. Educate it

                     In this case Option 1 of banning it isn’t going to be possible. Any amount of hysterical ‘nanny state’ rantings would stop any useful change. Hell we couldn’t even legislate against obsolete incandescent light bulbs.

                     And much the same with Option 3. While I agree with you that it’s always the most positive and rewarding approach, when it comes to food choices people are notoriously prickly and defensive; more yelling on about nanny state social engineering. Still if you can get it over the line, I’ll be cheering you on.

                     That kind of leaves Option 2 of taxing it, the idea of the ‘market signal’ which is pretty much where our political system is at.

                     In general a mix of ‘carrot and stick’ is the most effective way of changing behaviour. For instance we changed attitudes around drink driving with a major education campaign, but neither did we remove the penalties for it either.

                     So yes taxing sugar is a penalty, but equally it doesn’t leave people powerless to respond and simply stop consuming it.
                   • Rosie …

                     3 April 2016 at 4:40 pm

                     4. Regulate it 😀

                     Don’t forget that option. Yes, education has been effective around drink driving in NZ but the market is largely unregulated. In fact we put these products up on pedestals via advertising and sponsorship. EG the Jim Beam Homegrown festival

                     http://www.homegrown.net.nz/#home-2016-1-1

                     Stop the advertising. Stop the price cutting. Stop the sponsorship. Diminish the presence of the product and diminish it’s influence.
                   • greywarshark …

                     3 April 2016 at 5:21 pm

                     We could start a teeth insurance policy for families, that will ensure that they get free dental treatment every six months for their children. And encourage the mothers to pay into that instead of buying sugary things, give them examples of how they could show their affection and give a treat, with some examples of the sort they would be used to, and add some different ones, or tell them they always knew better, ie chew on some coconut bits, apple bits, especially out of the frig if they can.

                     And each insurance payer gets into a sweep and winners be a few families who have a completely free weekend away at a holiday site where all can relax, and enjoy. That would get a lot of word of mouth publicity. Carrots, for the teeth, and stick, from the pain and ugliness of having rotting teeth or no teeth left at all.
                   • RedLogix …

                     3 April 2016 at 8:32 pm

                     @Rosie @grey

                     Well yes, ban it or regulate it more or less fall into the same category at least to my mind. And all the ideas you suggest are absolutely worth implementing. No quibble.

                     Except given the known addictive power of sugary foods, will it be enough on it’s own? And why leave the food companies with a price and profit advantage in the market?

                     I guess I’m thinking of the same debate we had 15 years ago about a carbon tax. Yes it would have put prices up, yes it was punitive, and here in Australia for the few years we had one, it was proven effective in reducing carbon consumption. The moment that arse Abbott removed it, the numbers started creeping upwards again.

                     And given the abject failure of various ETS schemes that let the fossil fuel companies play games and scams, everyone now looks back and realises that a plain old fashioned carbon tax was the right idea all along.
                 • Stuart Munro …

                   3 April 2016 at 2:15 pm

                   It wouldn’t be too hard to cap sugar content in drinks. No tax required, but conform or leave the market.
       • Craig H 2.1.2.2

         3 April 2016 at 8:11 pm

         Sure, excise taxes decrease demand, but they also pay for the additional health costs caused by too much sugar and too much fat. A sugar tax could absolutely be used to subsidise vegetables etc.
     • Bill 2.1.3

       3 April 2016 at 11:24 am

       Food producers (I use that word advisedly) advertise chemical and sugar laden foo as food. One of the many ways they keep costs down is the sugar component. Tax it? Nah.

       Maybe ban all brand food advertising – kind of in line with how almost all countries (NZ and the US being the exceptions) ban brand drug advertising.
     • Olwyn 2.1.4

       3 April 2016 at 11:50 am

       It looks to me like an aspect of the neoliberal “consensus” whereby the economy must be left to the experts, but it is OK to push for cultural change. After all, rather than infantilising fat people (and continually lowering the threshold for obesity), you could simply limit the amount of sugar permitted in soft drinks and processed products. But that would count as meddling with the economy. So you end up with a situation analogous to that of 19th century Britain, where you couldn’t alleviate poverty, but you could wring your middle class hands about people drinking too much gin and keeping their coal in the bath.
       • mac1 2.1.4.1

         3 April 2016 at 4:28 pm

         “and keeping their coal in the bath.”

         Clean burning coal?

         Our working-class ancestors knew a thing or two about anthropogenic climate change! 🙂

         They also knew about not getting over-weight. Poverty can do that when food and rents were high, sugary foods too expensive and food far less processed, unlike today where soft drinks are cheaper than milk- rather like 18-19th century gin.
     • Draco T Bastard 2.1.5

       3 April 2016 at 8:47 pm

       Bugger hungry kids, we have got moralise about fat people.

       No one’s moralising about fat people. They’re moralising about poor diet brought about by corporations using too much sugar in the processing of food which then makes people sick.
       • Sanctuary 2.1.5.1

         4 April 2016 at 5:24 am

         Here is how you fix obesity: the government gets into the super market business and sets up state supermarkets to sell a reduced range of healthy foods at subsidised rates.

         It would cause a massive drop in food prices from the supermarket cartel (trust me, NZ has more expensive food than Germany, let alone Spain – and quality is often poor in NZ, especially for meat, fruit, vegetables and especially bread. Kiwis like to bullshit themselves to the point of self delusion on food prices for some reason). The only losers will be Australian owned food cartels.
3. Paul 3

   3 April 2016 at 7:58 am

   Amazing that the ‘a’ word is not mentioned in either article,
   New Zealand’s most dangerous drug is responsible for a lot.

   Second councillor joins Auckland safety calls
   http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/300528/'people-don't-feel-that-they-are-safe‘

   Auckland unsafe, councillor tells police
   http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/300475/auckland-unsafe,-councillor-tells-police
   • TC 3.1

     3 April 2016 at 8:28 am

     Thats because the a word industry has politicians in its pocket, especially when they own shares in wineries.
     • greywarshark 3.1.1

       3 April 2016 at 12:30 pm

       Don’t forget that the a word industry has long been generous donors to both main political parties, and probably provided plenty of high class, low cost bevy for sophisticated fund raising dos.
   • Tautuhi 3.2

     3 April 2016 at 9:53 am

     Perhaps the Government should look at the causes of obesity, evidently corn syrup in the USA has caused Americans to blow up like balloons?

     This current Government is currently in bed with the multi national food producers or are they frightened of being sued under the TPPA Agreement already.

     The current Public Health situation and food policing is a joke.
4. mac1 4

   3 April 2016 at 8:31 am

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMQkV5cTuoY

   This is a video in English of a heavy metal band with a message for the world from a German point of view. Germany has learnt its lesson from history. Do we also learn or do we get to make the same mistakes?

   Be Deutsch!
   • miravox 4.1

     3 April 2016 at 8:36 am

     Rammstein, Birkenstocks and potty-mouthed kids, in case anyone is wondering. Pretty cool.
   • sabine 4.2

     3 April 2016 at 10:42 am

     read Kant, c**t. lol……..

     zhat waz awesoame . zhanks.
5. Chooky 5

   3 April 2016 at 8:48 am

   Our great Prime Minister jonkey who has just wasted $26 million of New Zealand taxpayers’ hard earned money trying ever-so-hard and with every PR trick in the book …and failing miserably to change New Zealand’s historic flag into his own brand takeover ….is now is giving free advise to Britain :

   ‘Who asked New Zealand? Brexit scaremongering continues apace’

   https://www.rt.com/uk/338058-brexit-scaremongering-new-zealand/

   “Mass immigration, financial woes and an intervention by New Zealand’s PM – all in a day’s work for Project Fear. RT searches for a Brexit reality check as referendum day creeps ever closer….
   • Tautuhi 5.1

     3 April 2016 at 9:49 am

     Bad luck Ritchie and Dan you didn’t get your new flag for Uncle John.
   • Draco T Bastard 5.2

     3 April 2016 at 10:05 am

     John Key, like all authoritarians, always plays to what the rich and powerful want – and ignores what the people want.
6. veutoviper 6

   3 April 2016 at 9:06 am

   Tomorrow is Monday, 4 April 2016.

   The High Court list for tomorrow is now online and the very last page is worth a visit. There was some speculation that this case had been moved elsewhere but it would seem not ….

   https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/business/calendar/daily-lists/1-National%20Court%20List%20-%20Monday%20-%2004.04.2016.pdf
   • Whispering Kate 6.1

     3 April 2016 at 9:29 am

     [RL: Deleted]
     • millsy 6.1.1

       3 April 2016 at 9:53 am

       [RL: Deleted]
       • veutoviper 6.1.1.1

         3 April 2016 at 10:24 am

         Correct. Arthur Fairley is a Barrister specializing in criminal law, with Thomson Wilson Law in Whangarei. Another partner in the firm, Peter Magee, was involved in the earlier stages.

         https://thomsonwilson.co.nz/Arthur-Fairley-Partner

         He has done some interesting cases in the past of a similar nature and/or related to the background of the person we must not name. An easy way to see these in brief is to go to the link below for the Northern Advocate and enter ‘Arthur Fairley’ in the search box.

         http://northernadvocate.co.nz/

         It seems that, in the past (eg around 2012) he was the highest paid lawyer in Northland from legal aid funds – over $430,000 in 2012.
         • veutoviper 6.1.1.1.1

           3 April 2016 at 10:41 am

           Update.

           I was wondering whether the person we cannot name would continue to have name suppression during the trial. The court decision on April 30 2015 was to extend this until the trial but did not make it clear whether suppression would continue during the trial or whether a further application would need to be made at the start of the trial.

           This Herald article on Friday seems to think that suppression will continue until the end of the trial.

           http://m.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=11615353
           • RedLogix 6.1.1.1.1.1

             3 April 2016 at 11:14 am

             [Moderating Note: While legally it is safe enough to repeat what is in the Herald and similar media, any in-depth discussion or hashing over this matter is strongly discouraged.

             Apart from political and legal aspects of name suppression, there is very little that can be usefully said until the trial is over.

             I urge everyone to consider carefully before commenting as to whether what they are about to say is legal, constructive and respects the purpose of the Court order for name suppression.]
     • joe90 6.1.2

       3 April 2016 at 9:58 am

       His barrister.
     • Whispering Kate 6.1.3

       3 April 2016 at 1:29 pm

       I apologise Redlogix, all I wondered was who was this Fairley person. I knew it wasn’t the accused. I do realise everything is under wraps, so I shall not comment again about this. I see, though there are more comments after me who are chatting about stuff about this case which seem as innocent as mine. Sorry if I did wrong.
   • mary_a 6.2

     3 April 2016 at 11:00 am

     Hey thanks for this info veutoviper (6). Much appreciated.

     I take it the numbers following the age details of the complainants, is the number of times the alleged assaults took place.

     Unfolding court events originating from Monday 4 April could turn out to be one dear leader’s worst nightmare.

     Now we wait for a closed case, with a closed public gallery and a possible media blackout?

     Derryn Hinch is always good value for reporting news information.

     Now who is AB Fairley? A pseudonym perhaps?
     • Craig H 6.2.1

       3 April 2016 at 8:16 pm

       Counsel for the defendant.

       Some of the other cases on the various dockets look quite interesting to me as well.
   • gsays 6.3

     3 April 2016 at 11:23 am

     hi veto,
     thanx for the list.

     i see arthur taylor is also in court with a big wig from corrections.

     also in wellys, a pre trial hearing, which i think relates to a missing person in wanganui from a few years back.
   • Rosie 6.4

     3 April 2016 at 12:00 pm

     As an aside, and I hope I am within the boundaries of discussing this case appropriately, this news came up on the Herald yesterday and was posted here on TS by Paul (?) I think.

     I had a look at stuff and RNZ websites but couldn’t find a thing. Nothing on tv news at 6.

     I wonder if this case will be on the low down for it’s duration, with as little media attention as possible.
     • Anne 6.4.1

       3 April 2016 at 12:07 pm

       Yes. Suppression order stands for duration of trial at the least. That’s my understanding anyway. If its correct then that is so wrong. I cannot recall any other case where a total suppression of all aspects of a trial have occurred. Suppression of the name of the accused and/or the victims yes, but never the entire case.
7. Tautuhi 7

   3 April 2016 at 9:47 am

   Sick isn’t it when people have to pay 70-80% of their wages on rent to support investors and speculators in the Auckland property market, many of them are offshore Asian owners, NACT’s Brighter Future Policy?
   • Draco T Bastard 7.1

     3 April 2016 at 10:09 am

     Many are also offshore USians, English, Australians and other nationalities.

     It’s not where they come from that’s the problem but the simple fact that they are offshore. Even ex-pat kiwis should not be able to own land/houses/businesses in NZ.
     • Stuart Munro 7.1.1

       3 April 2016 at 10:30 am

       Don’t agree about ex-pats – many intend to return – only way you can afford housing these days is to work abroad.
       • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1

         3 April 2016 at 11:31 am

         Like eligibility for NZ Super, there should be some time limits.
     • Molly 7.1.2

       3 April 2016 at 11:30 am

       “It’s not where they come from that’s the problem but the simple fact that they are offshore.”
       +100
       • weka 7.1.2.1

         3 April 2016 at 10:41 pm

         Where they come from will influence how much money they have and any advantage of exchange rates.
     • Molly 7.1.3

       3 April 2016 at 9:22 pm

       In a Guardian article – St Ives in Cornwall will be voting to restrict the number of homes being sold to part-time residents:

       Next month St Ives will vote in a referendum to approve a neighbourhood plan. While the plan’s 108 pages cover a range of local matters, the eye-catching measure is to be found in section 3, point H2, under the heading “Full-Time Principal Residence Housing”.

       If the plan is approved, there will be a legal requirement to ensure that all new housing in the area is for principal residence., with the owners’ status checked against the electoral roll and doctors’ registers. While out-of-towners will still be able to buy second-hand houses as second homes or holiday lets, all newly built property will be reserved exclusively for the locals.

       “It’s groundbreaking,” says Taylor, who is about to begin her third term as mayor of the town. “We’re really lucky that we live in such a beautiful area, it’s recognised by a lot of people and a lot of people want to buy a slice of the lifestyle. You can’t overestimate the contribution of second-home owners to the economy, but you have to look at the bigger picture. Where you don’t have a sustainable economy, over time the town will wither away. We don’t want that. We want to maintain a thriving community, we’re trying to keep the fabric of the community together.”
   • millsy 7.2

     3 April 2016 at 11:34 am

     I’m actually more concerned about the cashed up, National-voting, middle class, ‘Mum-and-dad’ property investors that own way more properties around the country. They are the ones benefiting from the poverty that has rusted onto this country over the past 30 years or so.

     Gordon Gekko said that “Greed is Good” and Deng Xiaoping said that “To get rich is glorious”. Who really cares about the colour of the landlord.
     • Colonial Viper 7.2.1

       3 April 2016 at 11:48 am

       You don’t think that many current and former Labour and Green MPs also own plenty of investment properties all around the country?

       Edit – to make my point more clear – this is a financial class problem first. Only then is it a political problem.
       • RedLogix 7.2.1.1

         3 April 2016 at 12:21 pm

         Given that Super by itself is a pretty modest safety net, and that for most people low risk and security for their retirement funding is a very high priority … investing in rental housing became the ONLY realistic option left open to most middle class people.

         Retirement can be an extremely unpredictable thing. Some people pass on within months of stopping work, others can live on for more years than their ‘working’ life. Our wild-west stock market, infested with shark-suited insiders lost all credibility with people my generation. It will never get it back. Same with all the finance houses. Think SCF.

         And most businesses are run for capital gain not cash flow. A few years back I looked seriously at several horticultural businesses. Two I really liked and wanted to do; but no matter how I cut the numbers the return on capital made no sense. The existing owners could live off their cash flow, but the real returns would come when they sold it.

         And this is pretty typical everywhere you look, it’s either over-priced for tax-free capital gain, has no actual value when the owner-operator leaves, or it’s in a dying industry. So in the end even I had no choice but to stick with property. It’s not ideal but you tell me, and heaps of other middle class kiwis, what other options were open to us that we could trust.
         • b waghorn 7.2.1.1.1

           3 April 2016 at 1:22 pm

           Nail on the head. And I would ad that property is very easy to understand and reasonable easy to control the risks and it can’t disappear in a crash.
         • greywarshark 7.2.1.1.2

           5 April 2016 at 12:22 pm

           @ RedLogix
           That’s a great comment from you. With your knowledge of the way things are for investment in NZ it has real gravitas. Actually I am going to copy and keep it and advise others also to do so. It is good to have something to refer to when trying to find base after reading confusing financial figures, and trying to get an understanding of why we are going downwards in an apparently modern, wealthy country.

           This and a recent piece from Greek Minister Yanis Varoufakis ( spelling?) about the inevitable downward slide of world economies form a cornerstone to keep near when discussion of the future occurs. If you want the link ask and I’ll find it.
       • weka 7.2.1.2

         3 April 2016 at 10:44 pm

         “You don’t think that many current and former Labour and Green MPs also own plenty of investment properties all around the country?”

         How do you know? I just had a look at the Pecuniary interests register and it’s hard to tell what are investment properties and what aren’t.

         http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/mpp/mps/fin-interests
   • greywarshark 7.3

     3 April 2016 at 12:48 pm

     We should perhaps signal our concerns with Auckland housing by using the A-word, with a-word being for alcohol. That would refer to the housing statistics showing there has been a large rise from India and China. Which referred to makes people uncomfortable because it raises the spectre of past nasty to murderous days where the impassioned prejudices of some people against Chinese particularly, came to the fore from negative memes in society.

     Last time we had a big discussion on Auckland buy ups from overseas I got to, checked out, and put up a comment with the statistics displaying the reality of people’s concerns about which foreign buyers predominated.

     I did it. You can hunt for it if you want to refresh your memories.
8. gsays 8

   3 April 2016 at 11:43 am

   must give a belated well done to bunnings management.
   belated as it is probably a week ago that they installed defibrillators in five stores, including stores where defibs had been removed.

   a union leader maxine gay, thanked the public for it’s vocal support in getting behind the workers.

   it felt good, this result, after sending two e-mails to the company.
   • Rosie 8.1

     3 April 2016 at 11:54 am

     Yes, noticed that. At least they finally got something right. On the other hand Talleys are up to their old tricks again and are taking the Meat Workers Union to court, can’t remember over what. I read it yesterday on RNZ but their site is down at the moment so can’t link to it.
     • Rosie 8.1.1

       3 April 2016 at 4:12 pm

       for “misleading and deceptive statements in the media”.

       http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/business/300439/affco-taking-union-to-employment-authority

       🙄

       These guys must be the biggest time wasters of the Employment Relations Authority’s services. Ever.
9. Penny Bright 9

   3 April 2016 at 11:55 am

   Who agrees that it’s not a ‘conflict of interest’ for Auckland Council to remain a member of the NZ Property Council, because the latter has ‘broad public interest goals’ ?

   Really?

   This private sector lobby group for commercial property developers has ‘broad public interest goals’?

   How about Auckland Council getting ‘legal advice’ from Meredith Connell on the matter of whether Auckland Council’s membership of the NZ Property Council was a ‘conflict of interest’ – but failing to disclose that Meredith Connell was a corporate member of the NZ Property Council?

   File under ‘you couldn’t make this sh*t up’?

   Penny Bright
   2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate.

   (Who believes that it is a significant and disturbing ‘conflict of interest’ for Auckland Council or CCOs to be members of private sector lobby groups such as the NZ Property Council and the Committee for Auckland.)
   • Craig H 9.1

     3 April 2016 at 8:19 pm

     On some level, they have to engage with them anyway, and council and CCOs are normally among the country’s largest property investors – joining them makes some sense.
10. weston 10

    3 April 2016 at 12:04 pm

    CASH ….use it or lose it ?
    im continually amazed by the trusting willingness of people to become ever more dependent on the banks and on technology in general ,
    picture a small coastal resort town at christmas time and the queues of shoppers at the local 4square stretch right to the back of the shop and beyond someone at the front finaly remembers their pin or finds a card from their selection that works and we all shuffle forward a foot …reminds me somewhat of sheep in a sheep yard being forced up a race .After what seems like an hour i have only one shopper in front of me , characteristically this dude whos using his card to purchase a moro bar has turned his back to me and lifts his elbows protectively to shield his pin number obliging me to look about the shop or anywhere apart from him i play the game and think about what i would like to do with his card ..tap tap tap waiting………waiting…..would you like your receit sir?yes !! ?/ he does?? gotta keep track of that dollar fifty i presume or maybe hes gonna get it out when he gets home to see if the indians have diddled him ? who knows ? we shuffle forwards a foot i buy my stuff slap the cash down and get the fuck out of there .

    yes i have heard the convienience argument but it comes with the paranoia attachment not to mention when the power goes off or the computers break down but of course that could never happen….
    • Rosie 10.1

      3 April 2016 at 1:30 pm

      Yep. Cash all the way with me. I love the stuff. Fast and trustworthy. We are tagged in so many ways these days that paying in cash is almost a fingers up to the watchers. Don’t start me with those that have complete faith in their smart phone banking and payments…………..

      It’s also fun confusing people with cash payments.
      • gsays 10.1.1

        3 April 2016 at 3:01 pm

        snap.
        “Cash all the way with me. I love the stuff. Fast and trustworthy. ”
        how do you feel about voting electrinically?
        • Rosie 10.1.1.1

          3 April 2016 at 4:30 pm

          The thought of electronic voting worries me. I understand the argument is “we live in a digital age so we need to encourage the young to vote in a medium they are familiar with”.

          But just how easy is it to rig it/hack it? How can confidentiality be maintained? How hard is it to trust it? I don’t think I could be easily persuaded. You?

          I’ve some times thought to myself I’m a bit paranoid about technology and how insecure our data is. But last Sunday I watched “Digital Dissidents” on Al Jazeera and realised my apprehensions were completely justified. Just your smart phone alone functions as a geographical tracking device and tracks your purchases of course, if you’re using a phone to pay for items. Your life can easily become a diary for any authority. Privacy is the issue. Now I’m glad I’ve got an old dumb phone and use cash everywhere.

          Part two of Digital Dissidents is on tonight. It’s a story about whistleblowers, so by default looks at ways the public are spied upon.

          http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2016/03/digital-

          “Facebook is evil in my view, I’ve been saying this for years. […] We offer up our information and it’s just there on a plate for the spies to access. And we know they do through back doors and things. Yet that sort of information used to take them weeks or months to gather on an individual.”

          Annie Machon, former British secret service agentdissidents-160323141254755.html
          • gsays 10.1.1.1.1

            3 April 2016 at 8:44 pm

            personally i see nothing i trust with electronic voting.

            the powers that be constantly show they can not be trusted.
            this past week we have the gcsb showing they have over stepped a generous mark, and not a drop of accountability.

            not on facebook myself, the best summary of fb is that you are not the client you are the product.

            i shall have a look at the digital dissidents.

            now to stir the 3 chilli bbq sauce that is simmering on the stove (donated chillis!)
    • b waghorn 10.2

      3 April 2016 at 4:43 pm

      Once apon a time someone decided that they would use bits of worthless paper to trade with instead of gold dust, dead chickens or turnips and I bet they had people react in the same way as you cash is king peoples,!
      • Draco T Bastard 10.2.1

        3 April 2016 at 8:23 pm

        +1
      • sabine 10.2.2

        3 April 2016 at 8:27 pm

        cash is king especially when eftpos is down, or you have no electricity.

        all your digitial 0 and 1s mean nothing when you don’t have juice.

        And as a shopkeeper i can guarantee you, on one of these days, if you are not known to the shop owner, you get nothing without cash when eftpos is down or there is no juice.
        • Draco T Bastard 10.2.2.1

          3 April 2016 at 8:55 pm

          The problem with cash is that it allows criminal behaviour to continue. Go to a cashless society and you could pretty much eliminate all financial crime over night.

          And as a shopkeeper i can guarantee you, on one of these days, if you are not known to the shop owner, you get nothing without cash when eftpos is down or there is no juice.

          Oh noes, I won’t be able to buy anything for a few hours, oh woe is…

          Oh, look flower 😀
        • b waghorn 10.2.2.2

          4 April 2016 at 12:47 pm

          If its that important wouldn’t you have a mobile one as back up, as long as there is cell coverage of course.
      • weston 10.2.3

        4 April 2016 at 1:34 am

        perfectly happy to trade for your gold dust an chicken bob you can keep the turnips tho
11. joe90 11

    3 April 2016 at 12:10 pm

    Marvelous.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78466989/Poet-songwriter-and-politician-Colin-Craig-sues-Slater-for-publishing-his-poem
12. Brigid 12

    3 April 2016 at 12:27 pm

    I am wondering if James Shaw understand how banks work.
    https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/smarter-economy/kiwibank-can-get-low-rates-all-us

    “To achieve better bank interest rates, the Green Party will:

    Inject a further $100 million of capital in Kiwibank to speed its expansion into commercial banking”

    Inject?!! Banks create credit dammit!!

    “
13. Incognito 13

    3 April 2016 at 2:17 pm

    Stacey Kirk seems to think that we’re only ‘manipulated’ by information that is released by the Government. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/78457614/stacey-kirk-terrorism-in-nz–what-we-know-and-why-we-cant-trust-the-government-to-tell-us-the-rest

    The jihadi brides saga clearly showed that we were being ‘manipulated’ by withholding information. Funny, how some (?) people seem to think that they can only be affected by things they can see and ‘know’ to exist; this is also one of the reasons why distraction is so effective in politics.
14. Tautuhi 14

    3 April 2016 at 2:28 pm

    Interesting how the Jihadi Bride Thing made major headlines here in NZ as if their were scores of NZ women heading to the Middle East, when in fact one had left from Australia.

    This is a classic example of US paranoia “fear politics”, brings back memories of National’s “reds under the beds in the 1950’s and 1960’s under Holyoake and Muldoon?
15. b waghorn 15

    3 April 2016 at 5:00 pm

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11616090

    Please don’t go down the “nz inc” line James Shaw. Its a country not a fucking company.
    Good on Little talking tough on banks , its a vote grabber for sure.
    • Craig H 15.1

      3 April 2016 at 8:22 pm

      That’s true about NZ being a country (rather self-evidently!), but bear in mind that legally, the name NZ Inc would be an incorporated society, not a company (that would be NZ Ltd), so clearly it’s a not-for-profit entity which operates to attain its objects as set by its members, while not operating for the pecuniary gain of said members.

      If we NZers are the members, that would explain a lot…
16. North 16

    3 April 2016 at 8:44 pm

    If not the World, at least the Herald Thanks God for Little Churchill !

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11615796

    I guess like the ’81 Tour Little Churchill doesn’t recall where he stood on Mururoa Atoll or nuclear vessels. Being such a ballsy joker and all that.
17. North 17

    3 April 2016 at 8:56 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11615484

    C’mon Aud’…….don’t hold back. Hoorah Henry Cameron positively cowered in a corner of The Lincoln Room as Key licked his arse. After 20 minutes of good nosh of Obama……Key that is.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS