Open mike 05/12/2022

138 comments on “Open mike 05/12/2022 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Rod 1

   5 December 2022 at 8:08 am

   Great news for Cystic Fibrosis New Zealanders. Pharmac proposal to fund and make this wonder drug available from 1 April next year. Thankyou!!!
   • Ad 1.1

     5 December 2022 at 8:14 am

     +100

     Decades for a breakthrough to come.
   • Anker 1.2

     5 December 2022 at 10:17 am

     Excellent news. Will. make a real difference to these peoples lives
     • Patricia Bremner 1.2.1

       5 December 2022 at 11:19 am

       How is your cough Anker?
       • Anker 1.2.1.1

         5 December 2022 at 12:09 pm

         Very kind of you to ask Patricia. Just been started on some anti biotics as Dr thinks I have a secondary infection. I am hoping this will do the trick.

         And thanks to Anne's kind comments on another post. I couldn't respond, because there didn't seem to be a reply button. What you said Anne was very much appreciated.
   • SPC 1.3

     5 December 2022 at 3:21 pm

     There is a need for more of this.

     One of the few ways we can reduce pressure on the lack of health sector capability is to improve the well-being of New Zealanders.

     Every drug intervention that reduces demand on limited health (staff/equipment) resources is useful.

     For years we skimped on such drug availability because of the cost to Pharmac while transferring the consequences to a health service that could not cope (and at far greater cost and worse health outcomes/loss of work capability). Madness.
     • SPC 1.3.1

       5 December 2022 at 4:09 pm

       And I should add some form of dental insurance would also reduce impact on the health system (lack of care has consequences for physiology).
     • Incognito 1.3.2

       5 December 2022 at 5:32 pm

       CF is neither preventable not curable and affects a relatively small number of New Zealanders. Unless Pharmac resources (funding) is increased such watershed moments will be far between.
2. Ad 2

   5 December 2022 at 8:46 am

   Ardern walking 3 Waters entrenchment without a legislative alternative is sick.

   Just really poor policymaking let alone parliamentary procedure.

   We used to have a party that built up strong public ownership.

   If we're prepared to buy back Kiwibank we should centrally own water.
   • Incognito 2.1

     5 December 2022 at 9:05 am

     The only word in your comment I disagree with is “centrally” but yes, 100% agree. The question is how best one achieves keeping something so precious in public ownership for future generations. Many people seem to think that once you manage something you practically own it too. It becomes even more confusing when you throw in terms and concepts such as stewardship, governance, guardianship, and trustees (not necessarily only in the legal sense). The legal boffins who were very quick to judge the entrenchment shambles quickly run out of words and tools to suggest an alternative.
     • Barfly 2.1.1

       5 December 2022 at 9:23 am

       This is pretty dam silly IMO – I believe entrenching Public ownership of water would be a big vote winner those arguing against it would be open to being accused they want to sell it – An enormous vote loser IMO
       • gsays 2.1.1.1

         5 December 2022 at 7:37 pm

         Got no issue with yr point, the entrenchment bit is where the brown stuff can hit the cooling device.

         With that precedent, what stops the tories from entrenching retirement at 67?
     • Ad 2.1.2

       5 December 2022 at 9:25 am

       Every structural move this government has made is to recentralisation.

       How Cabinet can get through 5 days without a legislative fix to announce is ridiculous.

       Water is the only reform they've had to spend any real political capital on, and with 50 seats they've had plenty to spend.

       Get A Fucking move on Labour.
       • Shanreagh 2.1.2.1

         5 December 2022 at 9:35 am

         Get A Fucking move on Labour.

         Not exactly my words but definitely my sentiments.

         Three Waters needs to get through before the House rises this year. Once it gets enacted, our (personal and parliamentary) long break follows and many things are forgotten or become less worrying after a break and time with friends and family.

         Just tried to link to where I set out the sitting days until Christmas but search returns the word ‘nothing’
         • Alan 2.1.2.1.1

           5 December 2022 at 9:55 am

           You are joking right?

           Do you seriously think Act, National and NZ First will suddenly forget about this over the holiday period?

           This issue will be hammered every day between now and the election
           • Shanreagh 2.1.2.1.1.1

             5 December 2022 at 10:09 am

             But it is hard getting traction with people over the break. Getting people all upset over the break does not work so that momentum is lost. Once the legislation is enacted any voices by the opposition become clanging symbols/empty vessels.

             I did not say that he issue goes away but the ability to manufacture outrage is diminished by

             • people not wanting to waste brain power over a break, they just want to cog down (why do you think we have 'pap' on TV and long reads on interesting topics in the newspapers).
             • moving into implementation mode

             I have no doubt that all those parties will fan/manufacture the fires of outrage but people lose interest.

             Th election is more likely to be on issues such as the propensity of those parties to privatise anything that moves if they get to be in office. Their inability to support entrenchment against privatising to show that they will treat water as a public good may backfire.
             • Alan …

               5 December 2022 at 2:02 pm

               I think you are dreaming if you think people will lose interest in 3 waters over the summer holidays.
               • Tony Veitch …

                 5 December 2022 at 2:13 pm

                 Frankly, there is not much interest in the details of 3 Waters among the general public, from what I can tell.

                 Ask anyone, would they like clean drinking water and the answer is sure to be yes.

                 Ask them if they get their knickers in a twist about who owns the assets, and ten to one they'll shrug their shoulders.

                 The only ones who seem to be up in arms about 3 Waters are Act and National, for they see the assets as very saleable to their mates.
                 • Shanreagh …

                   5 December 2022 at 2:19 pm

                   I agree with this.

                   It adds to my point that political parties trying to manufacture outrage over the break are on a 'hiding to nothing' as they say.
                   • Alan …

                     5 December 2022 at 2:24 pm

                     Yea, sure, you keep thinking that if it makes you feel comfortable.
                 • pat …

                   5 December 2022 at 5:09 pm

                   I expect you will discover there is considerable interest when the bills arrive
                   • Incognito …

                     5 December 2022 at 5:34 pm

                     Or when dirty or no water starts coming out of the taps.
                   • pat …

                     5 December 2022 at 5:42 pm

                     Yes, I would imagine that would also invigorate interest
                   • Incognito []

                     5 December 2022 at 5:46 pm

                     But a little too late to do much about it other than waiting for expensive repairs and/or other costly and often temporary ‘solutions’.
                   • pat …

                     5 December 2022 at 5:50 pm

                     Assuming we have the wherewithal to make those improvements…especially when we deliberately make them more expensive than they need to be
                   • Incognito []

                     5 December 2022 at 6:09 pm

                     Indeed, let’s stick with number 8 wire and black tape because that has served us so well i.e., if it ain’t broken yet keep your fingers crossed and your head in the sand for as long as possible. No need to borrow more and at much higher interest rates than currently.
                   • pat …

                     5 December 2022 at 6:33 pm

                     Oh dear Incognito, you are getting desperate. No8 wire was not promoted (though it does have its uses)….ask yourself WHY we havnt provided the needed investment in our infrastructure these past decades?
                   • Incognito []

                     5 December 2022 at 6:38 pm

                     We haven’t?? Where did my rates go to then? I’m sure it said that some of it went towards water servicing costs. When I’ll get home, I will check my latest rates invoice.
                   • pat …

                     5 December 2022 at 6:48 pm

                     You and Robert should take a double act on the road
         • Incognito 2.1.2.1.2

           5 December 2022 at 5:14 pm

           Water is a public good, AFAIK, and as such does not and should not be centralised/re-centralised, whatever you mean by that.

           The Government is proposing to create 4 regional entities to manage the country’s current [three] water services; ownership remains with Councils and the likes; what the co-governance will look like is anybody’s guess at the moment. As such, there is no and should not be any talk of centralisation/re-centralisation in this context.

           I completely and utterly agree with everything else you said.
     • weka 2.1.3

       5 December 2022 at 9:40 am

       Lew has suggested an alternative (not exactly what you are meaning, but one of the few to step up),

       I think this is a winnable electoral or referendum argument and I will probably support parties who stand on it. But that will require a greater commitment to discourse than the govt has shown since the pandemic

       — Lew (@LewSOS) December 4, 2022
       • Ad 2.1.3.1

         5 December 2022 at 9:52 am

         Way too late for discursive "fixes".

         That's what you do before you have legislation that's gone through Select Committee and is gone through second reading. Then you put it up, get your MPs on radio and tv, etc.

         What was needed today was a specific legislative text ready to go as a fresh SOP.
         • Shanreagh 2.1.3.1.1

           5 December 2022 at 10:15 am

           Agree Ad but it may (being optimistic) help in skewering opposition parties trying to nay say Three Waters and who clearly believe (by not supporting entrenchment clauses) in the ability to privatise.

           But clear thoughts in readable articles over the break may help tamp down party driven public concern/educate the public.
         • weka 2.1.3.1.2

           5 December 2022 at 10:23 am

           not sure how you are using discursive there, but Lew's argument is that entrenchment shouldn't be used in this case, but protecting water from privatisation could be done via a GE/binding referendum. This is not dependent on three waters.

           What was needed today was a specific legislative text ready to go as a fresh SOP.

           such as?
           • Ad 2.1.3.1.2.1

             5 December 2022 at 10:58 am

             Lew is flat wrong. Parliament is sovereign in law making, particularly when you already have draft legislation before Parliament.

             There is no way that throwing this mess out to "the people" would make anything clearer.

             Lew has neither the Parliamentary procedure nor political nous that God gave geese.
             • AB …

               5 December 2022 at 11:20 am

               The well is already poisoned. "The people" have had their perceptions irremediably tainted. The left need to take a lesson in how the right mount saturation propaganda campaigns through the organisations that naturally align with them.
             • weka …

               5 December 2022 at 11:52 am

               you still no suggestion on what Labour could do instead.
               • Poission …

                 5 December 2022 at 12:06 pm

                 Updating their CV's would be a good idea,if they double down for an additional 4%,problematic issues with multiple stories from the PM,and wilful misdirection on cause and effect.

                 Remember the PM said originally that she didn’t know about the Three Water entrenchment amendment being discussed in caucus, Eugenie Sage didn’t tell her, Mahuta didn’t tell her, Hipkins didn’t know, no one knew.

                 Now she says this morning “the team made a mistake”.

                 — Winston Peters (@winstonpeters) December 4, 2022
                 • Incognito …

                   5 December 2022 at 12:27 pm

                   Winston is being as slippery as Teflon-John in a bucket of snot because Ardern didn’t use those exact words, did she? But hey, it’s SM (Twitter) and everybody knows what he means so it is pretty ok to twist the words a little to create one’s preferred narrative.
                   • Poission …

                     5 December 2022 at 12:35 pm

                     Well what words did she use?

                     What I saw and heard on the post cabinet press conference,was the PM and Hitchens saying they were unaware that the amended entrenchment was in until it had been passed.

                     Mahuta said it had been discussed at the labour caucus,can both arguments be correct?
                   • Incognito []

                     5 December 2022 at 1:07 pm

                     It seems that Winston’s word is good enough for you and that you just lapped it up without fact-checking. Ardern never said those exact words, AFAIK, but what she did say is that the team takes one for the team and will fix it as a [united] team, i.e., without the scapegoating, finger-pointing, and public blaming & shaming that media and the opposition parties are so fond of – heads must roll – and Luxon is clearly like a bloodhound on that trail of irrelevancy. Perhaps that subtle difference is lost on you but surely not on that old fox Winston with his divisive tactics and rhetoric that suckered you in.

                     Perhaps you can find a recording with time stamp where Ardern used those exact words as asserted by Winston.

                     Anywho, this is not about what Mahuta said, but what Ardern said according to the Gospel of Peters, so please don’t divert.

                     PS who’s Hitchens? I thought he had died many years ago.
                   • Poission …

                     5 December 2022 at 1:31 pm

                     See links below,

                     The official line appears to be that the clause was cooked up by a Green MP and the Local Government Minister and inserted without the knowledge of just about everyone, including the prime minister, Cabinet, caucus and an army of Government advisers.

                     https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/300756061/three-waters-booby-trap-goes-against-no-surprises-rule?dicbo=v2-363076daca4f8073dfed66b5ea9c805f
                   • Incognito []

                     5 December 2022 at 1:46 pm

                     Are you confirming Winston’s tweeted Trumpian assertion? Or are you diverting away from that tweet that you posted before, like a tiny Trojan? It seems to me that you want to have your cake and eat it.

                     You have failed to provide a time stamp but this most likely is because you cannot back up Winston’s claim.
                   • Poission …

                     5 December 2022 at 2:11 pm

                     I am not diverting from the tweet,the PM and the leader of the house stated they were unaware last monday ( that is a week ago see calenders they provide time lines eg a week = 7 days )

                     Peters is voicing what is widely reported,that they said they were unaware of the amendment.

                     The order paper was agreed between Green MP Eugenie Sage and Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta, according to Sage. But Minister Chris Hipkins, Labour’s Leader of the House, said he wasn’t aware of the party seeking a 60% majority threshold on the issue. Ardern said the change to the law was made “in real time” and wasn’t something “I would necessarily be aware of”.

                     https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/130602209/the-constitutional-spat-over-a-lastminute-controversial-change-to-three-waters-bill?rm=a
                   • Incognito []

                     5 December 2022 at 3:25 pm

                     Is “Peters is voicing” a euphemism for putting words into the PM’s mouth? If so, you seem quite ok with that. If not, where is his quote coming from, with time stamp, please?

                     You posted that Trumpian tweet, and you’ve been running away from it faster than Luxon flips burgers and does U-turns on statements.

                     No self-respecting TS commenter would willingly do the dirty work of and for Winston Peters.
                   • Poission …

                     5 December 2022 at 4:05 pm

                     Sorry do you not understand what has been reported from the press conference in the links provided,which include the segments from the PM.

                     Do you understand what aware is ? what would the statements mean

                     The order paper was agreed between Green MP Eugenie Sage and Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta, according to Sage. But Minister Chris Hipkins, Labour’s Leader of the House, said he wasn’t aware of the party seeking a 60% majority threshold on the issue. Ardern said the change to the law was made “in real time” and wasn’t something “I would necessarily be aware of”.

                     The order paper was agreed between Green MP Eugenie Sage and Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta, according to Sage. But Minister Chris Hipkins, Labour’s Leader of the House, said he wasn’t aware of the party seeking a 60% majority threshold on the issue. Ardern said the change to the law was made “in real time” and wasn’t something “I would necessarily be aware of”

                     So Peters is suggesting that the PM was unaware (which the PM also stated as did the leader of the house)

                     I cannot see your argument for falsification,ill posed as it was, as any dictionary will show what unaware is.If you argument is different from my assumptions,( or the dictionary definitions) or the reported detail,maybe you should explain it more clearly,where there is an ambiguity.
                   • Incognito []

                     5 December 2022 at 5:02 pm

                     And now you have changed it to “Peters is suggesting” 😀

                     No wonder you cannot provide a time stamp to support the fake quote by Peters that you spread all too happily.

                     We, or at least I, expect Peters’ rhetoric to be too unreliable to take at face value. It seems that your comments have reached the same standard of truthiness.
                   • Poission …

                     5 December 2022 at 5:56 pm

                     It was a live press conference,like the one this afternoon,where at 4.35 pm NZDST the PM mentioned the SOP in passing,and said we will not be focussing on an individual,the caucus has undertaken a collective responsibility (which includes retrenchment) similar to cabinet responsibilites.

                     The reporting of last weeks press conference has been shown in the available links across this thread of which you seem unaware of.

                     The alternative assumption that the PM was aware of what was being proposed in the SOP,seems to be what you are arguing for,which seems very strange,and a political landmine i would argue.

                     The argument is the PM was either aware of the reduced number in the SOP (for without reduction entrenchment was dead in the water) or unaware,without any other evidence I will take her and the leaders quoted answers,
                   • Incognito []

                     5 December 2022 at 6:34 pm

                     It was a live press conference,like the one this afternoon,where at 4.35 pm NZDST the PM mentioned the SOP in passing …

                     Thank you but where is your link to the recording “like” the recording that I’ve been asking for since the cows left home?

                     And this was after the tweet by Peters! So, irrelevant.

                     I’m not aware of what the PM is or is not aware of.

                     However, I’m aware of Peter’s misleading tweet containing a fake quote that you wilfully linked to here on TS to spin a narrative of “wilful misdirection” on behalf of the PM.

                     The irony is that you have been obfuscating and diverting from your own contribution to and role in spreading Peter’s nefarious spin as if you are unaware of it: Peters this, Peters that, Peters whatever …

                     I think Peters will be mightily happy with your efforts here and I almost expect him to pop up here and like your comments.
                   • Poission …

                     5 December 2022 at 7:18 pm

                     The misdirection was saying that there was a probability of privatizing the water assets by the nat/act,when the only statements i have heard was a repeal of the legislation

                     I’m not aware of what the PM is or is not aware of.

                     Checks dictionary. Are you aware of the PM statements

                     So the PM was not aware of the reduced % of the entrenchment provisions and the leader of the house was not either (until after the event) as the SOP novel approach was introduced in real time.

                     The order paper was agreed between Green MP Eugenie Sage and Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta, according to Sage. But Minister Chris Hipkins, Labour’s Leader of the House, said he wasn’t aware of the party seeking a 60% majority threshold on the issue. Ardern said the change to the law was made “in real time” and wasn’t something “I would necessarily be aware of”.

                     https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/130602209/the-constitutional-spat-over-a-lastminute-controversial-change-to-three-waters-bill?rm=a
                   • Incognito []

                     5 December 2022 at 9:11 pm

                     Are you aware of the PM statements

                     Are you and Winston Peters aware of what the PM said and has not said? Peters seems happy enough to create his own narrative and you seem happy enough to spread it around as factual.

                     I’m sure you can correct this misdirection by a link with time stamp but you have not done so, which begs the questions what is stopping you and why are you spreading Peters’ BS assertions that belong on Twitter. (NB I love the blue check mark on Peters’ account, which shows it comes from the genuine spin-master)
                   • Poission …

                     5 December 2022 at 10:58 pm

                     Yes you are correct Incognito,Winston was using misdirection and I was mistaken,she must have known all along that the reduced % for retrenchment would be introduced by stealth (by means of an SPO) as it was discussed at caucus therefore full responsibility lies with the PM for unsignalled legislation under urgency,with all the constitutional problems it entailed.

                     BTW speaking of blue ticks,Apple just confirmed their advertising on twitter.
                   • Incognito []

                     6 December 2022 at 8:33 am

                     One of the problems with the dogmatic obsession of neoliberals on personal responsibility is the fixation on blaming, isolating, and punishing individuals for perceived misdemeanours and faux pas. Perhaps this is also the reason why neoliberals always stress [about] transparency and accountability, especially of civil servants, so that they can better aim & target individuals doing their job (and making mistakes).

                     Musk will be over the moon with Apple, if it is true what you say.
                 • weka …

                   5 December 2022 at 1:04 pm

                   you're relying on Peters for your political information?
                   • Poission …

                     5 December 2022 at 1:20 pm

                     Actually I was using the PM and Hipkins when they stated that they were unaware of the novel use of an entrenchment provision.

                     It is also in the MSM,if you followed.

                     Last week, Hipkins said he did not know Sage had proposed to set entrenchment at 60%. She had to do so to get her provision across the line, because the National Party did not support it.

                     …. Ardern said last week was not familiar with Sage’s provision, as she wasn’t in the House when it was voted on. But Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta confirmed to Stuff that this was discussed in a caucus meeting which Ardern attended.

                     https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/130660392/a-mistake-controversial-three-waters-entrenchment-clause-to-go

                     https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/300756061/three-waters-booby-trap-goes-against-no-surprises-rule?dicbo=v2-363076daca4f8073dfed66b5ea9c805f
                   • weka []

                     5 December 2022 at 1:42 pm

                     it’s a big mess, and I’m not sure anyone knows what happened. Much of the discussion on SM and MSM has at times conflated the entrenchment itself with the %. I have stopped following because it’s crazy making. Let me know if you find a timeline though, that would be very useful.
                   • Belladonna …

                     5 December 2022 at 3:03 pm

                     No one should rely on Peters. But if you're looking for someone to encapsulate the zeitgeist – he's pretty much always bang on the money.

                     He's a past master of seeing a popular movement and nipping over to place himself at the head of it.

                     What he says – a heck of a lot of people are thinking…..

                     Ardern is coming across as evasive in her answers.
             • Sanctuary …

               5 December 2022 at 12:54 pm

               Lew is your classic very serious person, thinking he is a "moderate liberal" who is in fact almost entirely a neoliberal apologist. He demands elite debate be framed by norms of middle class politeness and dislikes the vulgar and disruptive nature of both the left and the right. Above all, he constantly gives the technocratic establishment the benefit of the doubt.
         • Sanctuary 2.1.3.1.3

           5 December 2022 at 11:12 am

           Labour needs to ask itself a simple political quesion – how many votes do pearl clutching centrists and legal academics command? Then once they’ve worked out they are onto a vote winner tell them all to fuck off, they are the government and they have decided to entrench the protection of water as a public asset. They can take their constitutional concerns over "fettering parliament" and shove it.

           If they don't like it they can climb down from their ivory towers to join the opposition and campaign to repeal the entrenchment of public ownership of water.

           Let's see how many votes telling the public they don't mind private corporations (even Maori ones!!!!) "fetterring parliament's ability to decide" once water has been privatised gets them.
           • RedLogix 2.1.3.1.3.1

             5 December 2022 at 1:47 pm

             The fundamental contradiction here is that:

             • The provision of water supply requires operational amalgamation in order to deliver a fully modern and efficient service.

             • But the public also sense that consolidation from a governance perspective makes the asset more vulnerable to privatisation.

             There is some merit in having water assets owned by a hodge-podge of many local councils – it keeps control diffuse and difficult to sell. Sage's ill-fated entrenchment provision was an attempt to resolve this contradiction. Potentially a good idea, but constitutionally fatally flawed.

             The compromise path left now is something like the Wellington Water model, when the regional organisation operates the asset and local councils still clearly own them. It is not ideal, but it is a way to square this particular circle.
             • SPC …

               5 December 2022 at 3:00 pm

               The problem remains one where councils have debt ceilings and an inability to finance the required investment without significant rate increases.

               Some (lack of ratepayers) councils cannot afford the upgrades at all and some urban councils have a lot of old infrastructure to upgrade all at once (and this is beyond debt ceiling capacity).

               Each need government assistance – one the money, and the other bridging finance. There is also the issue of national planning as to scheduling because of capability constraints (skilled workers and interface with Treasury and RB as to economic activity levels).

               And if that was not difficult enough, there is the issue of Maori water rights.
               • RedLogix …

                 5 December 2022 at 3:09 pm

                 I agree. In other words a total mess of our own making; the past is holding the future hostage.
           • Belladonna 2.1.3.1.3.2

             5 December 2022 at 2:58 pm

             If you characterize the Centrist voters as "pearl clutching centriststs" – you've pretty definitively lost them. Bad news. Centrist voters decide elections.
           • Corey Humm 2.1.3.1.3.3

             5 December 2022 at 5:42 pm

             Agree 100%

             A labour party that was the voice of the people and wasn't filled with almost exclusively academics, neoliberal apologists and the over educated professional managerial class technocrats wouldn't back down to outraged academics and would realize that actually keeping water from being privatized is a vote winner and tell the ivory tower brigade to gtfo.

             Unfortunately labours parliamentary wing is full to the brim with those same technocratic ivory tower voices , a labour party with more diversity of class would have come up with a far more populist and popular alternative to to protect water and water assets, three waters is the fever dream of the very academics and pmcs outraged by entrenchment because many of them probably want the water bundled up so it can be sold off in the first place.
             • gsays …

               5 December 2022 at 7:56 pm

               Spot on Corey.

               Access to polling probably hasn't helped in the courage department.
       • Incognito 2.1.3.2

         5 December 2022 at 5:16 pm

         Whatever they do, e.g., binding or non-binding referendum, all paths lead through Parliament.
3. Adrian 3

   5 December 2022 at 11:00 am

   It may be a bit early to say that a strategic retreat is a mistake, take this to committee and whose the villain then? When National and Act don’t support Entrenchment then who is framed as wanting free reign to privatise water. This may well be the cleverest political move of the year.
   • Patricia Bremner 3.1

     5 December 2022 at 11:26 am

     Yes I thought so Adrian. It is "before the courts" so to speak. So many have decried it, I thought, perhaps I've misread.
   • Belladonna 3.2

     5 December 2022 at 11:34 am

     It seems unlikely to be a clever political move (at least by Labour)- as both Ardern and Hipkins have come out saying that entrenchment was a "mistake" which will result in the bill being returned to committee to have the provision removed before it goes back to Parliament.

     https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/480046/three-waters-government-announces-it-will-remove-entrenchment-clause-from-legislation

     https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/480101/ardern-on-government-s-u-turn-on-three-waters-entrenchment-we-are-taking-this-as-a-team

     It may well be a clever political move by the Greens – who have placed their differences to Labour on this issue – front and centre with the electorate.
     • Patricia Bremner 3.2.1

       5 December 2022 at 11:40 am

       So Belladonna, do you think water should be a public good?
       • Belladonna 3.2.1.1

         5 December 2022 at 2:46 pm

         Patricia. Do you think that political parties should use entrenchment in areas other than constitutional ones (i.e. election law)?

         The problem for Labour is that they've moved the debate from water reform to constitutional law – where they are on very shaky ground, indeed. Hence the rapid back-pedalling.
         • Shanreagh 3.2.1.1.1

           5 December 2022 at 4:22 pm

           Pssst You didn't answer Patricia's question but countered with one of your own.

           Here is the original question

           So Belladonna, do you think water should be a public good?
           • Ed 3.2.1.1.1.1

             5 December 2022 at 5:21 pm

             Belladona will not answer.

             We can assume the answer is no.
             • Belladonna …

               5 December 2022 at 8:47 pm

               Yanno. Other people have a life – that doesn't involve being online 24/7.

               See the answer above.
           • Belladonna 3.2.1.1.1.2

             5 December 2022 at 8:43 pm

             Oh, I'm happy to answer. It was just that the question had nothing to do with the actual substance of what was being discussed – Labour's backdown (and effectively admitting they were wrong) over the attempt to entrench something other than constitutional law.

             No one has been discussing whether water should be a public good.

             Typically, things which are regarded as 'public good' have no individual cost associated with them.

             https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics)

             That is not the case for water – I regularly pay water rates and usage charges for the privilege of having a clean and sanitary water supply (and since I live in Auckland, am getting a fairly good deal)

             There are definitely associated benefits for part-payment for water usage (those areas which have this, have much lower overall usage of water per-household, than those areas for which it is rolled into the general rates).

             If you are asking whether water-supply and infrastructure should be maintained in public ownership, yes, of course I think it should be. As does every political party in NZ. Talk about a straw man argument!

             If you are asking if I agree with the establishment of a massive additional layer of bureaucracy, and removal of decision-making from the people who pay for it – then, no, I do not. I think water infrastructure should remain under the control of locally elected representatives.
             • RedLogix …

               5 December 2022 at 10:15 pm

               That is not the case for water – I regularly pay water rates and usage charges for the privilege of having a clean and sanitary water supply

               One way of looking at this is that you are not so much paying for the water itself, but the provision and disposal of it in a safe and reliable manner.

               Personally I think John Key had it right on this – that no-one owns water. Every single molecule migrates through vast, ceaseless hydrological cycles across the entire biosphere. It is no more realistic to allocate ownership title to water than it is to air.

               The only reason why we even incorrectly think water might be ownable is that unlike air, it is transiently visible in locations like rivers, lakes and reservoirs.

               The collection, delivery and disposal of safe reliable water is akin to someone filling a dive tank with compressed air – you are not buying title or ownership of the air, you are purchasing a specialised service that happens to deliver air in a clean compressed form.

               The confusion arises when we a start to use pricing mechanisms to allocate scarce freshwater resources for agriculture or bottling. In this instance water is priced not in order to convey title, but to protect it from the tragedy of the commons and preserve it as a public good. A public good that is the concern of everyone – represented by the State.
               • Belladonna …

                 5 December 2022 at 10:36 pm

                 Oh, I agree – that's why I specifically said paying for water supply.

                 Probably closer to the definition of a 'common good' than a 'public good'
                 As, certainly in times of drought, usage by one individual impacts on the ability of others to access water.

                 And, pricing impacts on usage. We've seen lots of evidence in NZ that areas which have water costs rolled into general rates – or even a separate water rate – have much higher individual usage, than those areas which meter water, and charge for water actually used by the household. IMHO – reducing water waste is a good outcome.

                 While I agree that no one 'owns' water – the management of the resource needs to be done at a 'commons' level. Where the Labour Party and I disagree is the governmental level at which that 'commons' should operate.
               • lprent …

                 5 December 2022 at 10:42 pm

                 One way of looking at this is that you are not so much paying for the water itself, but the provision and disposal of it in a safe and reliable manner.

                 The majority of which is in the cost of capital to provide the facilities to provide it and especially to clean up before disposal. It is almost entirely overhead costs. Generally the direct production costs are all in handling the waste water. Which is why in Auckland the waste water processing charges are more than double the tap water charges.

                 One of the problems with agriculture as an industry is that they don’t handle waste water very well, and frequently they don’t handle it at all. It just flows away with extra phosphates, nitrates, eroded soil, sprays, etc in a true tragedy of the commons and becomes someone else pollution problem. Or it seeps into groundwater or aquifers.

                 Most (but not all) of the other industries and cities have had curbs on polluting for many decades. It isn’t perfect, but it is regulated and does a reasonable and improving job. Needs a lot more work. For instance the recent changes to the Waikato river plan – which look at best like they barely change the river health over the next 80 years. I’d expect that the river will keep worsening under its provisions.

                 What farmers proclaim as being “excessive regulation” is simply them being pulled to account for polluting land use.
             • lprent …

               5 December 2022 at 10:53 pm

               No one has been discussing whether water should be a public good.

               Is untreated sewerage a public good? Because that is where the bulk of the capital investment required under 3 waters is going to go. It is also the vast majority of water treatment costs are incurred.

               Should we close off your toilet and let its waste spread over your lawn? I’d expect that to be unpopular as well.

               If you are asking whether water-supply and infrastructure should be maintained in public ownership, yes, of course I think it should be. As does every political party in NZ. Talk about a straw man argument!

               FFS: Water infrastructure includes water supply. However it also includes treatment of sewage water and what it carries and the handling (and often treatment) of storm waters.

               if you want to argue something then don’t pick the cheapest part of the whole water system (provision of palatable water) and promote that as being the only part of the system.
               • Belladonna …

                 5 December 2022 at 11:00 pm

                 I had no intention of separating out water supply from waste water (and, indeed, my water bills/rates cover both) – that's why I said and infrastructure..

                 As I said in reply to RedLogix – I think water infrastructure is probably closer to the definition of a 'common good' than a 'public good'
                 • lprent …

                   6 December 2022 at 6:11 pm

                   It is a common good that has to be paid for. It isn't free infrastructure.

                   I don't really give a damn if it is paid for by taxes (3waters), rates (current), or users (current). That is all the same thing. The problem is that the level of payment into water infrastructure is completely inadequate in almost every region (apart from maybe Auckland and Christchurch). The skills to put it in and maintain it are scattered and diffuse. And over the whole of NZ it is going backwards at a rate of knots.

                   Common good is effectively what the 3 waters is about – paying for the infrastructure with taxpayers credit because it has been under-invested for decades. There is no freaking way that most councils are up to the task of doing it better.

                   So 'common good' is getting worse. What is your solution for doing it properly. Or are you just going to be just another mindless whinging critic who waves their hand in the air rather than doing the hard work of looking for viable solutions?
               • Incognito …

                 6 December 2022 at 7:50 am

                 Should we close off your toilet and let its waste spread over your lawn? I’d expect that to be unpopular as well.

                 Depending on how far West you’re looking and what you’re looking for you may have come across properties with septic tanks. The more modern systems are quite advanced compared to the old gravity-based strain & drain systems in order to clean up the water before it goes onto your land.

                 Of course, the water standards are causing friction with farmers other rural polluters too.

                 There’s a good reason that Three Waters bundles these things together and is even considering the connection with and impact on coastal and geothermal waters too.
4. RP Mcmurphy 4

   5 December 2022 at 11:29 am

   government assets should have a constitutionally entrenched 75% vote for sale of these assets.
   • Patricia Bremner 4.1

     5 December 2022 at 11:42 am

     I agree. Key would not have been able to enrich himself and others through asset sales. I see he is positioning himself for the next "Fire Sale." by taking a Directorship in an entity Act intend to sell off.
     • Belladonna 4.1.1

       5 December 2022 at 2:52 pm

       Evidence that Key enriched himself through asset sales?

       If you have this, it would be a major scandal. IIRC, Key deliberately put his assets into a blind trust, so that he couldn't be accused of this kind of insider trading.
       • Shanreagh 4.1.1.1

         5 December 2022 at 4:30 pm

         Good old Key, good old Watson, Fay & Richwhite etc. Top NZers with an eye to the main chance….oops too bad about the NZ assets. I wonder if they will still be around if NActs get in……perhaps they could work with The Treasury in an advisory capacity.

         NB colossal & heavy sarc.
       • aj 4.1.1.2

         5 December 2022 at 6:55 pm

         IIRC, Key deliberately put his assets into a blind trust

         It wasn't completely blind, didn't Key blurt that he was going to make good on some investment? I forget the details. Media let him away with it, as usual.
       • Patricia Bremner 4.1.1.3

         5 December 2022 at 7:53 pm

         His involvement in Mossack Fonseca and the Panama Papers scandal . The giving of Citizenship to Thiel by Nathan Guy (when he did not qualify.) The bottles of wine he gave to reporters.( from his "Blind Trust" winery. )The BBQs with some questionable characters. Sleaze really. He sold off a huge number of our assets and state houses. There is more…. but it won't sway you.
         • Belladonna 4.1.1.3.1

           5 December 2022 at 8:24 pm

           You, however, asserted that Key benefitted personally from this. I'm still waiting for the evidence….

           Disliking someone's political actions – even feeling they are unethical – is one thing, accusing them of corruption is another.

           The only politician for whom we have fairly open evidence of this is Winston Peters – substantial donations from the fishing industry followed by canning cameras on fishing boats; substantial donations from the racing industry followed by 'pretty horses' tax breaks.

           I'm perfectly willing to be swayed by evidence – but you've yet to provide any.
           • roblogic 4.1.1.3.1.1

             6 December 2022 at 6:29 am

             Key's Parnell mansion was sold for around double its CV to mysterious foreign buyers.

             He was part of an attack on the NZD that threatened a currency crisis.

             His government manipulated the housing market to the benefit of shady interests.

             And of course the Panama Papers stuff.

             Plus, the rumours surrounding his decision to quit while in office.
             • Belladonna …

               6 December 2022 at 8:42 am

               So, apart from the sale of his house – IIRC at a time when most houses were selling in that area for well above CV – and after he exited from Government – it's all stuff that you disapprove of, rather than actual evidence that he benefitted personally from government policies.

               Rumour and innuendo.

               Given the keen interest in him, if there were anything to find, I'd think it would have been found, and well aired in the media, by now.

               I don't deny that elements benefitted from the policies of his government (just as elements have benefitted from the policies of this government). I agree that you can make a case that some of the decisions his government made were …. less than optimal [I don't think that the Panama Papers incident casts a favourable light on Key]

               But there is (apparently) no evidence that he was personally corrupt – and personally benefitted through government asset sales – which is what Patricia was alleging: "enrich himself and others through asset sales."
               • roblogic …

                 6 December 2022 at 10:29 pm

                 he just happened to benefit from all these convenient coincidences, but he is lily white

                 sorry, I don't buy it

                 cui bono
                 • Belladonna …

                   6 December 2022 at 10:39 pm

                   Indeed – look for the benefit.

                   But you still haven't established that there was any personal benefit to Key. Let alone any personal benefit from asset sales – which was Patricia's initial contention.

                   By all means, dislike his policies and the effects that you see on NZ society and economy from them – but accusing him of personal corruption (without evidence) seems to me to be a step too far.
               • roblogic …

                 6 December 2022 at 10:31 pm

                 That is the problem with white collar criminals.. they know how to use the system and cover their tracks.
   • JO 4.2

     5 December 2022 at 4:37 pm

     Yes. And what's the betting that more than 75% of voters would happily entrench any law banning bottled water exports?

     Too hard with all the different FT agreements?
     How would NZ be punished?
     Which of the usual earnest performers would trumpet specious excuses about Threats to Business?

     Are we mice or lions?
   • aj 4.3

     5 December 2022 at 10:17 pm

     Government assets should have a constitutionally entrenched 75% vote for sale of these assets

     I agree

     government assets = public assets.
5. SPC 5

   5 December 2022 at 3:11 pm

   The PM has not helped move forward the Radio NZ/TVNZ merger by suggesting that RNZ might not survive if it did not go ahead. RNZ only needs continued government funding to do that and to suggest an inability to continue to afford such a limited radio network outside of a merger inspires little confidence as to more major problems facing New Zealand.

   It seems the current strategy is to infer the merger is both a way to save money and yet also provide the basis for some enhanced effort at maintaining some cultural identity infrastructure.
   • Belladonna 5.1

     5 December 2022 at 8:32 pm

     Nor has it been helped by Willie Jackson in an utterly chaotic interview – where he was completely unable to articulate the benefits, and appeared to threaten editorial independence.

     I know Jackson shoots from the lip – but it really doesn't help Ardern, when she has to step in to downplay concerns caused by poor communication (poor, at best) from one of her ministers

     https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/130674385/pm-steps-in-after-concerns-raised-from-willie-jacksons-rnztvnz-merger-interview
     • SPC 5.1.1

       5 December 2022 at 8:47 pm

       Jackson was trying to say that a further fall back in TVNZ standards (as a public broadcaster) might see Jack Tame unleased into the reality TV world, rather than on politicians. It would have helped if there was some indication as to how the planned merger would prevent that.
       • Belladonna 5.1.1.1

         5 December 2022 at 8:50 pm

         Goodness knows what Jackson was trying to say. Absent a mind-reader, I think we will never know.
         • aj 5.1.1.1.1

           5 December 2022 at 10:19 pm

           Has he been taking interview lessons from Winston Peters?
           • Belladonna 5.1.1.1.1.1

             5 December 2022 at 10:39 pm

             Well, I haven't seen any sign-boards yet….

             https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/peters-no-sign-fetches-10600/TLHTAQFCTPVELQNJAKI775GYWE/
6. rod 6

   5 December 2022 at 4:57 pm

   RNZ news casts lately, sound more like party political broadcasts, on behalf of the National Party. day after day. imho.
   • Ed 6.1

     5 December 2022 at 5:06 pm

     All of NZ's mainstream media parrots the neoliberal mantra.
   • Patricia Bremner 6.2

     5 December 2022 at 7:28 pm

     Many who run it, work there or contribute are right wing, so no surprise.
   • Belladonna 6.3

     5 December 2022 at 8:28 pm

     Meanwhile, Willie Jackson is lauding RNZ as the model that TVNZ needs to follow.

     https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/damien-venuto-rnz-tvnz-merger-and-the-problem-with-willie-jacksons-comments/W52HZELSN3IWZJ5YBXJBFVBWFQ/
7. David Kennedy 7

   5 December 2022 at 5:41 pm

   I am interested in thoughts around the real danger of applying an entrenchment clause for legislation intended to protect core resources or infrastructure. Based on historical evidence it appears to me that the current 51% needed to pass legislation is not a strong enough mandate in many situations: https://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.com/2022/12/is-3-waters-entrenchment-really-stupid.html
   • pat 7.1

     5 December 2022 at 5:46 pm

     If you support democracy then entrenchment should remain a constitutional tool…i.e. we require super majorities to protect the act of democracy.

     It is dangerous to (and anti democratic) move super majorities into general legislation as it is an attempt to hobble future electorates.
     • David Kennedy 7.1.1

       5 December 2022 at 5:49 pm

       Did you read my post that I linked to before responding?
       • pat 7.1.1.1

         5 December 2022 at 5:57 pm

         No…my reasoning will be the same but I shall read it now.

         I have read it and my opinion is only strengthened…the foolish notion that entrenchment will only ever be used for beneficial acts is delusional…especially when considering unintended consequences….nobody has a working crystal ball
         • David Kennedy 7.1.1.1.1

           5 December 2022 at 6:07 pm

           So you are happy with a 51% mandate for decisions of major national interest that would be difficult to reverse?

           Most of the organisations (unions etc) that I have been involved with would never consider 51% as a mandate for major change.

           Why should we tolerate this for parliament?
           • pat 7.1.1.1.1.1

             5 December 2022 at 6:29 pm

             Im happy (and demanding of) with a 50 % plus 1 acceptance of legislation in our Parliament…that allows future voters the reasonable opportunity to fix previous fuck ups

             If the majority desire it we have agreed that is how we wish to run things.
             • David Kennedy …

               5 December 2022 at 8:49 pm

               Some "fuck ups" can be too hard to undo. How can another government easily reverse a sale of a state asset into overseas ownership?
               • pat …

                 6 December 2022 at 4:26 am

                 You are aware of parliamentary sovereignty?

                 Parliament can renationalise assets within its borders should it deem it necessary/beneficial to do so.
           • Belladonna 7.1.1.1.1.2

             5 December 2022 at 8:58 pm

             I think that the requirement for 75% agreement for major change would have the effect of stifling all change. How realistic is it that any Government will muster that number to agree on anything – apart from the most anodyne legislation?
             Even the current Labour government – with an unprecedented-in-MMP-times majority, and supported by the Green party – can only muster 60%. I would be very surprised to see any future government mustering anything like 60% of the House.

             How far do you think they'd get with any of their major legislative changes (centralizing the Health Boards, 3 Waters, TVNZ/RNZ merger – to just name 3) – if they had to negotiate with National over the legislation? All of those 3 could certainly be argued to be 'major' changes.
     • Anker 7.1.2

       5 December 2022 at 5:58 pm

       Agree Pat
       • David Kennedy 7.1.2.1

         5 December 2022 at 6:05 pm

         I thought I provided some sound arguments in my linked post, happy to respond to the substance.
         • Shanreagh 7.1.2.1.1

           6 December 2022 at 9:09 am

           You did David.

           Those who don't want to respond are heavily in the camp of don't let's change what has gone before ie so entrenchment has traditionally been used for constitutional matters, oh heavens don't change a thing'

           rather than saying/pondering

           Accepting its traditional use is there a case to have it cover other public/common goods such as access to fresh water, disposal of human waste?

           At least asking and answering the question. Democracy is great but it relies on people. Sick or dead people from polluted water etc doesn't seem such a good future for democracy. People who cannot afford to access water because of costs imposed by a possibly privatised water supply do not have democracy at the top of their minds, survival is more likely.

           Why is the question at least not asked, explored etc? What is the danger of that?
           • tinderdry6 7.1.2.1.1.1

             6 December 2022 at 7:17 pm

             You're arguing around in circles. Entrenching public ownership isn't going to guarantee access to affordable water supply, or that people won't get sick or die from polluted water. Whether or not water should be in public or private hands is a policy decision that elected governments should be able to make on the basis of their assessment of the best interests of the country. Just like 3Waters, merging RNZ and TVNZ and any other major policy decision.
8. swordfish 8

   5 December 2022 at 7:40 pm

   .

   Series of huge, violent slams from the malevolently sadistic social housing neighbour on the other side of my 91 & 92 yo parents dividing-wall over a 2 hour period this afternoon & early evening. They’ve been forced to endure 5 years of this Nightmare.

   And kept awake until 3am on Saturday night / Sunday morning with same violent, intimidatory behaviour + stereo at full volume with aggressive MoFo lyrics.

   Thanks to the current Govt for their No Eviction policy … your core supporters really appreciate being thrown to the wolves … while you & your highly privileged Woke cadre devise ways to romanticise the wolves & reframe them as victims in order to enhance your in-group social prestige.

   Cheers for the sadism towards very elderly people who've spent their lives self-sacrificing for others (incl election day activism for Labour over an almost 40 year period), cheers for the ruthless self-interest & rank cowardice, cheers for treating some of the most socially-minded, caring people like animals to be viciously used & abused.

   You’re slowly but surely killing them through extreme stress & sleep deprivation.
   • Cricklewood 8.1

     5 December 2022 at 9:15 pm

     Really sorry to hear the saga is ongoing and unresolved it's an absolute disgrace.
   • RedLogix 8.2

     5 December 2022 at 9:39 pm

     You need to get this behaviour on record.
     • swordfish 8.2.1

       8 December 2022 at 10:16 pm

       .

       Cheers, Red.

       My ancient smart phone (born 2012) proved absolutely useless … couldn't even remotely deal with the mongrel's violent slamming into the dividing wall / driving heavy objects with full force into both the floor & walls / highly aggressive haka-like stomping … too many decibels … just couldn't handle it.

       To give you an idea of the level of noise (& the sheer degree of aggression & violence that went into it), I'll point to two aspects.

       (1) My parents' long-standing neighbours across the road (who have given massive support, frequently rung the police & given testimonials about his behaviour at meetings with KO) live about 20 metres from the mongrel neighbour's unit … & in response to his extreme noise late at night & throughout the early hours they had their bedroom windows double-glazed last year. And yet, despite that, this violent anti-social's full-scale slamming inside through the early hours is so extreme that the neighbours across the road are frequently woken at 2, 3, 4am. So just imagine what it's like for my 91 / 92 yo parents just metres away from the sadistic prick on the other side of the (non-soundproof) dividing wall. And they have to live with all the swearing & threats through the wall as well.

       (2) Late last year, my parents rang me around 2:30am during yet another major explosion of violent intimidation from this fuckhead (I was on chemo, of course), I arrived 25 mins later, parked my car in their driveway (at the other end of their house from the neighbouring unit) & before I even got out of the car I could hear what sounded like my parents house being demolished from the inside. Fucking HUGE violent constant slams. Like builders demolishing an old inner-city building from the inside.

       Then I paid around $180 for an audio recorder with small external microphones that was advertised as being good … had high hopes that I'd finally be able to get the sheer magnitude of the prick's violence on to social media … because people will be absolutely bloody shocked if they heard it. It's one thing writing about it, but if people heard that visceral violence inflicted on very elderly people, I think it would develop into a real scandal.

       But although the audio recorder was adequate for getting his aggressive rants outside their house throughout the early hours … swearing at the top of his voice & threatening violence … it was just as useless as the phone when it came to the violent explosions inside … rendered each huge slam etc as a kind of slow-motion hollow noise. Again, not sophisticated enough to deal with the decibels. So a waste of time & money in that regard.

       But I do have a number of his early morning violent/threatening rants outside their house recorded. Here's just a little bit of a transcript of his rant from a couple of months ago that took place between 1:30-3am. It was aimed largely at me on this occasion … I arrived in the late evening to stay a night with them & he obviously noticed my car when he turned up after 1am … straight outside my parents' house, shouting lot's of threats of violence & wanting to fight me (haven't spoken to him since intitially confronting him in late 2018 after he started focussing his violence on my parents) … verbatim segement of transcript from around 2:30am:

       "What the fuck !!! … what the fuck !!! …Come over here and I will smash metal right through your fucking head, cunt !!! … shut the fuck up !!! … I will fucking smash you cunt !!!"

       On top of these recordings, I also have diary-like entries (pen on paper) for all of his violence, intimidation & the severe sleep deprivation forced on my parents … there's been so much of this behaviour that it runs to a very large number of pages … dates, times, full details (from my parents, from the neighbours & from my own witnessing of events), when the police or noise control have had to be called and so on. So there's a very rich source of info on his behaviour.

       And yet still no consequences for the fucker.
       • Anker 8.2.1.1

         9 December 2022 at 10:03 am

         Would you consider going to the media? No need to answer Swordfish.

         There would be pros and cons obviously. The guy should be in prison .
         • hetzer 8.2.1.1.1

           9 December 2022 at 3:00 pm

           I would have thought the Zoo appropriate, maybe it could learn some tricks for folks to watch on their visits
         • swordfish 8.2.1.1.2

           11 December 2022 at 4:59 pm

           .

           Would you consider going to the media?

           Thanks for all your support, Anker … genuinely appreciate it.

           Yeah, I've definitely considered it & did make an approach (albeit a fairly tentative one) that ultimately proved unsuccessful.

           But I did have a productive on-going email conversation through Dec 2021 to Feb 2022 with a prominent senior lawyer who is looking at taking a class action against KO.

           She's an absolute god-send to all the powerless victims of this on-going Scandal (essentially, scapegoats of the affluent virtue-signaling, self-interested Pakeha Woke Grandees & the bitter & twisted Poto Williams of this world … see how they care about the most violent, sadistic out-of-control members of the underclass from their safe middle-class enclaves many miles from the mayhem they've directly enabled … does that not demonstrate beyond doubt their "uniquely-refined moral sensibilities" for all the common soldiery to see ?).

           Lawyer was shocked by the detailed overview I gave her – felt it was absolutely horrific, which it is – & encouraged me to consider speaking about the situation (anonymously) to either RNZ or Newstalk ZB as a way of publicising it & hopefully forcing some sort of resolution.

           Was very tempted but, as I pointed out, I was on full chemo at the time (both infusion & tablets) and hence regularly experiencing "Chemo Fog" (which is a bit like trying to think when you've been deprived of sleep for 48 hours … a pretty common side-effect) … some rounds of chemo, I experienced little if any chemo fog but others I experienced a lot … and there was no telling when it was going to happen from one day to the next … no clear pattern … no way of predicting. So it would've been a disaster if I was scheduled to speak (possibly live ?) on radio on a particular day & time and happened to have that excessive mental tiredness on that day.

           Given the circs, I felt going to the print media would've been better … providing a detailed overview (full dates, times, detail of all of his major explosions … although so much day-after-day violent & anti-social behaviour, so much severe sleep deprivation & stress for them over the last 5 years that it would've been difficult to encapsulate it in a very concise way … would’ve had to go for a very broad overview with just a handful of illustrative examples to keep it readable & concise).

           But The Herald is probably the only realistic option … Stuff (& thus the local Dom Post) are so hopelessly, dogmatically Woke that I have doubts they'd even give a shite … would be at total odds with their core CRT narrative (reinforced by the ideological demands & profound editorial shaping of the Govt's public interest journalism fund).

           After a Herald journo wrote of yet another KO neighbourhood scandal earlier this year, I did email him & link to my outline of my parent's situation on my blog … but unfortunately didn't hear back … he'd obviously moved on to other things.

           So, real feeling of powerlessness.

           But then again, as our resident Moral Exemplar – our very own Nelson Mandela / MLK impersonator – the admirably dogmatic Greenie activist Muttonbird – opined from his safe middle class redoubt at the foot of Mt Wellington …

           You parents (sic) do have a house, pal. Surely that is something to be grateful for.
           • swordfish 8.2.1.1.2.1

             11 December 2022 at 5:39 pm

             .

             I should, incidentally, at this point publicly acknowledge & massively thank both Tom Hunter at Yes Minister & David Farrar at Kiwiblog.

             Both gentlemen published blog posts on my parents' situation. And I greatly appreciate it.

             Tom was the first to publish & provided great moral support & mentioned their situation in a series of comments on a number of blogs.

             David Farrar didn't have to publish anything … there were plenty of Kainga Ora scandal stories breaking during that period … and given that just a few years earlier I'd published a post (read by almost 12k) that quite sarcastically criticised his (highly influential) polling analysis in the wake of the 2017 General Election … he could've quite happily ignored my parents' situation & still had plenty of ammunition against the Govt's social housing policy.

             But he did post on it & thus made it far more widely known (in the process, significantly enlarging the readership of my own blog post on my parents' nightmare to well over 4k … it’s a big moral boost when you know there are thousands of people who know the details of what this fucker has done).

             So I greatly appreciate both men's support & integrity, regardless of whether or not it upsets a few echo-chamber partisans here.
           • Anker 8.2.1.1.2.2

             12 December 2022 at 10:55 am

             Yes it takes a lot of effort persisting with the media and even more with legal action. It must have felt almost impossible to comtemplate when you were going through chemo. An worry that you and your parents should not be dealing with particularly when you were unwell.

             Our "caring" govt will be doing all it can to try and mop up any problematic stories in election year that don't fit the narrative of kindness. So it may be something that will have more impact in election year.

             You may not be in the space to comtemplate any sort of action on your parents behalf right now. I did a quick search and found the following Stuff journalists had written on anti social tenants in Kainga Ora houses.

             Amy Ridout 19/03/22

             Lucy Xia 19/01/21

             Jonathan Killick 25/06/22

             I agree that Stuff are so hopelessly woke though. They are the pr machine for Woke ideology trying to impart right think to the masses.

             RNZ – Raysa Almelda wrote on this. As did Bruce Edwards on The Democracy Project.

             I think Sean Plunkett would be very interested in your story (or even Michael Laws who is on the Platform). However The Platform is dismissed and discredited by the left, so it may not have the desired effect politically.

             Let me know if this is helpful and I will continue to search. I appreciate it may not be the right time for you.

             I do remember now about the legal action. Is that still on-going?

             I am very fortunate to live in a quiet neighbourhood and one of the things that I think would very seriously effect my quality of life would be an anti social neighbour moving in. That would be my worst nightmare. Having relative peace and quiet in your own home is just basic to good health and sanity.

             That was also one of the reasons I had very little sympathy for the Wellington elite (not the people who lived in appartments across from parliament) when the protestors were there. Of course the bureacrats and politicians could retreat to their peaceful living situations and even work from home to avoid the "river of filth". It seemed yet more rank hypocracy from the PMC, who don't give a dam about Rotorua and all the other anti social tenants ruining peoples lives.

             Keep posting with your descriptions of the PMC and the woke elites. I think some on this may not geniunely understand the threat that they present to the well being of our country, but a few of us do. I admire your ability with words.

             Cheers now

             Muttonbirds comments were seriously off. I would give him less than a day to put up with what your parents are going through and he would be squealing at the top of his lungs.
           • Sabine 8.2.1.1.2.3

             12 December 2022 at 11:24 am

             it sounds like gentrification by stealth. Put in unsuitable tenants in an area, let them wreck havoc until the good law abiding citizen give up and some government connected PPP developer comes along to buy up pennies to the dollars the houses from the people who have been terrorized by the state tenants.

             I am sure that other people in the same cirucmstances have been told to' just sell and move'?

             https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/11/homeowner-says-k-inga-ora-told-her-to-move-after-she-complained-about-disruptive-neighbours.html#:~:text=Housing-,Homeowner%20says%20K%C4%81inga%20Ora%20told%20her%20to,she%20complained%20about%20disruptive%20neighbours&text=An%20Auckland%20homeowner%20who%20says,a%20complaint%20to%20the%20Ombudsman.

             An Auckland homeowner who says she was advised to sell up and move out to get away from unruly Kāinga Ora neighbours has taken a complaint to the Ombudsman.
       • Anker 8.2.1.2

         9 December 2022 at 11:19 am

         Swordfish, I don't know what sort of support you have around you. I would be happy to help e.g letters to MPs, protest outside kainga Ora or donation of money for recording equipment or legal action.

         I am not sure what of these options could work, but others on the site seem to have some good ideas.

         Its an absolute outrage. My peace and quiet in my home is really important to me and it is hard for me to imagine how your parents have coped with this. Of course they shouldn't never have had to. Once this a…hole showed his true colours, very early on, that should have been it! Out. Gone. It is likely Kainga Ora knew before they placed him there there would be problems. B…tards. And then those PMC types banged on about the Parliamentary protest and how awlful it was for them having these people at their workplace.

         https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/12/jacinda-ardern-says-parliament-protest-was-one-of-most-challenging-parts-of-year-she-worried-about-people-s-safety.html. And this from JA. But it falls on deaf ears for me
   • Anker 8.3

     5 December 2022 at 9:46 pm

     Just disgraceful that this atrocious behaviour by your parents neighbours wasn't stopped (via eviction) from the get go. No one should have to put up with this.

     The guy is an ar….hole and so are the people who administer his tennancy and those above them who are likely very, very busy attending meetings and diversity and inclusion workshops and not worrying too much about the cost of living crisis because they are abundantly paid for this disgrace.
   • Shanreagh 8.4

     6 December 2022 at 9:18 am

     Swordfish this is terrible.

     I am wondering if there could be a case for seeking injunctive relief, as a shot across the bows. The mere action of doing this may force some action. What I was thinking was whether there are public interest lawyers who would be able to draft something up pro bono. This could be served/lodged as a way to initiate action.

     If there are costs I am sure that some of us would happily make a contribution according to our means. I would.

     Other things, you've probably done these things

     a) asking local MP to intervene, ask questions of the minister

     b) picket KO offices
     • SPC 8.4.1

       6 December 2022 at 10:52 am

       The issue in law pertains to legislation applying to landlord responsibility.
       • Shanreagh 8.4.1.1

         6 December 2022 at 3:14 pm

         I am well aware of this.

         The threat of injunctive relief/publicity does tend to focus the mind of those who it is against though.
     • Anker 8.4.2

       9 December 2022 at 10:00 am

       Kind offer Shanreagh
   • Molly 8.5

     6 December 2022 at 10:17 am

     There was an update on the definition of anti-social behaviour in 2021. (Previously, it seemed a direct threat to someone or their family had to be made – and captured on tape/video).

     https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Tenancy/anti-social-behaviour-factsheet-a3.pdf

     What will be considered anti-social behaviour?
     Note: This is a new change to the law and this guidance is provided in good faith. It will be regularly reviewed and may be revised as future Tenancy Tribunal decisions provide greater clarity.

     General examples of behaviour that may be considered anti-social, depending on the situation, include:
     › loud, aggressive behaviour by tenants towards the neighbours or to each other if it reasonably causes alarm or distress to others
     › parking across a shared driveway repeatedly, especially if someone is not readily available to move the vehicle
     › leaving rubbish in shared areas/footpaths – the longer that it is not removed and the more dangerous or smelly the rubbish is, the more likely this will be viewed as anti-social behaviour that is more
     than minor
     › noise control callouts where a problem has been found
     › any intimidating behaviour, including ‘hate speech’ expressing hate or behaviour that encourages violence towards someone based on race, religion or sexual orientation
     › invasion of privacy by, for example, peeping or peering into someone’s home, including via CCTV, or loitering on someone else’s property
     › graffiti or other damage to a neighbour’s property or public property.

     Do your parents have any other options for accommodation at this time? (I know this is not a solution, just thinking they might need respite from the horrendous situation).
   • SPC 8.6

     6 December 2022 at 10:51 am

     It does raise the issue of landlord responsibility – generally those over 65 and families should expect a certain level of safety in their housing arrangements.
9. Anker 9

   9 December 2022 at 10:01 am

   Kind offer Shanreagh

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS