Open Mike 05/04/2018

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, April 5th, 2018 - 197 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 …

197 comments on “Open Mike 05/04/2018 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ed 1
    5 April 2018 at 6:33 am

    This is what reading Pravda every day must have felt like.

    Relentless propaganda from the corporate media.
    The Herald ran at 28:1 last week, according to micky savage’s excellent post, which attracted 600+ comments.

    Yet Soper and his cronies continue to pump it out, day after day after day….

    Barry Soper: Can Labour do anything right at the moment?
    Heather du Plessis-Allan: How Labour just lost the 2020 election.

    John Oliver nails it. Watch the clip at the bottom.

    Nothing says we value independent media like dozens of reporters forced to repeat the same message over and over again like members of a brainwashed cult.

    Here is a list of NZ reporters repeating the same message over and over again like members of a brainwashed cult.

    Soper
    duplicity Allen
    Hosking
    Hawkesby
    Garner
    Trevett
    Kirk
    Young
    Richardson
    Watkins
    Roughan
    Armstrong
    Read
    Vance

    Feel free to add the list .
    it is long.

    Members of a brain washed cult.
    The cult is neoliberalism.

    John Oliver – Propaganda.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1
      5 April 2018 at 6:38 am

      repeating the same message over and over again like members of a brainwashed cult.

      Um yeah. That would be bad, right: repeating the same message over and over again. Something to be avoided.

    • Ad 1.2
      5 April 2018 at 6:40 am

      It may well be that every single reporter and presenter in the country is wrong, but if this government doesn’t get better at presenting its message then it will get voted out at the next election. And then those MPs can all enjoy being right, from the Opposition benches.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.1
        5 April 2018 at 7:03 am

        They could start by citing some articles in The Herald from before the election.

        Labour will give Auckland Council the power to introduce a regional petrol tax – understood to be 10 cents a litre – to help pay for light rail. Infrastructure bonds and targeted rates will also be used to fund transport in Auckland.

        Then perhaps a strongly worded “please explain” to the Herald’s chief uberpropagandaführer (or whatever they call the editors at the Herald).

      • Ed 1.2.2
        5 April 2018 at 7:12 am

        Like every member of the UK propaganda machine has been wrong about Skripal.
        And was wrong about wmd.

        • Ad 1.2.2.1
          5 April 2018 at 7:14 am

          The current New Zealand government certainly needs to be a far better propaganda machine.

          If this government loses the mainstream media, it is fucked. And it is losing it.

          • Pat 1.2.2.1.1
            5 April 2018 at 8:31 am

            You are asking the impossible…..it will have to succeed DESPITE the MSM….and there is only one way to do that.

            • Ad 1.2.2.1.1.1
              5 April 2018 at 8:47 am

              Rubbish.

              The MSM are not the enemy.
              Really good media operators know what the MSM need, and deliver. The frist two terms of Helen Clark’s government show that with enough hard work, it can look easy.

              • Pat …
                5 April 2018 at 8:57 am

                Who do you think pays the MSM bills?…why is a concerted campaign being waged?

                Your theory only works if you believe the MSM is impartial and has the interests of the wider public at heart….it hasn’t for some time and is in survival mode …..you can apply all the best theoretical PR BS at it you like to no avail.

                The first two terms of the Clark government were an exercise in appeasement that is constantly referenced on sites like these….you are in effect saying that this administration needs to abandon any hope of implementing its outlined policy direction and maintain the status quo….and placate the MSMs paymasters.

                • Ad …
                  5 April 2018 at 9:10 am

                  The left’s complaints about a “concerted campaign” is merely a set of excuses.

                  If you think the mainstream media are not relevant, try doing without them.

                  The first two terms of the Clark government actually got quite a lot done. I know referencing the most successful Labour government since Savage doesn’t appease people like you. She and her media team were really good at their jobs, so she got re-elected three times.

                  That government is the closest we have in relevant political memory to now: implement precisely what they said they were going to do before the election, keeping the media with them, and then getting re-elected.

                  The MSM are key to this , in no small part because politics really is a popularity contest.

                  • Pat …
                    5 April 2018 at 9:27 am

                    The first two terms of the Clark admin were thrown some scraps but were left in no doubt where the line was….and at the time the incremental approach was probably justifiable…though in hindsight it wasted two decades of opportunity….want to waste another two?

                    https://www.nbr.co.nz/comment/ben-thomas/the-winter-business-discontent

                    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0810/S00187.htm

                    and whats a ‘people like you’?

                    • adam …
                      5 April 2018 at 9:34 am

                      Ad just threw you into the radical camp. Mind you disagree with him on anything, and your a filthy communist who wants to much 🙂

                    • David Mac …
                      5 April 2018 at 10:00 am

                      Adam, I think another way of looking at what Ad said is: Exploit the aspects of the status quo that are almost impossible to change and keep the powder dry for those battles when there is a decent chance of meeting popular NZs’ popular desires and looking good. Thereby creating a favorable circle.

                      Agreeing with Ad’s view does not quell a radical. He’s talking about greasing the wheels of change that a radical pines for. I agree with him, using rather than kicking or ignoring the media will carry a radical much further towards their ideal outcomes.

                    • Pat …
                      5 April 2018 at 10:28 am

                      one mans radical is anothers realist.

                      curiously this point is not addressed…’you are in effect saying that this administration needs to abandon any hope of implementing its outlined policy direction and maintain the status quo’….so we must get reelected but we cant make any meaningful change…..unless you wish to suggest that the status quo wasnt maintained or that it needed to change …..and this all under time constraint.

                      Unless of course you don’t think there is such a time constraint?

                    • adam …
                      5 April 2018 at 10:58 am

                      David Mac, and when has that ever worked? I’m struggling to find one instance of that actually working in all of human history. Please if you have some example, please put them up.

                      Because I’m dumbfounded by your notions. You do know the first labour government kicked over the media sand castle? And removed the road blocks by will, and by force. No greasy little muppets there.

                      But then again, the left had an asemblance of courage back in those days. Hard to see much of it these days. Everyone’s a keyboard warrior, unwilling to get their real hands dirty.

                  • David Mac …
                    5 April 2018 at 9:34 am

                    I agree Ad.

                    There are a number of ways to deal with barking dogs.

                    Some put in earplugs and don blindfolds and refuse to be exposed to 75% of the popular media.

                    Others bang the desk and demand that the most troublesome dogs are muzzled.

                    The best way to deal with barking dogs is to throw them bones.

                  • Pat …
                    5 April 2018 at 10:58 am

                    ‘If you think the mainstream media are not relevant, try doing without them.’

                    two words….Trump,Corbyn

                    “The MSM are key to this , in no small part because politics really is a popularity contest.”

                    Politics is indeed a popularity contest…and not necessarily one that requires the blessing of the MSM.

                  • Bearded Git …
                    5 April 2018 at 11:02 am

                    The pile on strategy has been obvious from day 1 Ad-surprised you cant see it.

                    The government needs to stick to its guns while making sure the good things it is doing, for instance increased spending on public transport and cycleways, gets in to the publics conciousness by repeating this ad infinitum at every media opportunity.

                • francesca …
                  5 April 2018 at 9:17 am

                  Exactly!
                  The Hollow Men is as relevant today as it was in Brasch’s time
                  Dirty Politics laid it all out fair and square

          • Keepcalmcarryon 1.2.2.1.2
            5 April 2018 at 8:33 am

            Yes. They badly need a media strategy that works for them.
            Be bold, remake the media landscape to everyone’s betterment. I mentioned Scandinavian style self regulation and then questioned myself when Ed started to talk about it.
            I really do think it’s a good option though, but would require breaking some of the media conglomerates to work well in all likelihood:
            https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2012/jul/04/us-press-publishing-sweden

            • Anne 1.2.2.1.2.1
              5 April 2018 at 9:17 am

              Well, I’ve noted in the past 36 hrs Jacinda has finally started to hit back at the ludicrous claims currently being made by the Opposition Nats and certain high profile anti-Labour/Green MSM hacks.

              It’s about time! Positivity alone and pc-motivated gentle remonstrances don’t cut it in today’s world. You have to give as good as you get so Jacinda… keep it up and make sure your ministers follow suit.

              • mac1 …
                5 April 2018 at 9:52 am

                Yes, Anne.

                First the look she gave Simon Bridges as she replied “Yes” to his Question in the House- straight in the eye and the smile saying ‘bring on the debate.’

                And then throwing back at Bridges the research she had done into the huge volume of answers to questions which had been subsequently altered by Ministers in the previous government, to help counter the current Curran furore.

                Then the response she gave to former responsible Minster Simon Bridges enumerating the National government’s cuts in regional roading when it was in office.

                And acknowledging that Ministers do make mistakes, with the veiled message that they will be told so, and to perform better.

          • Ed 1.2.2.1.3
            5 April 2018 at 3:31 pm

            It never had it.The corporate media wants a government that makes life easier for corporates.

      • Bill 1.2.3
        5 April 2018 at 9:33 am

        It’s not that they’re “wrong”. It’s that they are part of media institutions that reflect very clear (and in concert) preferences (or bias). Obviously, to get ahead within those environments, it’s necessary to reflect or accept the institutional mind set. SO there’s a cycle of reinforcement at work.

        You could argue that the general antagonism to “left” is incidental. Or you could argue it’s all in the systemic nature of the beast.

        Regardless, they’re a road block permitting only the flow of “acceptable” information/memes/angles.

        That’s always been a problem for the “left”, and something it just has to deal with. It’s not going to change.

        Ardern’s NZ Labour are merely being “encouraged” to play a particular game and being generally kept in line. If they actually tacked left, the gloves would be off, and somewhat ‘naturally’ occurring institutional bias would give way to overt hostility.

        • Pat 1.2.3.1
          5 April 2018 at 10:05 am

          “You could argue that the general antagonism to “left” is incidental. Or you could argue it’s all in the systemic nature of the beast.”

          and either way you could also identify the elements that support its increase.

          “That’s always been a problem for the “left”, and something it just has to deal with. It’s not going to change.”

          but but…PR dont you know…that’ll fix it!

          “Ardern’s NZ Labour are merely being “encouraged” to play a particular game and being generally kept in line. If they actually tacked left, the gloves would be off, and somewhat ‘naturally’ occurring institutional bias would give way to overt hostility.”

          Think the overt hostility point may have arrived…..when the gloves really come off it wont be the MSM attacking it’ll be capital and investment that enters the fray.

      • cleangreen 1.2.4
        6 April 2018 at 8:45 am

        Ad is right also;

        Labour is getting unpopular here now in HB/Gisborne over the lack of RNZ willingness to cover our community groups fight to publicly express our disgust at the truck gridlocked roads and with no rail.

        Clare Curran in her letter to us showed she will not assist us to get RNZ media coverage for our disgusting transport issues here, as the roads to Gisborne are so bad that many now fear to drive the roads here with the roads now crammed full of heavy trucks.

        Jacinda needs to take over RNZ and make it our voice and access to our communities to have our say over RNZ before the bureaucrats decide our future without us having the voice to be heard that jacinda promised us all during her election speeches.

        If she fails us on this she will suffer at the next election.

    • James 1.3
      5 April 2018 at 6:43 am

      Perhaps they are seeing something you are not.

      • adam 1.3.1
        5 April 2018 at 9:37 am

        I see idiot comments with no substance are still all the vogue with our resident rwnj’s.

        • james 1.3.1.1
          5 April 2018 at 10:34 am

          I at least addressed the original comment – you simply insult and walk away without debating or discussing the point.

          • adam 1.3.1.1.1
            5 April 2018 at 10:52 am

            But you don’t debate james, you just repeat the same lies over and over. Hard to have a debate with someone who does not think, and relies on memes to communicate.

    • bwaghorn 1.4
      5 April 2018 at 6:45 am

      i would imagine the russians would know how to deal with reporters that they disagreed with , maybe Ardern could get some tips off mad Vlad

    • Jenny 1.5
      5 April 2018 at 6:57 am

      Still no word from our MSM of the aerial bombing strikes on Hamas in response to the peaceful mass protests.

      Violence is only news when it comes from “them”, and not “us”.

      https://thestandard.org.nz/love-war-fear-and-hate/#comment-1468674

    • mauī 1.6
      5 April 2018 at 8:02 am

      Absolutely agree, woah Ed youre on fire this morning!

    • cleangreen 1.7
      5 April 2018 at 10:56 am

      Excellent blog Ed bang on 100%.

      The NZ Media has been fully corrupted now by the deep dark agenda of the corporate world for their lust for power & control and greed.

      They should be jailed and exported back to where they came from, for the good of our children’s future.

      • solkta 1.7.1
        5 April 2018 at 11:22 am

        They should be jailed and exported back to where they came from

        Where did they come from? Same place as the rest of us one would assume? Or by “corrupted” are you suggesting there was a time when media outlets were not controlled by class interests? In Britain they have always understood this as so, and it is only in the colonies with our various delusions that we ever thought that media could be independent.

      • Grantoc 1.7.2
        5 April 2018 at 11:43 am

        CG

        That’s a bit extreme isn’t it? To jail the NZ media (whoever that is?). On what grounds?

        In case you didn’t realise it. The liberal left puts the freedom of the press on a pedestal as a fundamental democratic value. Thats even when parts of the press says things I/you/we don’t agree with.

        Its only dictators and anti democrats that propose what you’re proposing.

      • red-blooded 1.7.3
        5 April 2018 at 11:59 am

        cleangreen, do you REALLY believe in jailing people because they havedifferent political beliefs than you? Think about it…

        I agree that the government need to be doing more front-footing. Ardern is great, but she can’t be everywhere. Others need to lift their game. My worry is how things will be handled when she’s on leave.

        Having said that, we also need to help shift the narrative. That includes things like commenting on Stuff or The Herald, sending in letters to the editor, using Twitter…etc. Not many politically undecided people are likely to be reading this site, after all.

        Basic things like pointing out that Labour policy leading into the election said there’d probably be a petrol tax for Auckland and that they’d continue to raise excises on fuel, tobacco and alcohol (as per normal practice) would help spike the guns of some of the crap that’s being thrown about at the moment.

        • cleangreen 1.7.3.1
          5 April 2018 at 4:01 pm

          Fair enough Red-blooded,solkta,Grantoc,

          Maybe jail is a bit to far.

          But we wouldn’t’ be in this fight with the media, if Clare Curran had just been smart and re-opened up the only honest channel we had before National came along, and closed down our Channel seven.

          Clare Curran could just as easily have switched back on channel seven without getting into a fight with RNZ which to us is now a waste of time with all those talking heads.

  2. Jenny 2
    5 April 2018 at 6:36 am

    Fine words from Westpac.

    Why business can’t be trusted to act on climate change.

    And why government regulation is necessary to give business the “certainty” to help enable business put their words into deeds.

    “Businesses need to act on climate change: Westpac”
    Newshub

    Westpac commissioned the report to better target investment, as New Zealand grapples with the impact of climate change.
    It found adopting green technologies and carbon zero policies sooner will help meet the Paris Agreement targets and bring billions in GDP growth.
    “Businesses need certainty in order to plan,” says Mr Stephens.
    “If they get that certainty now, they can plan and the transition is slower and less disruptive.”

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2018/04/businesses-need-to-act-now-after-climate-change-report-westpac.html

    “Westpac: Stop Financing Coal Mining on the Denniston Plateau”
    350.org. Aotearoa

    Bathurst Resources wants to turn the spectacular Denniston Plateau into a large open cast coal mine. And Westpac is helping finance them.

    Tell Westpac you want them to stop funding climate change, especially coal mining on the Denniston Plateau.

    Tell them to call in their loan and stop extending financing to Bathurst Resources Ltd.

    “Westpac: Stop Financing Coal Mining on the Denniston Plateau”

    http://coalaction.org.nz/denniston

    • Ed 2.1
      5 April 2018 at 7:01 am

      Maybe Westpac should ask Exxon Mobil that?
      Didn’t they know about climate change 40 years ago?
      And do nothing?

    • AB 2.2
      5 April 2018 at 7:47 am

      Ah, the old ‘certainty’ canard. ‘Certainty’ means a guarantee that future profit streams will not be adversely affected. ‘Certainty’ for business, market discipline for the rest of us poor saps.

      • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1
        5 April 2018 at 10:54 am

        +111

        Business owners tend to think business drives society and so society needs to do what business wants.

        What our politicians should be doing is forcing the businesses into what society needs and wants.

        • adam 2.2.1.1
          5 April 2018 at 11:03 am

          Nope, we should be taking out all the people who have polluted, and destroyed in the name of profit, and making them do hard labour to pay back their debt to society.

          Business will not change until there are consequences for their destructive and greedy approach to the world.

    • Hillary 2.3
      5 April 2018 at 9:22 am

      Bathurst actually now has enough $ to finance the mine themselves, and if Westpac does not step in then they will just get the $ from their shareholders.

  3. Jenny 3
    5 April 2018 at 6:44 am

    Stop Te Kuha coal mine.

    “TE KUHA UPDATE: PETITION PRESENTED, APPEAL CONTINUES!”
    Coal Action Network

    The petition to Ministers Wood and Sage was presented to MPs Kiritapu Allan (Labour) and Gareth Hughes (Greens) by representatives from 350 Aotearoa and CANA, together with Forest and Bird, on Tuesday 20 March. You can watch 350 Aotearoa’s stream of the presentation here:

    https://twitter.com/350nz/status/975880267410718720

    Now the ball is in the Government’s court.

    We’ve heard a lot of great talk from the Prime Minister and her Cabinet about their determination to act on climate change. The climate doesn’t respond to words – it responds to actions. Te Kuha provides an early test of whether this Government is prepared to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    http://coalaction.org.nz/te-kuha/te-kuha-update-petition-presented-appeal-continues

    Related:

    Aspirational?

    Or, Actual?

    Some time in the future?

    Or, now?

    We are about to find out.

    https://thestandard.org.nz/megan-woods-speech-to-the-petroleum-conference/#comment-1467763

  4. Cinny 4
    5 April 2018 at 7:35 am

    Had a chat with the girls re fuel prices. Funny thing is they expect fuel prices to keep rising as they understand the damage from vehicles re climate change. They see it as a deterrent and a move to help people think more about the mode of transport they use and reasons for it.

    I did explain that it was to help pay for better roads and public transport, we are all fine with that.

    Climate change is their major concern, for them, that’s far more important than having to pay extra $ per litre

    • Molly 4.1
      5 April 2018 at 10:26 am

      The discussion needs to move further than that too Cinny. Too many decision makers present this fuel tax as the only funding option for improved public transport and alternative transport investment.

      My personal opinion is that those making these decisions, tend to ignore the fact that many households (especially in Auckland) are living in precarious financial situations, where this tax means another bill not paid, food not bought, lifestyle choices further constrained. These decision makers are quite likely those who have all their transport costs met by their employer, even though they are in an income bracket that could quite likely accommodate the increase without too much pain.

      Like any budget – the Ministry of Transport has to determine their priorities. And then they have to cut costs on those projects or additional items that don’t meet their priorities. They have to stop inflicting further financial stress on those households already struggling, and unable to offload those increases to their employer.

      Climate change is a major topic in our household as well, so I recognise the conversations you have with your children. Who pays? is an ongoing topic, and how much is enough? is another.

      • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1
        5 April 2018 at 10:57 am

        My personal opinion is that those making these decisions, tend to ignore the fact that many households (especially in Auckland) are living in precarious financial situations, where this tax means another bill not paid, food not bought, lifestyle choices further constrained. These decision makers are quite likely those who have all their transport costs met by their employer, even though they are in an income bracket that could quite likely accommodate the increase without too much pain.

        Which is why transport to and from work needs to be paid for by the business.

        • The Chairman 4.1.1.1
          5 April 2018 at 11:08 am

          “Which is why transport to and from work needs to be paid for by the business.”

          That won’t cover the related increase in the cost of goods and services.

          • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1.1
            5 April 2018 at 2:10 pm

            It would go a long way.

            And just because something won’t go all the way to address the problem doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t happen. Other things can also happen to make it all work.

            • The Chairman 4.1.1.1.1.1
              5 April 2018 at 8:12 pm

              “And just because something won’t go all the way to address the problem doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t happen. Other things can also happen to make it all work.”

              I can agree with that.

      • The Chairman 4.1.2
        5 April 2018 at 11:05 am

        “The discussion needs to move further than that too Cinny. Too many decision makers present this fuel tax as the only funding option for improved public transport and alternative transport investment.

        “My personal opinion is that those making these decisions, tend to ignore the fact that many households (especially in Auckland) are living in precarious financial situations, where this tax means another bill not paid, food not bought, lifestyle choices further constrained. These decision makers are quite likely those who have all their transport costs met by their employer, even though they are in an income bracket that could quite likely accommodate the increase without too much pain.”

        Indeed.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.2
      5 April 2018 at 10:56 am

      Funny thing is they expect fuel prices to keep rising as they understand the damage from vehicles re climate change. They see it as a deterrent and a move to help people think more about the mode of transport they use and reasons for it.

      OMG, they actually understand the pricing mechanism which is something that the RWNJs and many on the Left don’t get.

      • Cinny 4.2.1
        6 April 2018 at 7:22 am

        Lmao, I’ll have to tell them that Draco 🙂 They love nature, love being outside, there is no Planet B

  5. Carolyn_Nth 5
    5 April 2018 at 7:43 am

    T’is crunch time for Genter and Davidson’s co-leadership campaigns this weekend. Which one will the GP members choose?

    Newsroom has an article about it, in which both candidates are reported as saying they don’t agree with the budget restriction rules that the GP signed up to before last election. They also both say that National is too far away from the GP for any Teal Deal.

    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/04/04/102290/green-leadership-contenders-oppose-budget-rules

    • francesca 5.1
      5 April 2018 at 8:19 am

      Carolyn
      Both incredible women, its a hard choice
      For me, Marama appeals, she keeps that grass roots activism aspect of the Greens alive.She’s authentic, she’s got heart, she’s of the people, she lives tiriti, she’s real
      She might take risks , she might blunder
      Genter is hugely effective, articulate, concise, strategic, with an impressive intellect
      She’s careful, measured, she’d be a safe pair of hands.Is that enough?
      But the look of Shaw/Genter makes my heart sink
      The greens are already in danger of looking like just another white middle class party on bikes.I want to feel a bit more frisson or something
      When it gets down to it, I can live with either, they’re both terrific

      • Ad 5.1.1
        5 April 2018 at 8:25 am

        Which one will you vote for?

        • francesca 5.1.1.1
          5 April 2018 at 9:23 am

          I was interested to note in a discussion among friends how passionate the Kiwis were about Treaty matters, colonisation and how much Green environmental ethos and Maori cultural values are aligned
          Recent immigrants, (Brits and American )were bemused, didn’t quite get it
          The former were in favour of Marama, the latter, Julie-Anne
          All agreed both were fantastic

        • weka 5.1.1.2
          5 April 2018 at 1:33 pm

          “Which one will you vote for?”

          It’s not a vote.

      • weka 5.1.2
        5 April 2018 at 1:35 pm

        my feelings are similar. Both are outstanding and would make great co-leaders, but it’s just wrong for Shaw and Genter to lead the party, on class and ethnicity grounds. I am so glad that Genter is a Minister, because if the party chooses MD, then Genter will still have a very good role in which to use her talents. Also, she’s still in caucus and would be using them there too.

    • The Chairman 5.2
      5 April 2018 at 9:39 am

      “Newsroom has an article about it, in which both candidates are reported as saying they don’t agree with the budget restriction rules that the GP signed up to before last election. ”

      They should have made more noise at the time (before they signed up to it). Hence, it’s a bit late now.

      When does Shaw’s leadership get re-looked at? Anybody know?

      • solkta 5.2.1
        5 April 2018 at 10:00 am

        Both leaders are elected by delegate vote at the AGM each year, so in a couple of months. I would think that there is zero chance he won’t be re-elected.

        • The Chairman 5.2.1.1
          5 April 2018 at 10:23 am

          “I would think that there is zero chance he won’t be re-elected.”

          And why do you think that? He hasn’t performed too well.

          He was expected to grow their support. After giving their questions to National, I’m expecting there will be further decline in their support.

          • solkta 5.2.1.1.1
            5 April 2018 at 11:11 am

            He saved the Party during the election with his ability to stay calm in it would seems any situation. He is very popular amongst the membership.

            James cannot make decisions like giving away the questions and anything that is done needs as the very bare minimum 75% support of Caucus.

            But enough of your concern trolling.

            • The Chairman 5.2.1.1.1.1
              5 April 2018 at 12:27 pm

              “He saved the Party during the election”

              Some would argue the party wouldn’t have needed saving if the leadership initially managed things better.

              And despite Shaw fully backing her (Turei) all the way, he was quick to avoid accountability. Didn’t see him offering to stand down. Moreover, he’s done nothing to further the cause, hence his commitment to the cause is becoming hollower by the day.

              As for giving their questions away, it was reported (see link below) that Shaw made the decision without consulting the party membership. Therefore, it seems it was a leadership decision.

              http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/shows/2018/03/green-party-split-over-james-shaw-handing-questions-to-national.html

              The Greens further declining in the polls is a very real concern. And if you can’t acknowledge that, then hell knows where your head is at.

              The Greens need to face up to criticism, not merely call people concern trolls. If they fall much further in the polls, their survival will require Shaw to stand down.

              Clearly you are out of touch, calls for Shaw to go are growing. He’s seen as too soft and far too willing to kowtow to Labour.

              With the Greens only having a small number of MPs, they require a far more assertive leader.

              • solkta …
                5 April 2018 at 12:36 pm

                As for giving their questions away, it was reported (see link below) that Shaw made the decision without consulting the party membership. Therefore, it seems it was a leadership decision.

                There was no requirement for them to consult members over what is clearly a Caucus decision. The action was within the principles the Party has for improving parliamentary practice.

                Therefore, it seems it was a leadership decision.

                No, it was a Caucus decision.

                First you say it was Shaw’s decision to give away the questions but then you say he is “far too willing to kowtow to Labour”. Full of shit much i think you are.

                • The Chairman …
                  5 April 2018 at 1:15 pm

                  “No, it was a Caucus decision.”

                  As shown in the link provided above, Shaw said he made the decision, not the Caucus.

                  “The action was within the principles the Party has for improving parliamentary practice.”

                  Allowing National to frame more questions in a right wing way isn’t a Green Party principle.

                  “First you say it was Shaw’s decision to give away the questions but then you say he is “far too willing to kowtow to Labour.”

                  So willing to kowtow to them he’s limited Labour being held to account from a left perspective. Seems he’d rather National hold them account from a right perspective.

                  I know many Green voters that expected the Greens to keep Labour in check. Shaw is showing he is unable or unwilling to do this. Hence, the widespread outrage within the Greens support base. Thus, the growing calls for him to go.

                  • solkta …
                    5 April 2018 at 1:28 pm

                    As shown in the link provided above, Shaw said he made the decision, not the Caucus.

                    All i can find is this:

                    “Mr Shaw then said he made the decision without consulting party membership.”

                    You might need this:

                    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com

                    • The Chairman …
                      5 April 2018 at 9:51 pm

                      Re, your comment at 8:11 pm

                      He may have consulted with his Caucus but ultimately he made the decision (according to the report).

                      As for giving questions away, I definitely have a problem with it. I didn’t vote for the Greens to have them get National to hold (in a right wing framing) Labour and NZF to account.

                      As for how big a concern it is, we’ll soon get some indication from the next poll. As I stated above, I expect there will be further decline in their support.

                      As for calls for Shaw to go, I think the party lacks depth in regards to male co-leaders, which will go a long way in saving him. But if their support tanks badly, there will only be so much he (and the party) can sustain.

                  • weka …
                    5 April 2018 at 1:38 pm

                    “As shown in the link provided above, Shaw said he made the decision, not the Caucus.”

                    No, Shub say he said that. We don’t know what he actually said, but we do know that a co-leader is not empowered to make decisions like that on their own. Try educating yourself. Solkta has just been explaining GP process to you, why don’t you learn from that?

                    • The Chairman …
                      5 April 2018 at 8:00 pm

                      “No, Shub say he said that.”

                      That’s correct. It was reported Shaw said he made the decision.

                      Hence, that is the perception me and others that read the report are left with.

                      And you know what they say about perception and politics.

                      Personally, I don’t know if he can make that call or not as Party leader, but that was how 3 reported it. And at the end of the day he supports it nonetheless and seems to fail to see the problem with it.

                      And if it (the report) is incorrect, don’t the Greens have someone overseeing how they are being reported? Thus, calling for corrections?

                    • solkta …
                      5 April 2018 at 8:11 pm

                      Most medium level idiots would be able to interpret “Mr Shaw then said he made the decision without consulting party membership” as meaning he hadn’t consulted the membership but that he had obviously consulted his Caucus.

                      And at the end of the day he supports it nonetheless and seems to fail to see the problem with it.

                      Most members i have spoken to, and most who have commented here, don’t see a problem with it either. You clearly only have a ‘problem’ with it because you are a concern troll.

                    • weka …
                      6 April 2018 at 10:36 am

                      “Hence, that is the perception me and others that read the report are left with.”

                      Sure, but there is no excuse for your position given you are talking with two people who know the GP far better than you do and have told you that Shaw is not able to make such decisions on his own. I think he has misspoken, or Shub have misinterpreted his words.

                      You have even less excuse because we’ve been in these kinds of conversations a number of times before where you’ve had GP process explained to you and you continue to instead go with something in your own head rather than what is known about how the GP work. Your ignorance is now willful.

                    • The Chairman …
                      6 April 2018 at 2:39 pm

                      “Sure, but there is no excuse for your position given you are talking with two people who know the GP far better than you do and have told you that Shaw is not able to make such decisions on his own.”

                      Two people that I don’t know that haven’t produced any citation to back their claim.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 April 2018 at 3:02 pm

                      from newshub link, my emphasis added:

                      Mr Shaw emphasised that he had given the questions to the Opposition, not specifically to National.

                      “We are giving them to the office of the Leader of the Opposition, if Parliament had a different make up and there was someone else in Opposition, they’d be the recipient.”

                      I’m not worried that you claim to think that Shaw dictates decisions to the Green caucus.

                      I’m merely somewhat amused that you and newshub seem to think that Shaw habitually refers to himself in the first person plural.

                    • weka …
                      6 April 2018 at 3:18 pm

                      “Two people that I don’t know that haven’t produced any citation to back their claim.”

                      And yet you believed Shub 🙄

                      Like I said, willful ignorance. Go read the GP official documents if you can find them, and talk to GP officials and activists, if you can bring yourself to believe them. That’s how I informed myself.

                      You will have to do some thinking with the information you find, but given your propensity to see everything through the negative I’m not sure how far you will get.

                    • weka …
                      6 April 2018 at 3:20 pm

                      I’m merely somewhat amused that you and newshub seem to think that Shaw habitually refers to himself in the first person plural.

                      😆

                      Sooner they get a co-leader the better 😉

                    • solkta …
                      6 April 2018 at 3:48 pm

                      Perhaps he thinks he’s the Queen.

                    • The Chairman …
                      7 April 2018 at 6:52 am

                      “And yet you believed Shub”

                      Let’s see, the word of a news organisation over the word of two online randoms with a potential bias? It’s a no-brainer isn’t it?

                      Moreover, surely the Greens would not allow such an error to stand uncorrected. I’ve seen no correction put forward by James Shaw.

                    • weka …
                      8 April 2018 at 10:56 am

                      “Let’s see, the word of a news organisation over the word of two online randoms with a potential bias? It’s a no-brainer isn’t it?”

                      MSM with bias towards sensationalism and a history of not understanding the Greens and of reporting inaccurately either out of sensationalism and/or RW bias.

                      vs

                      two long time online activists, one who is as far as I can tell active within the GP and has commented a lot about how the GP functions, and the other who writes posts on the largest LW blog in NZ including posts about the GP, their kaupapa and how they operate. Those posts are taken largely from information in the public domain (i.e. information you also could access if you wanted to educate yourself), and from talking with GP activists online (something you can also do but obviously choose not to).

                      So yeah, it is a no brainer. Not that you should discard Shub (false dichotomy there), but that you should assess all sources of information. Which you have done and I think if you trust Shub with no criticism and discard online activists because you don’t know their RL names, then that just reinforces what I said. Willful ignorance.

                      You don’t even need to take notice of me and Solkta, there are plenty of other people around who understand how the GP functions and are on records with that. There is no other way to take your interpretations than deliberately misrepresenting the party.

                      “Moreover, surely the Greens would not allow such an error to stand uncorrected. I’ve seen no correction put forward by James Shaw.”

                      He probably understands a few things more than you do. Most people can parse that article and interpret what happened. Those that skew it towards something anti-green are going to be anti-green anyway. Also, getting a correction how? Only a complete idiot believes that a party could meaningfully correct every little mistake that the MSM make in reporting.

                    • The Chairman …
                      9 April 2018 at 7:15 am

                      I’m not deliberately misrepresenting the party. I’m working with what was reported. Which nobody has refuted with substance.

                      Solkta and you had the opportunity to substantiate your claim, both of you failed too.

                      Instead of directing me to scroll through all the Green’s literature, searching for something that is unlikely to be there, you could have directly pointed it out to me, but you didn’t. So why should I believe you when you can’t back up your claim?

                      Moreover, you claim that you are both long time activist, yet tell me to talk to activists, which if you are both activists as you claim, I’m already doing. Moreover, I want more than mere opinion, I’m seeking substance what was reported was wrong.

                      Only a complete idiot you say, well thanks a lot. The reality is if it is an error, it’s far from little.

                      It has attributed to calls for Shaw to stand down. Many within the party are not happy with this decision and more would be calling for Shaw’s head if they knew it was solely his decision (as was reported).

                      Therefore, if it was an error, it would be vital for Shaw to correct it.

                      As you seem to be struggling to understand how he would go about correcting it, I’ll explain it for you.

                      First off, contact the reporter (Finn Hogan) and ask for a correction to be made. Secondly, issue a press release and ensure activists further spread the word.

                      Evidently, Shaw has done neither. Which, if it wasn’t an error would be expected. Hence, you’ve yet to convince me.

                      Thus, here’s another opportunity for you to show me exactly where in all the Green Party literature does it say the leadership (being Shaw at the time) can’t decide to give away their questions?

                    • solkta …
                      9 April 2018 at 7:56 am

                      Not for you Chairman but for anybody who might be genuinely interested (my bold):

                      Constitution of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand
                      …
                      12
                      CAUCUS
                      12.1
                      The role of Caucus is to organise and co-ordinate the Green Party’s parliamentary activities. The Caucus shall exist for the period that the Green Party has members of New Zealand’s Parliament
                      12.2
                      The Caucus shall comprise:
                      12.2.1
                      The Co-Leaders;
                      12.2.2
                      All persons elected as Green Members of Parliament;
                      12.2.3
                      Any representative of the national Policy Committee or the Executive appointed by those bodies and agreed by Caucus; and
                      12.2.4
                      Such other persons as the Caucus may appoint as members or as are provided for in these rules.
                      12.3
                      The Caucus shall make such rules for its conduct as it sees fit in accordance with the objects of the Green Party.
                      12.4
                      Co-Leaders and MPs shall be the voting members of Caucus.
                      12.5
                      Any Green Party member may normally attend a Caucus meeting subject to the rules contained in the Party Caucus Agreement.
                      …
                      14
                      CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING
                      14.1
                      All decisions by: any Group, Electorate, or Province; General Meeting; Executive; Caucus; Executive Working Group or any other body overseen by the Green Party shall be made by consensus. This means by the agreement of most participants, with dissenters and abstainers agreeing to recognise the majority opinion as being the decision.
                      14.2
                      If consensus on a motion is not achieved after reasonable attempts, a vote can be taken. A motion shall be carried with a 75% majority of the votes cast. Those who do not agree with the decision may have their objections included in any minutes recorded.

                    • The Chairman …
                      9 April 2018 at 8:25 am

                      “Not for you Chairman but for anybody who might be genuinely interested (my bold):…”

                      I was going to thank you.

                      Seems 14.1 covers it.

                      Nevertheless, it raises more questions why Shaw didn’t correct the report. Considering the blow-back, one can understand why the Caucasus would be happy not to be associated with it.

                    • solkta …
                      9 April 2018 at 8:32 am

                      Also 12.1 and 12.3 show it was their decision to make.

  6. You_Fool 6
    5 April 2018 at 7:46 am

    How underfunded is our health system? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12025882

    Thanks National, to give the rich a few extra bucks you will be killing people.

    Also contrast the tone of the herald article with those on the increase in fuel tax + better funding for public transport. It is almost like this under-funding is all Labour’s fault. I know they get around to saying that National passed the substance abuse law change, but no real analysis of exactly how our health system got to the point where it needs billions upon billions of dollars just to bring it back to an average condition.

    • Ed 6.1
      5 April 2018 at 7:53 am

      An underfunded health care system?
      That’s not important, says Barry and Heather.
      Look over there .
      Carol and Claire are having coffee.

      Look over there.
      Jacinda can’t manage.

      • Nick 6.1.1
        5 April 2018 at 8:25 am

        Barry and Heather…. Fake newz

      • You_Fool 6.1.2
        5 April 2018 at 8:58 am

        Or worse yet, Labour are putting up petrol taxes!!! Oh the shock horror! I mean it isn’t like National raised it by the same amount over the same time, without telling us at any election. Or that National didn’t raise GST after explicitly ruling out GST increase.

        It is sad this is the world we live in, where just to get us to a space where we are actually where we all think we are, or expect us to be at, will require Labour to run a big deficit, and they will be blamed for mismanagement, promising too much or what ever. No analysis or critique of how we got to the place we are at…

        • mauī 6.1.2.1
          5 April 2018 at 9:24 am

          Of course when Gerry did the exact same petrol tax thing bout 5 years ago it was for the good of the country or the economy, “motorways are everyone’s friend” or something. The media gives it a free pass and Gerry and Joyce go unquestioned.
          http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/more-petrol-tax-to-pay-for-motorways-2012121809

          But when Ardern does it…. drum roll please… “Labour are taxing us”, “Think of the poor people who can’t afford all this extra tax”, “Rail ?!?!?”!

        • alwyn 6.1.2.2
          5 April 2018 at 9:33 am

          The traditional old recipe.
          “But National did it too”
          Doesn’t really excuse the fact that the Labour Party leaders lied about there tax policies before the election though does it?

          Don’t get too upset though. The Labour Party, although it will go back to the Opposition benches in 2020, won’t have to try and work out how to co-operate with New Zealand First and the Greens. They will be defunct.
          Then perhaps the Labour Party can spend their time rebuilding and coming up with a sensible and relevant set of policies by 2026.

          • Kat 6.1.2.2.1
            5 April 2018 at 9:56 am

            Prove you are not a fool with Duplicity Syndrome by proving where “the Labour Party leaders lied about there tax policies before the election”……….. I won’t be holding my breath.

          • You_Fool 6.1.2.2.2
            5 April 2018 at 10:53 am

            Did you and the media say that National was going to lose the 2011 election after raising GST?

          • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2.2.3
            5 April 2018 at 11:06 am

            “But National did it too”

            Nobody’s actually saying that. They’re saying that when National did it the MSM applauded them while they berate Labour.

            It’s the double standards.

            But you knew that and are now just trying to distract from it so as to protect National from their own actions while also hiding the double standards of the MSM.

            Doesn’t really excuse the fact that the Labour Party leaders lied about there tax policies before the election though does it?

            They didn’t lie but you know that which means that you’re lying now.

            • alwyn 6.1.2.2.3.1
              5 April 2018 at 11:29 am

              You poor little fellow.
              If what the comment I was replying to wasn’t a case of “But National ….” what was it?
              It is the standard line by the CoL and its supporters on almost everything.
              Even Sage was trying it when she was being interviewed on RNZ this morning.

              • McFlock …
                5 April 2018 at 12:13 pm

                The comment that started “or worse yet”?

                The comment that has a second paragraph “It is sad this is the world we live in, where just to get us to a space where we are actually where we all think we are, or expect us to be at, will require Labour to run a big deficit, and they will be blamed for mismanagement, promising too much or what ever. No analysis or critique of how we got to the place we are at…”?

                You know, in reply to ed’s explicit comment about the media double standard.

                Yeah, that was a comment about the media’s double standards. Glad you asked.

                Edit: to be absolutely clear, the comment reads that national did it too, but the media mostly blame Labour

                • You_Fool …
                  5 April 2018 at 12:37 pm

                  I am actually OK with my comment being a “national did it too” comment, as it is ridiculous that the vitriol about this petrol tax has been so strong, even from the National party itself, but they did exactly the same thing twice! When there is hypocrisy then I am OK with pointing that out, even if Alwyn needs to have a little cry over it all

              • You_Fool …
                5 April 2018 at 12:33 pm

                In any case, what is the bigger story; Petrol taxes to pay for safer roads and better transport or a chronically under-funded health system that is so underfunded that people will actually die because of the underfunding?

          • adam 6.1.2.2.4
            5 April 2018 at 11:08 am

            The idiot speaks again, sheesh alwyn it is always the same with you.

            Did you miss me pointing out over and over before the election, that labour are right wing economically?

            Part of that was links to their economic policy, including transport policy. It was all there, I disagree with then as I disagree with it now.

            As for tax, labour said they would let a tax working group look at that – and they did.

            You really need to stop lying, not healthy for you. But as lying is all you got…

            • alwyn 6.1.2.2.4.1
              5 April 2018 at 11:31 am

              “Did you miss me pointing out”.
              I have given up reading any of your comments that aren’t direct replies to something I said. You never have anything original or interesting to say.

              • adam …
                5 April 2018 at 2:10 pm

                Poor alwyn, irrelevant as always.

                Must be all that pent up frustration that no one worships you like they should.

                • veutoviper …
                  5 April 2018 at 2:42 pm

                  Stop talking about yourself – or anyone else – like that. Address the issues, not the person.

                  Did you miss me pointing out over and over before the election, that labour are right wing economically?

                  Yes and you also said on more than one occasion that the US would be back in the TPP by the end of March. We both know how credible that prediction of yours was – or more correctly, wasn’t.

                  • adam …
                    5 April 2018 at 4:45 pm

                    I own that failed prediction, it was wrong. Which I think I’ve said to you twice now, how many times would you like me to repeat that?

                    As for person not issue, when the person has a track record of spin, I will call them on a personal level to own their spin, alwyn is one such person.

                    Edit: alywn by the way defamed people on this site, really don’t see you getting upset by that, so, jog on…

            • Monty 6.1.2.2.4.2
              5 April 2018 at 3:09 pm

              Hey. What is with the abuse. Surely you can debate without personal abuse.

          • red-blooded 6.1.2.2.5
            5 April 2018 at 12:07 pm

            alwyn, have a look at the policy:
            Labour has responded to the request of the Auckland Council to give it the ability to use new methods of funding infrastructure, like infrastructure bonds and targeted rates. It will also give Auckland Council the ability to implement a regional fuel tax. The regional fuel tax for Auckland is estimated to generate $150 million a year for transport improvements. Labour does not have plans for any other regional fuel taxes.

            Alcohol, Petrol and Tobacco Levies – will be adjusted as per normal government practice and as set out in Budget documents.

            • You_Fool 6.1.2.2.5.1
              5 April 2018 at 12:31 pm

              Oh, talk about gotcha!

              Just to confirm, was there before the election too, so have a good cry babies! No lies here….

              https://web.archive.org/web/20170916020732/http://www.labour.org.nz/tax

            • alwyn 6.1.2.2.5.2
              5 April 2018 at 2:31 pm

              You are of course right. The levies comment is there, as the very last line in something hardly anyone reads.
              We should ignore all public comments by their leaders and look for the fish hooks hidden away.

              When The Labour Party said, in
              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11922151
              “”There will be no new taxes or levies introduced in our first term of government beyond those we have already announced.”
              and
              “Ardern said it was her “captain’s call” to back down from introducing new taxes in a first term of a Labour Government because it was clear the public were concerned.”
              We were obviously mean to realise that this was a completely meaningless comment and that it wasn’t going to bind them at all.

              More fool us I suppose. Still we did know that Ardern and Robertson were trained in the Clark PM’s Office where if you had to choose between a truth and a lie one always chose the lie.
              Remember Robertson shortly after he got elected? He was in the Back Benchers Bar, on TV, and was asked where Alf was. Alf was a couple of metres away, in direct line of the TV camera.
              Rather than say something like “Alf is not involved in Politics and doesn’t want to be the story or to be interviewed” Robertson looked straight at the camera and lied. “Alf isn’t here tonight”.
              So much for telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                5 April 2018 at 2:58 pm

                beyond those we have already announced.

                …and then later on in the same article, here’s Steven Joyce.

                National’s finance spokesman Steven Joyce said Labour’s move had only postponed two new taxes, while leaving five in place that would slow down the economy and restrict growth.

                “They’ve postponed the introduction of two taxes but have reaffirmed their intention to impose a water tax, regional fuel tax, tourism tax, income tax increases, and bringing farming into the ETS,” he said.

                Perhaps you didn’t read that far, or perhaps you’re lying. I think you’re lying. Labour were slammed during the election campaign for the new taxes they announced, including a regional fuel tax and water tax. I bet you were one of the losers who slammed them, too.

                Lift your game.

                • alwyn …
                  5 April 2018 at 3:30 pm

                  Of course I read that far. I didn’t expect that you would take Stephen Joyce’s opinion as being the beginning and end of all wisdom though. Clearly I was mistaken. You do. You regard a statement as true if Stephen Joyce said it.
                  From now on I shall simply quote Stephen Joyce to you and you will clearly accept it as being factual.

                  If it is any consolation I feel the same way about you as you seem to feel about me. I think you are lying, now, in the past, and no doubt in the future. Well trained by the experts in the current Government I suppose.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    5 April 2018 at 7:24 pm

                    Nope, fool. I regard your statement as false if Labour campaigned on it and Steven Joyce complained about it, and many other news articles plus a Morrinsville farmers’ rally (which you whinged about at the time) totally contradict you.

                    I think you’re lying (as opposed to being simply ignorant) because this is a long established pattern in your comments.

                    • Pete George …
                      5 April 2018 at 7:33 pm

                      Accusing others of lying is a long established pattern in your comments.

                      “Alcohol, Petrol and Tobacco Levies – will be adjusted as per normal government practice and as set out in Budget documents.”

                      I haven’t seen any evidence that Labour campaigned on that. It can be found in their policies if you search for it (plus a lot of other things not campaigned on), but I can’t see any relevant mention in the Fiscal Plan that was a core part of Labour’s campaign.

                      I don’t recall Jacinda Ardern or Grant Robertson campaigning on raising fuel excise tax during the current term

                      Robertson did say ““There will be no new taxes or levies introduced in our first term of government beyond those we have already announced.” Again, I don’t know of any fuel excise tax announcement.

                      Ardern said “Everything that we have announced in public is already able to be fully funded from the re-prioritisation that we have set out, and it’s all in our fiscal plan.”

                      Again, nothing in the Fiscal Plan and nothing announced in public that I know about.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 April 2018 at 7:40 pm

                      @Peter George:

                      🙄

                      Published policy is campaigned on by definition, but I’m sure you feel like nitpicking over that until your boring gobshite sends everyone to sleep, so I’d just like to reiterate my contempt for you and your affected opinions before ignoring the rest of whatever you have to say.

                    • Pete George …
                      5 April 2018 at 7:45 pm

                      Falling back on abuse doesn’t make a good argument. The opposite.

                      NZH on Ardern: “it was her “captain’s call” to back down from introducing new taxes in a first term of a Labour Government because it was clear the public were concerned.”

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11922151

                      That’s campaigning, picking which policies to promote and which ones to put aside.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 April 2018 at 8:20 pm

                      @Petty George: from Alwyn’s link that you also linked to.

                      There will be no new taxes or levies introduced in our first term of government beyond those we have already announced.

                      Thanks for pointing that out, five hours after Alwyn pointed it out. I wonder what you think your point is.

                    • McFlock …
                      5 April 2018 at 8:28 pm

                      Lol

                      Let me actually google that for you.

                      So apparently “duelling transport policy releases where the fuel tax raise is part of the launch reported August 6 last, that doesn’t count as campaigning.
                      From the nbr article.

                      At a rally at Auckland’s Wynyard Quarter, new Labour leader Jacinda Ardern confirmed rumours her party would re-animate its previous policy to allow the council to introduce a regional fuel tax.

                      The 10 cents per litre tax would raise around $160 million per year: not enough to pay for various new policies announced this afternoon — the most ambitious of which was light rail from downtown Auckland to the airport within 10 years. The first leg, linking Wynyard Quarter (several blocks along from the CRL under construction) to Mt Albert via Dominion Rd would be built in four years, Ms Ardern says. At a later date, it would be extended in the opposite direction to the North Shore (bringing Labour into line with the Greens’ plan for rail to the Shore).

                      .

                    • Pete George …
                      5 April 2018 at 8:30 pm

                      @OAB

                      There were no announcements about fuel excise taxes going up that I’m aware of. Do you know of any?

                      Regardless, the fuel excise tax has been a bit of a PR disaster for Labour going by wide ranging negative reactions.

                      Labour’s communications over the last few weeks has been poor, and unless they get their act together soon – before Peters takes charge – they might inflict unrecoverable self inflicted damage to the current Government. That wouldn’t be good for the country.

                      @McFlock – I don’t think anyone is arguing about the Auckland (regional) additional fuel tax. The problem is with the proposed nationwide increase (with the possibility other regions could slap on their own top up tax as well).

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 April 2018 at 8:33 pm

                      @McFlock: boom!

                      @Petty George: 😆

                    • Carolyn_Nth …
                      5 April 2018 at 8:48 pm

                      Labour’s transport manifesto 2017, page 6:

                      https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nzlabour/pages/8454/attachments/original/1503367750/Labour_Transport_policy_2017.pdf?1503367750

                      Labour will:
                      • Introduce regional fuel taxes to enable regions to raise funds for specific projects that are a regional priority, but would not otherwise qualify for funding from the National Land Transport Fund
                      • Review the whole vehicle levy system (WOFs, vehicle registration fees, fuel tax, and road user charges) to see if it is still fit for purpose in an era of rapid disruption

                      My bold

              • cleangreen …
                5 April 2018 at 4:08 pm

                “We should ignore all public comments by their leaders and look for the fish hooks hidden away.”

                Yes we looked at the fish hooks in the last nine years of national and found plenty and of course the National Party always did many u turns on all their plans so we were always left with nothing but confusion.

  7. Ad 7
    5 April 2018 at 8:25 am

    Eugenie Sage needs her ass kicked.
    Can’t tell whether she met with the Chief of the EPA or the Chief of the MfE.
    And looks like she was trying to heavy one of the staff members out.

    Close to identical fault to Curran.
    Griffin will now be able to “correct the record” this morning at Select Committee and be made to look like a saint.

    If the PM can’t instill discipline into her Ministers, then she and State Services Commissioner need to start restricting the contacts of Ministers to their written advice and to Chairs and Departmental heads.

    This is going to be an awesome day for the Opposition.
    And another day that this government continues to lose the media.

    Get your shit together Ardern.

    • Nick 7.1
      5 April 2018 at 8:30 am

      Griffin is out anyway. Natz are going to Bullshit about any issue anyway and the natz media also. Ardern is doing well and policies are being rolled out.

      • alwyn 7.1.1
        5 April 2018 at 9:48 am

        Oh, such confidence
        “Ardern is doing well and policies are being rolled out”
        It reminds me rather more of Monty Python – The Black Knight.
        “Tis just a flesh wound” Jacinda announced.

    • mac1 7.2
      5 April 2018 at 8:54 am

      Yesterday, RNZ with Campbell gave the former National government a twenty minute serve over the issues of Christchurch post earthquake, Middlemore Hospital and failure to recall faulty air bags.

      Yesterday’s local paper has the following ‘political’ news, nothing criticising the government apart from the local MP’s opinion piece where after three years he finally dares to criticise a Minister.

      Temporary housing provider delays opening as renovations not completed.
      Ardern says safety is a big issue in road plans.
      Clean slate bill set to pass.
      Ethical business prospering.
      Editorial on Safety from sex offenders and managing prison release. Recidivism among child sex offenders is amongst the lowest in all crime categories.
      National MP has a go at Shane Jones.
      Optimism up for farmers.
      An article on a bus firm seeks migrant drivers opens with this sentence. “The Government should reject a national bus company’s request to fill 110 driver jobs with migrant workers, a union says.”

    • alwyn 7.3
      5 April 2018 at 9:45 am

      “Close to identical fault to Curran.”.
      Quite the opposite I would have thought.
      Rather like the electron and its anti-particle the positron in particle physics.

      Curran starts by denying there was an organised meeting and then flips into saying it was, Throws Hirschfeld under the bus of course but the important thing for Curran is for herself to survive.

      Sage does the opposite. Says that there was a meeting and when that turns to custard denies the fact that she was at any such thing. Wrong person seems to be the excuse and she didn’t even know who the people she met were.
      Then she tried to blame it5 on the National Government!.

      I hope they don’t end up next to each other in Parliament. Total annihilation is the result in any particle/anti-particle interaction.

    • weka 7.4
      5 April 2018 at 1:39 pm

      “Eugenie Sage needs her ass kicked.
      Can’t tell whether she met with the Chief of the EPA or the Chief of the MfE.
      And looks like she was trying to heavy one of the staff members out.”

      Could you be more specific??

      • veutoviper 7.4.1
        5 April 2018 at 2:27 pm

        Background is at 10. With links.

        The first link there – ie the RNZ article – will give you a general background including re “Can’t tell whether she met with the Chief of the EPA or the Chief of the MfE.” Sage’s own personal explanation in the House on Tues 3 April also addresses this point from Sage herself. Hansard in 10 and video in 10.1.1

    • Ed 7.5
      5 April 2018 at 8:15 pm

      Why are you repeating the Tory memes?

      • OnceWasTim 7.5.1
        5 April 2018 at 9:00 pm

        @Ed. “why are you repeating….. etc.” That really should be obvious

  8. veutoviper 8
    5 April 2018 at 9:19 am

    As mentioned above the RNZ bosses (Chairman Richard Griffin and CEO Paul Thompson) are fronting up to the Select Committee this morning.

    RNZ is running a live blog from the meeting which is already underway as from 9.00am when the meeting started and can be accessed here:

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/354153/watch-live-rnz-fronts-to-select-committee-over-minister-s-meeting

    Earlier on Morning Report in a 4 min interview with Jane Patterson on this morning’s meeting, Patterson made a point of calling Griffin RNZ’s “outgoing Chairman “- and mentioned that Griffin had earlier said he was leaving at an earlier meeting on 31 March. This is at about 0.40 mins in this audio. His contract is due to expire on 30 April.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018639121

    • alwyn 8.1
      5 April 2018 at 9:53 am

      The Labour MPs are certainly doing their best to smear Griffin aren’t they?
      I wonder why Eagle is going at it so hard? Is he under instructions to antagonise the man? If so I wonder which way it will turn out.

    • Anne 8.2
      5 April 2018 at 10:08 am

      That was a bit of a bummer for me. Audio very bad.

      To answer alwyn above and from the bits I was able to hear… it sounded to me that Paul Eagle was trying to counter Melissa Lee who was hogging the show for political gain of course.

      From my recollection at the time of the Mt. Albert byelection back in 2009, she was an arrogant, pushy little madam. Doesn’t sound like she’s changed.

      • veutoviper 8.2.1
        5 April 2018 at 10:30 am

        Agreed re audio, but still useful to read the written real time blog on the same page.

        Re Lee, her arrogance has certainly come across in her questions to Curran in the House over the last few weeks. She has certainly never had so much face time in the House since she started there ten years ago in 2008.

        Parliament TV – live and On Demand – is down right now, otherwise I would put up videos of one or two of the Questions. Light Bulb moment ? Perhaps that is why the bad audio. Hope they got the Select Committee hearing on record. Just checked Audio and while the page opened unlike the Watch one, no recordings for today as yet.

        • alwyn 8.2.1.1
          5 April 2018 at 11:55 am

          ” She has certainly never had so much face time in the House since she started there ten years ago in 2008″.
          Can you tell me of any Government back bench MP who ever gets any “face time” in the house? We had some discussion on this when talking about “patsy” questions a while ago.
          Opposition is the chance for backbenchers to shine. Find something juicy and stick your teeth in. In Government you have to shut up, make up the numbers and only talk when no one is listening.

      • veutoviper 8.2.2
        5 April 2018 at 11:29 am

        Latest article on RNZ News website with full video of the appearance of Griffin and Thompson before the Select Committee this morning.

        http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/354159/rnz-bosses-set-the-record-straight-we-feel-very-foolish

        At the end the article states;

        Mr Griffin was also asked about the voicemail message Ms Curran left him this week about this appearance. Mr Griffin said it was a “strong suggestion” that he provide just a written statement rather than turn up.

        He said he had a copy of the voice message, but he would not play it for the committee.

        Not only a Tui moment but a deja vu one for me. LOL.
        But presumably that was Griffin’s last public appearance for RNZ with only 25 days to go.

        I see Brownlee was there in the background (In the photo).

        • Muttonbird 8.2.2.1
          5 April 2018 at 2:31 pm

          I suspect Lee has already heard the voicemail, Griffin having played it to her privately.

          • veutoviper 8.2.2.1.1
            5 April 2018 at 3:08 pm

            I have no doubts Lee has heard the voicemail. She had a further question for Curran in Question Time today. Curran is in Australia, so Lee wanted to hold the question over until Curran was back, but there was objection, so Chris Hipkins answered Lee’s questions on Curran’s behalf – verbal chess.

            Lee skirted around the message Curran left for Griffin which gives a pretty good idea of the angle Lee is taking vis a vis the voicemail, though.

            The video is up already – https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=199331

      • alwyn 8.2.3
        5 April 2018 at 11:59 am

        I was just reading the blog, which was quoting Eagle but not Lee. I wasn’t up to trying to decipher the audio. The blog bringing up Eagle talking about “collusion” and “working for the National Party” did seem to be pushing things. With nothing quoted from Lee it only comes across as Eagle throwing mud around.

        • veutoviper 8.2.3.1
          5 April 2018 at 12:41 pm

          Try the video in 8.2.3 above which is RNZ’s full video of the questioning. (37+ minutes). I have not actually watched it as yet as I have another priority elsewhere at present, but the little I have seen indicated that the audio from the questioners’ mikes is pretty bad.

          • alwyn 8.2.3.1.1
            5 April 2018 at 2:46 pm

            When the noise from Thompson putting a glass down on the table is about 30 db louder than the questioners I think I shall wait until it is either cleaned up or transcribed. I refuse to listen to 37 minutes like that.

            • veutoviper 8.2.3.1.1.1
              5 April 2018 at 4:31 pm

              Cannot say that I disagree with that!

              Perhaps RNZ need some better funding for better equipment, alwyn?

              Cannot be easy having your funding frozen for nine (?) long years.

    • Cricklewood 8.3
      5 April 2018 at 12:24 pm

      That voicemail is going to be interesting as it sound like its going to be subpoenaed.
      I really dont get why Curran would be that stupid I would have thought getting a staffer to talk to him directly would have been better.
      If it doesnt quite say what she’s told Jacinda is says it’ll get ugly fast.

  9. Sanctuary 9
    5 April 2018 at 10:06 am

    Iain Lees-Galloway appears on Morning Report with 90 minutes notice of a new profiling technology he not been briefed on. This is good for democracy.

    Meanwhile, after five years of never being able to speak to him, John Campbell was reduced to door stopping Gerry Brownlee to try and get some accountability for his part in the 160+ million dollar re-re-repair disaster. Brownlee hung up on Campbell. An incompetent and unaccountable National party autocrat has cost the country hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Barry Soper will focus on Labour being “caught out” and will completely ignore the hundreds of millions of wasted dollars.

    • OnceWasTim 9.1
      5 April 2018 at 9:06 pm

      what amazes me @Sanctuary is the length of time its taken anyone on this site (or TDB for that matter) to make a comment on the subject.
      Something that’s potentially politically explosive as demographic profiling that includes an ethnic component, and SFA!!!

  10. veutoviper 10
    5 April 2018 at 10:52 am

    Some background information on the Eugenie Sage/Environment Protection Agency issue mentioned by Ad in 7 above.

    This issue as to what Sage (as Associate Environment Minister) said and to whom re the EPA’s former Chief Scientist, Dr Rowarth, has been simmering for the last two weeks and was one of the leads on this morning’s Morning Report. Here is the audio of the main item: http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018639116/green-minister-changes-tune-on-epa-meeting

    This article on the RNZ News page provides more information, plus links to some earlier background articles also listed alongside the article:
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/354148/green-party-minister-changes-tune-on-epa-meeting

    In brief, Sage has been accused of ministerial interference in EPA staffing matters in relation to Dr Rowarth, who resigned earlier this year after Ms Sage, the associate Environment Minister, and others raised concerns about her conduct with Dr Freeth, EPA’s chief executive. As well as forwarding a highly critical article about Dr Rowarth to the EPA, Ms Sage told Parliament 10 days ago she met with Dr Freeth and discussed her.

    Eugenie Sage, in a Personal Statement in the House on Tues 3 April, now says she didn’t meet with Dr Freeth when she previously said she did, and doesn’t think she discussed the EPA’s controversial chief scientist with him like she said she had.

    Sage’s original statements have led to Dr Freeth having to return to Parliament today, to explain why he told MPs he’d had “absolutely no discussions” with Ms Sage on the matter.

    Now Ms Sage says it was actually a meeting with the Ministry for the Environment – not with the EPA, when she raised Dr Rowarth’s behaviourwith the chief executive of the MfE. She now says that she met with the EPA’s Dr Freeth at a later date, When asked whether she discussed Dr Rowarth at the meeting she responded “my memory is that I didn’t”.

    On the Parliamentary front, this issue was first raised by National’s Scott Simpson in Question 7 in Question Time on Thursday, 22 March (NOTE – Parliament TV site is down so cannot provide videos at present):

    Hansard https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20180322_20180322_08

    Simpson then raised a further Question 11 on Tues, 27 March:
    Hansard https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20180327_20180327_12

    Sage then made a personal statement before Question Time this Tuesday, 3 April:
    Hansard https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20180403_20180403_04

    Immediately following this, Simon Bridges then raised this issue in the second half of his Q1 to the PM in Question Time:
    Hansard https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20180403_20180403_08

    All was quiet re this issue in yesterday’s Question Time. Then the story surfaced on Morning Report this morning.

    • veutoviper 10.1
      5 April 2018 at 11:08 am

      To clarify, the four paras from “In brief, … ” through to the para ending “she responded “my memory is that I didn’t”.” are my paraphrasing of the RNZ New article. The accusations are not mine. I failed to complete my edit to clarify the above before the edit time ran out – meaning my original unclear draft went up as the final.

    • alwyn 10.2
      5 April 2018 at 12:11 pm

      It took her rather a long time to come up with the correction didn’t it?
      I wonder if someone in her office was chasing her to do so?
      I don’t really think that anyone much cares about Sage of course. She isn’t Labour, Ardern hasn’t defended her and her role is a pretty innocuous one.
      With bigger targets like Curran and Jones they will probably not bother that much about a nonentity like Sage.
      It’s a Triple Crown for the Green Party though isn’t it?
      A shambles brewing over the Census for Shaw. Misandry, ageism and racism from Genter about “old white men” and now Sage’s memory problems.

      • veutoviper 10.2.1
        5 April 2018 at 12:49 pm

        As I mentioned in my 10, Bridges raised this Sage matter with the PM on Tuesday in Question Time. You say Ardern did not defend her. I disagree but will leave others to make up their own minds. As it is short here is quote from the entire section of the Bridges/Ardern interchange on the matter from the draft Hansard:

        Hon Simon Bridges: Has the Prime Minister had any conversations with Eugenie Sage about whether the Associate Minister had discussions with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) about the performance or tenure of the Chief Scientist, Jacqueline Rowarth?

        Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Not directly, but as the House will know, the Minister corrected the record based on previous answers at the beginning of question time today.

        Hon Simon Bridges: So is the Prime Minister now clear that the chief executive, Dr Freeth, is correct when he says that the Associate Minister is “mistakenly confused” about meeting with the EPA’s chief executive about the Chief Scientist?

        Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Minister herself corrected the record on that very matter today at the beginning of question time.

        Hon Simon Bridges: What does it say about the state of her Government that this week Radio New Zealand and the independent Environmental Protection Authority are having to reappear before select committees over Ministers interfering in independent agencies and covering thing up?

        Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do not accept the premise of that question. [Interruption]

        Mr SPEAKER: Order! Both sides, please.

        And here is the video of Q1 on 3 April. The interchange re Sage begins at about 4. 35 mins
        https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=199184

      • veutoviper 10.2.2
        5 April 2018 at 2:36 pm

        I also meant to address your remarks re Sage – ie that “her role is a pretty innocuous one” and “a nonentity like Sage”

        In this instance, Sage was acting in her capacity as “Associate Minister for the Environment” – with David Parker being the Minister for the Environment and Nanaia Mahuta also being an Associate Minister for the Environment, indicating that considerable importance is accorded to the environment.

        Sage also holds the positions of Minister of Conservation and Minister for Land Information – neither of which I would class as innocuous ones, despite the fact there are no Associate Ministers for either of these areas.

        I doubt that many people here would consider someone holding those positions as a “nonentity”.

        • alwyn 10.2.2.1
          5 April 2018 at 3:03 pm

          I don’t think the defence of Sage was anything like the one Ardern has put on for Curran. Ardern has come out publicly on Curran’s side as opposed to statements like this answer you quote.
          “Not directly, but as the House will know, the Minister corrected the record based on previous answers at the beginning of question time today.”
          Hardly a ringing defence of anything is it?

          Sage wouldn’t be a scalp for the Opposition the way that Curran would be. Not her party, apart from anything else. I think it is also the case that the General Public haven’t any real knowledge about who the EPA is or what the Conservation Department has to do with them. As for the Chief Scientist I, for one, had never heard of her before this came up.

          On the other hand T think almost everybody has heard of RNZ and a lot of people have views on how it operates, particularly when dealing with Politicians. The views may be inaccurate but they are there.

          • alwyn 10.2.2.1.1
            5 April 2018 at 3:51 pm

            I suppose I should have added to this that I doubt that the Department of the Environment is top of anybody’s “must know about” list.

      • Ed 10.2.3
        5 April 2018 at 10:13 pm

        Stalin would be proud of our media.

  11. mac1 11
    5 April 2018 at 11:10 am

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2018/04/minimum-wage-a-subsidy-for-business-owners.html

    The minimum wage just went up 75c to $16.50, the biggest jump since 2007, still leaving people in poverty.

    “….. if you’re paying people less than the living wage, effectively you’re asking them to subsidise your business.”

    That’s because low earners get more tax credits and subsidies from the Government, for example through Working for Families, which costs taxpayers $2.2 billion a year.
    The living wage takes Government subsidies into account.

    “It would have gone up by another $2 an hour if that Families Package hadn’t come in.”

    This is another quandary for governments. Continue to subsidise employers via such packages as Working for Families, or work to change the whole system so that wages and benefits are of a ‘living wage standard.”

    The Living Wage raise for 2018 has also just been announced, and can be found here.

    https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2018/04/05/20-55-the-2018-new-zealand-living-wage-rate/

  13. Siobhan 13
    5 April 2018 at 2:58 pm

    Am i the only person to almost choke on my muesli this morning at the announcement of a massive new profiling tool aimed at overstayers??

    If nothing else you would think self interested NZers might at least show some interest in the fact that profiling technology will only spread..young male maori =future criminal….old white dude from Remuera=white collar criminal…middle class female working accounts=fraud etc etc..are we really going to stand by and have people ‘convicted’ based on statistics and probability?? Really??

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/102836086/Immigration-NZ-profiles-overstayers-as-Government-considers-digital-rights

    • Pat 13.1
      5 April 2018 at 3:06 pm

      yes another disturbing aspect of the previous admin….so many its hard to keep up.

    • OnceWasTim 13.2
      5 April 2018 at 9:15 pm

      No you’re not the only one Siobhan. Sanctuary alluded to it above.
      As you will have seen (listened) …. the Minister was obviously blindsided by his ‘officials’ and hearing about it at only 6.15AM – what’s that? an hour or so before having to front speaks volumes as to what this coalition gummint is facing.

      We could go into specific examples of the type of thing that this ‘big data’ as opposed to ‘good data’ this profiling will produce.

      But then @Ad and others are going to assure us we should place (blind) faith in the likes of the Munstry and our betters, so its all good. Better little lady (or genteel homme) to rest your weary head in the knowledge our betters are looking after us with their vast expertise and experience.

  14. ianmac 14
    5 April 2018 at 3:01 pm

    That was a curious Question Time today.

    Shorter.
    Quieter. Trevor tightened up on Questions asked.
    Stopped several Opposition questions as soon as the question was asked and would not allow the tag lines supporting each question.
    Also stopped answers if going on too long. (Especially patsy ones.)
    Lee questioning an absent Cullen didn’t have the effect she expected. Leader of the House Hitchens was the one giving advice instruction to Cullen and answered succinctly.
    Seymour had a question but the Minister didn’t have to answer any of them. (DAVID SEYMOUR to the Minister of Finance: Will the Government introduce any of the following taxes which were raised by Sir Michael Cullen on 2 March 2018; a financial transactions tax, a wealth tax, an equalisation tax, a capital gains tax, a land tax, a progressive company tax, environmental taxes, and behavioural taxes?)

    Trevor also stopped Brownlie’s point of order especially after Question 12.
    Bet there is muttering in the Opposition tonight.

    • ianmac 14.1
      5 April 2018 at 3:34 pm

      Oops. I meant Lee questioning Clare Curran.

      • Anne 14.1.1
        5 April 2018 at 5:59 pm

        Haven’t been having a good day today ianmac. We’ll put it down to a “senior moment” 😉

    • alwyn 14.2
      5 April 2018 at 3:42 pm

      It is a bit pedantic but it is Hipkins, not Hitchens and Curran not Cullen. The thought of Michael Cullen back in the House is not something New Zealand deserves.
      (It is also Brownlee not Brownlie but that one isn’t of any moment as it isn’t confusing the way the others could be).

      edit. You got in the partial correction while I was typing. The rest stands though.

      • Stunned Mullet 14.2.1
        5 April 2018 at 4:21 pm

        “The thought of Michael Cullen back in the House is not something New Zealand deserves.”

        To be fair MC is a clever chap and confusing him with the overly woeful Curran is unbelievable, I’d also prefer Cullen to the current finance minister, I don’t think Grant Robertson is anywhere near the same level.

  15. faroutdude 15
    5 April 2018 at 3:39 pm

    Mallard has been briefed. There are many, many questions the Govt doesn’t want to have to answer at the moment.
    There are also many Ministers the Govt doesn’t want to have to answer any questions at all.
    One would think that as the Media are so obviously biased, corrupt and “unfairly against this Govt and poor wee Jacinda” that the Coalition would be raring to go and get the facts out there at Question Time.
    Strangely they are not.

    • funstigator 15.1
      5 April 2018 at 6:57 pm

      Exactly. They are running very scared. The puppetmeister Peters gets much leeway however. Looking at the Leaders of the Parties making up Govt it isn’t hard to understand the sheer incompetence of their minions – many of whom have obviously learned dishonesty around the caucus tables. In many years of watching QT I have never seen such an ongoing farce, although the 3rd Term of Klarkula came close.

      • mac1 15.1.1
        5 April 2018 at 10:10 pm

        Mallard just requires a high standard of questioning as well as of answers.

        We are still getting questions from the opposition which do not have anything to do with a Minster’s responsibilities, which is a basic error. There are questions not allowed for having non sequiturs, for irony, for having nothing to do with the original question.

        Nick Smith twice (to my certain knowledge as I heard him both times) has misread a primary question, with the Speaker requiring a second attempt at reading aloud from a prepared script.

        Faroutdude, you’d better come out with something more concrete than a lazy, unsubstantiated slur against the integrity of the Speaker.

  16. mac1 16
    5 April 2018 at 4:55 pm

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/04/sir-john-key-says-biggest-regret-as-pm-was-not-changing-flag.html

    So, this is what John Key says was his greatest regret of his 8 year Prime Ministership.

    I wonder what others, contemporaries as we are, and historians later, will say………

  17. eco maori 17
    6 April 2018 at 8:12 am

    Newshub people will see my phone GPS go all the way to the heart of Ngati-porou country te tairwhiti congratulations to the common wealth game medal winning people. Theres is a story behind the bike sport in Atoearoa. I figure it out last time I watched that program at 7.pm
    Nice suit Duncan can’t write to much I’m off on my journey all the best to you Mark and Amanda Ka kite ano