Open mike 06/06/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, June 6th, 2012 - 73 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 link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

73 comments on “Open mike 06/06/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Logie97 1
    6 June 2012 at 7:56 am

    Dearest Hekia

    We are particularly concerned about the plan to increase class sizes at our local primary
    school. The teaching staff are enthusiastic and motivated running interesting and engaging programmes for the children. The ERO reports have been outstanding.

    The teachers go out of their way to support the children and their families providing extra activities like Saturday morning sport and after-school care.

    The community are at a loss to know how an apparently arbitrary staffing figure is going to benefit the children and improve their outcomes when the school is going to lose at least one of these wonderful teachers.

    • prism 1.1
      6 June 2012 at 10:23 am

      With our deepest concern,
      Yours sincerely,
      NZ Advance combined team.

    • muzza 1.2
      6 June 2012 at 12:14 pm

      Did you send it to her as well as post that here?

    • Logie97 1.3
      7 June 2012 at 5:39 pm

      Dearest Hekia

      The community is delighted with your decision and thank you for listening to reason.
      Perhaps your colleagues will take notice of public opinion on many other matters.

  2. Monique Watson 2
    6 June 2012 at 8:34 am

    Wondering if any of yous fellas wants to pop over and critique my Superannuation proposal. And I know Pete George has a good round up of the bloggers individuals positions on Super at his place. he may have already pimped it here.
    Teacher numbers and Super would be the most topical political stories of this week.
    http://nowoccupy.blogspot.com/2012/06/superannuation-timebomb.html

    [lprent: removed the dup comment. ]

    • lprent 2.1
      6 June 2012 at 9:14 am

      I wouldn’t hold your breath. I was complaining about how demographically dumb our super system was in the long term when I was at university at age 18.

      The problem is that I’m now 53 and during that entire period only three things have happened. The super age raised to 65, Cullen started doing something sensible with the superannuation with prefunding the bulge before some conservative idiots killed it to pay for unsustainable tax cuts, and I paid a enormous pile of taxes for other peoples super.

      You now have quite a few generations who will be pretty damn irritated at attempts at changes because we have invested so damn much into the existing scheme over the decades because our idiot grandparents and parents thought it was a good deal (for them) and will vote accordingly. That includes me. If that means that you and your generations wind up paying more in taxes, then like me you will find it becomes your problem. I’d suggest that you start electing forward thinking governments and ignore idiot conservatives promising tax cuts because it just means more taxes later.

      The only effective way to handle it is to increase taxes to prefund the age bulge because everything else is just stupid.. I’d suggest that a capital gains tax and a more progressive tax system.

      Something like Kiwisaver will help longer term, but is frankly too little and too late for the age bulge. But will help with subsequent generations as the demographics tilt to a unbulged profile.

      • prism 2.1.1
        6 June 2012 at 10:34 am

        lprent
        You made the point about Kiwi super fund being frozen by the present government. To my mind, this is one of our big problems. A government institutes, after spendng a lot of taxes to plan and set it up, a program that begins to operate in a positive way and the next one cancels that, any gain is lost and the implementation spending is wasted.

        Two ideologies – one that wants to have better lives for all today but also build capability for the future in this country, and one that ignores the future and cares little about the ‘all’ today. But it is masterly at spreading confusion about its practices and motivation. National Party pretends it has great financial wisdom but actually wants to borrow and spend for their present personal advantage and if the country benefits at all, well that’s an accident and they fall on this in their PR as a deliberate outcome of their clever planning..

  3. Jackal 3
    6 June 2012 at 8:57 am

    Dirty dairying in New Zealand

    It costs ratepayers millions of dollars per year to take dirty dairy farmers to court. These costs should be met by the industry…

    • Bored 3.1
      6 June 2012 at 9:38 am

      As a trout fisher I see the effects of dairying in our streams PLUS the malign effects of cattle being grazed in river beds (they eat the native vegetation which native birds and insects etc live in, not to mention the underfoot damage and effluent). Its very hard to stop this as Regional Councils in rural areas are stacked full of farmers and the officials turn a blind eye.

      What river beds represent to farmers is supplemental grazing: my contention is that they should fence these areas off as they are public domain i.e they belong to you and me. To assume usage by right is theft. If farmers want to graze these areas they should pay, just as we do with road user charges etc. The money could be poured back into fencing with the goal of preventing stock being in the river bed ever again.

      • True Freedom is Self-Governance 3.1.1
        6 June 2012 at 9:51 am

        There must be thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who use our waterways ‘recreationally’. We need to unite to push this cause.

      • vto 3.1.2
        6 June 2012 at 10:12 am

        “Regional Councils in rural areas are stacked full of farmers ”

        Yep. And that is why Nick Smith advocated pushing the control of these issues back into the regions. So the farmers can do as they wish.

        Oh, except for Canterbury where the regional council was stacked with enviro’s and urbanites. Hence it had to be sacked.

        Dirty dogs this current govt.

        NZ’s rural environments are stuffed. Foreign grasses, few reserves and parks (ever driven from Wgtn to New Plymouth and noticed how little bush there is?), dirty non-drinkable or swimmable waterways, etc. NZ’s rural environment is simply a giant industrial park. It may as well be paved with concrete as the effect is the same.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2.1
          6 June 2012 at 12:23 pm

          (ever driven from Wgtn to New Plymouth and noticed how little bush there is?)

          Google Earth gives a much better indication of the destruction we’ve levelled upon our small land.

      • weka 3.1.3
        6 June 2012 at 11:25 am

        I don’t think it is as straightforward as that. Farmers are not one homogenous group who share identical practices. There is a big difference between industrial dairying that is pushing the land to the very last inch of ‘productivity’ and a small family farm that has had traditional water access to a river for the last 100 years and has managed that in careful ways. Yes, the latter is still likely to be unsustainable, but the scale of difference in damage needs to be acknowledged.

        Farms often carry huge debt, and so banks and financial managers have say in how farms are run not just farmers. The idea that every farm has excess funds for fencing is not real. Each farm would need to be considered individually.

        Each waterway also needs to be considered individually. Some will need very high protection, others will be able to sustain the effects of food production.

        There is the additional issue that rivers and streams move over time. Often rivers encroach into private land, and the boundaries of who owns what becomes murky. Fencing off is not enough, riparian areas need to be planted to encourage bank stability, and that brings additional costs.

        Having riparian strips planted brings many other benefits too of course, but it’s not just farmers that have responsibilities here. Councils and DOC need to stop removing vegetation from river banks if we want to return to better biodiversity and protection of water.

        • weka 3.1.3.1
          6 June 2012 at 11:37 am

          Anyone who can afford to could also be buying more ethically produced dairy. In the South Island that would be from the likes of family farm companies like Retro Organics or Clearwaters (the latter’s yoghurt is in supermarkets, not sure about Retro). Neither are using Fonterra. Those are the people that are leading the way in terms of making changes towards sustainable food production and land management, and we need to support them if we truly want things to be different. Some conventional farmers are also doing good things re waterways. It pays to ask around.

          • Draco T Bastard 3.1.3.1.1
            6 June 2012 at 2:13 pm

            Those are the people that are leading the way in terms of making changes towards sustainable food production and land management, and we need to support them if we truly want things to be different.

            Market solutions don’t work which is why we need regulation.

            • weka 3.1.3.1.1.1
              6 June 2012 at 3:23 pm

              Obviously we need regulation, that’s a given. On its own regulation won’t work if there aren’t farmers with the skills and motivation to farm sustainably.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                6 June 2012 at 4:08 pm

                Regulation needs enforcement and training. No doubt about that. Thus we need education to teach the farmers how to farm and enforcers to ensure that the farmers keep to the regulations.

                If farmers don’t have the motivation then they shouldn’t be farming. IMO, there’s no faster way to becoming a miserable bugger than doing something you don’t want to do.

                • weka …
                  6 June 2012 at 5:07 pm

                  That all sounds quite disconnected from the real world Draco. We currently don’t have any local or national govt authorities that are capable of enforcing and training sustainability, or even baseline protection of rivers. Some councils are starting to make moves, but in order to get to your vision of enforced rightness there is a missing link.

                  In the meantime, there are many farmers who are just getting on with doing the right thing. It’s those people who will eventually be the leaders in land management. The more support they get now, the better position we will be in to train other farmers. You can’t go from no knowledge to best practice without something in between.

                  If we don’t get farmers on board, the idea that they can just not be farmers is kind of silly. Most hands on farmers have the skills needed to farm. If they leave the land, who will take over?

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    6 June 2012 at 5:36 pm

                    We currently don’t have any local or national govt authorities that are capable of enforcing and training sustainability, or even baseline protection of rivers.

                    Thus it needs to be implemented.

                    In the meantime, there are many farmers who are just getting on with doing the right thing.

                    Organise between those that are making the attempt and the researchers to define Best Practice* and then filter that out through training to the farmers while also taking feedback from the farmers.

                    If they leave the land, who will take over?

                    Do we need anyone to do so? IMO, A lot of the destruction that we’re seeing from farming is from over farming and not just bad practice. If that’s the case then we need to do more than change practices.

                    * A moving target – as more becomes known so Best Practice shifts.

                    • weka …
                      8 June 2012 at 2:32 pm

                      We still need to eat, so we will always need farmers.
                       
                      “Organise between those that are making the attempt and the researchers to define Best Practice* and then filter that out through training to the farmers while also taking feedback from the farmers”
                       
                      Yes. Hence my point about regulation not being enough, that we need to support those farmers who are already working towards best practice.

        • gareth 3.1.3.2
          6 June 2012 at 12:05 pm

          Fencing streams and riparian planting were what we should have been doing instead of the shit useless cycleway. Jobs for fencing crews, plant nurseries & planting teams all over the country. With the benefits to our environment and clean green image. I can’t speak for fencing but $1,000,000 would cover the supply and planting of @150000 natives in a 1L pot or @300000 root trainers. As natives are quite hardy I would expect a survival rate of @ 75% if no maintenance was carried out.

          I actually put this idea forward to my local mp’s and the greens at the time and never heard back.

          • Bored 3.1.3.2.1
            6 June 2012 at 12:42 pm

            I like that idea, stuff the cycleway. Actually the improvement of waterways would pay handsomely with tourism: trout fisher tourists mainly go to Taupo which is becoming rather restrictive and failing to provide the quality it used to have to attract tourists. Better rivers elsewhere would improve the opportunities to stay longer, spend more and spread the cash: not to mention the return trips and word of mouth promotion.

            • gareth 3.1.3.2.1.1
              6 June 2012 at 12:48 pm

              Exactly, I can’t see any down side that’s for sure. I figured at minimum the queens chain would allow fencing off large chunks of riverbank without having to get to far into land rights and having to make laws etc. We could have done the easy stuff already and be cracking into sorting out the more contentious areas. We certainly would be far further ahead in km’s completed than the cycleway is.

              • weka …
                6 June 2012 at 3:26 pm

                I don’t think the Queens Chain really exists, at least not in the way many people think. And as I said, rivers change course, so land rights are central to this conversation. If a river changes course and now flows through private land, what happens to the Queens Chain?

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  6 June 2012 at 4:10 pm

                  All private land needs to be changed to a lease system anyway and rivers should be sacrosanct no matter where they’re flowing.

                  • weka …
                    6 June 2012 at 5:01 pm

                    The situation already exists on leasehold land, where rivers have changed course.

                    And whatever needs to change in the bigger picture, in the meantime we can protect our rivers by taking a more pragmatic approach now.

                  • weka …
                    6 June 2012 at 5:13 pm

                    If we made all rivers sacrosanct today, what would we eat?

                    No-one would ever be able to use horses to manage land, as all stock is now banned from ever setting one hoof in the water.

                    Likewise the small block holder who has 5 dairy cows that supply milk to the surrounding area would now have to sell up, because there is a creek in the middle of their land and they’re no longer allowed to shift their cows from one side of the property to the other.

                    And the big station owner, who runs sheep at a very small number per hectare, is now also selling up because to fence off all the streams and rivers on on their land, including streams that are not being polluted, is going to bankrupt them.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      6 June 2012 at 5:39 pm

                      …because there is a creek in the middle of their land and they’re no longer allowed to shift their cows from one side of the property to the other.

                      Build a bridge.

                      And the big station owner, who runs sheep at a very small number per hectare, is now also selling up because to fence off all the streams and rivers on on their land, including streams that are not being polluted, is going to bankrupt them.

                      I’m quite happy for the government to pay for the necessary fencing. The farmers can maintain it after that.

        • Bored 3.1.3.3
          6 June 2012 at 12:32 pm

          From what I have seen / discovered the non corporate farmer is as likely or more so to assume grazing “rights” over Crown land and river beds as the big business farms: most have been doing so for generations.

          That is why I suggest that they pay for the grazing and that the cash is used to gradually reduce the area / access with riparian planting / fencing. On that note one of the reasons stock like the rivers is because they are starved of variety on grass, they need to eat trees etc to get vital nutrients. There has never been a greater case for farmers growing bush for stock food: the problem is stocking rates per hectare would come down.

          • weka 3.1.3.3.1
            6 June 2012 at 3:36 pm

            “From what I have seen / discovered the non corporate farmer is as likely or more so to assume grazing “rights” over Crown land and river beds as the big business farms: most have been doing so for generations.”

            That assumes that (a) damage is being done to those rivers, and (b) the farm can afford to pay for access.

            But it misses the point. Traditional farming in NZ has done a far amount of damage but it pales in comparison to what industrial dairying is doing, esp with regards to rivers. To lump all farms and farmers in together doesn’t help the situation. We need a more sophisticated analysis of the problems. Yes all waterways should have riparian plantings, but we’re not going to get there by thinking all farms are the same.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.1.4
        6 June 2012 at 12:13 pm

        What river beds represent to farmers is supplemental grazing: my contention is that they should fence these areas off as they are public domain i.e they belong to you and me.

        The rivers/streams/lakes need to be fenced off 30m either side and riparian planted. Any livestock in the riparian zone and the farm is nationalised with no compensation (the loss can be negotiated between the farmer and the bank).

  4. NickS 4
    6 June 2012 at 9:33 am

    Ah snow, so beautiful and yet I now foresee much whine from the climate change denialist about it, despite all the biological indicators (namely leaves still on trees those leaf drops are controlled by temperature rather than light) and frost free days we’ve had in Christchurch.

    And it’s at “giant flakes of doom” stage as of writing this too 😀

    • ianmac 4.1
      6 June 2012 at 11:19 am

      An old chap while looking up at snow covered hills said “The snow is a great colour.”
      “Huh?” I said as clear intellectual response.
      “Yep,” grunted. “A great culler.”

      • NickS 4.1.1
        6 June 2012 at 11:39 am

        It hasn’t occurred during lambing though, so no cheap lambskin gloves this year :/

        And my poor rocoto chilli’s may end up dropping their leaves finally.

  5. True Freedom is Self-Governance 5
    6 June 2012 at 9:52 am

    Is anyone else fed up with token democracy? I think the system needs an overhaul before things get to the violent revolution stage.

  6. s y d 6
    6 June 2012 at 9:53 am

    Key also arrived in Britain with a gift of cheese for the Queen. “She loves cheese,” Key said.

    Never a truer word spoken……

    • William Joyce 6.1
      6 June 2012 at 10:44 am

      He met with his mate David Cameron – comparing notes on how to f-up an economy and how to get more breaks for the rich.

    • rod 6.2
      6 June 2012 at 5:19 pm

      Hey s y d, he probably gave her a smiley photo of himself, plenty of cheese there.

  7. NickS 7
    6 June 2012 at 10:33 am

    http://johannhari.com/2007/01/30/the-real-solution-to-our-prisons-crisis/

    And there’s the price of “tough on crime” bullshit, a prison system that’s too overtaxed to be able to rehabilitate prisoners so they can get back into society, with a dash of the horrors of significant under-funding on the mental health system. Because why help people when you can just lock em away and proclaim “justice is done”?

    • prism 7.1
      6 June 2012 at 10:43 am

      Good early news RADIONZ this morning on new courts in Auckland pilot. Problem solving instead of punitive judgmentalism n NZ – who’d have thought!!

      Homeless people have more troubles than the rest of us and get into police notice more often. There is a system started in Auckland where they are talking to these people and helping these people and what do you know there is an improvement in stats on petty crime and recidivism and police do something else that they are suited for.

      • prism 7.1.1
        6 June 2012 at 10:58 am

        Nick S That is awful stuff about Britains prisons. What is worse is that right wing politicians think this is is acceptable, reasonable policy and what’s even worse is that the Pretenders of Labour there have followed them and in doing that dragged their ideals and real humanistic concerns for people down an alley and socked them in the head. Here they are trying to stagger out but need help to recover.

    • just saying 7.2
      6 June 2012 at 11:42 am

      Horrifying.
      And more evidence that ‘third-way’ labour movements are at least and dangerous as the Tories. I would argue that they are more dangerous because they close off alternative discourse and the possibility of change.

  8. travellerev 8
    6 June 2012 at 10:34 am

    Brilliant! You think John Key is bad? Here is Obama’s brilliant economic plan:

    http://wp.me/p638n-378

  9. Jackal 9
    6 June 2012 at 10:42 am

    Bomber Bradbury vs Imperator Fish

    Oh dear, there’s something terribly wrong when Slater starts cheerleading…

  10. prism 10
    6 June 2012 at 11:00 am

    Funny thing about this page – When I go to the right to check the comments list I can’t get it but have to go Home to see it.

    • felix 10.1
      6 June 2012 at 11:20 am

      Hmmm, I’m not seeing them on any pages at all now.

    • ianmac 10.2
      6 June 2012 at 11:21 am

      +1

      • Olwyn 10.2.1
        6 June 2012 at 11:56 am

        +1. I blamed my own computer, since something I did last night, not sure what, deleted all the cookies.

        • just saying 10.2.1.1
          6 June 2012 at 12:27 pm

          I thought we were supposed to delete the cookies?

          Anyone else had problems posting comments today?

          • Olwyn 10.2.1.1.1
            6 June 2012 at 12:42 pm

            Perhaps we are, and my computer got fed up with me. I am not by any stretch a true techy.

            • just saying 10.2.1.1.1.1
              6 June 2012 at 1:20 pm

              Most commenters here seem to fit into the “true techy” category. I catch a few useful snippets here and there, but, by comparison, know very little.

  11. Pete George 11
    6 June 2012 at 11:01 am

    Just two weeks after the Budget the Treasury budget deficit has been shown to be $1.4b out.

    Maybe this is a sign of where the economy is heading? Don’t hold your breath. Treasury Budget deficit forecast was wrong.

    • Pascal's bookie 11.1
      6 June 2012 at 11:37 am

      Pete, what do you make of the fact that corp profits were up, while GST refunds were down?

      I’m no big city economist, but that doesn’t look like a good sign to me.

      • Pete George 11.1.1
        6 June 2012 at 12:36 pm

        To me they both look like possible signs of improving business, but with the fluctuations it’s hard to say. The actuals are ahead of the budget forecast but still less than the pre-election forecast so it might be just picking up a bit after a slower than expected recovery.

        Why do you think it may not be a good sign?

        • Pascal's bookie 11.1.1.1
          6 June 2012 at 12:55 pm

          Like I say, I’m not anything like an economist, so I’m probly thinking it all wrong. But those numbers right.

          Corp profits are up. Good sign right.

          Govts’ GST take is up,. Again good sign right.

          GST is up because the refund side of it is down. Oh, wait.

          If GST take was up because receipts were up, that would say there was more consumer activity, which would be good. But there’s no mention of that.

          The take is apparently up because companies are claiming fewer than expected refunds. Doesn’t that mean they are spending less? And would that go some way to explaining increased profit in a pretty stagnant economy?

          • McFlock 11.1.1.1.1
            6 June 2012 at 1:52 pm

            Way to work the problem, pb.

            I bet most business talking heads simply say “oh great, we’re gaining more GST revenue, things must be getting better”.

            • vto 11.1.1.1.1.1
              6 June 2012 at 8:21 pm

              Just piping up at the end of the thread thingy, but all businesses want to be paying GST, not receiving it, because that means your revenue is exceeding your expenses. The other way upside down means you going backwards buster…

          • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1.1.2
            6 June 2012 at 2:23 pm

            I’d say that’s a sign of stagflation.

  12. Penny Bright 12
    6 June 2012 at 11:45 am

    LIFTOFF! “Council moves to expose interests” Rob Stock Sunday Star Times 3 June 2012

    “THE COUNTRY’S largest local authority says it wants more transparency.

    Auckland Mayor Len Brown said Auckland Council would work towards establishing a public register of the commercial interests of councillors who control the city’s vast budget, huge assets and are ultimately responsible for awarding hundreds of millions of dollars worth of business contracts. ……”

    https://mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment/?ui=2&ik=18afffb768&view=att&th=137beb1ea4783741&attid=0.1&disp=inline&safe=1&zw&saduie=AG9B_P-I5Cd-lIWIP7LzmJSi9erv&sadet=1338936453187&sads=4KnP6ICGbfets8ISuvMqvN0VSSE

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’
    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    • muzza 12.1
      7 June 2012 at 7:55 am

      Once people join up the mates network, they will see where the real money disappears to…I like to keep track of where some of them end up….Let’s take a look at Own McCall (ex warehouse),

      Now can be found running the “Transformation” of Auckland Council IS. McCall is ex Deloitte, which no surprises so is the Head of IS, Mike Foley. What does “Transformation” mean, well I guess it remains to be seen, but the relationships are clear, as is the trail of funds which are being deposited directly to the consultant, either to the company, or to their Alumni, via juicy no responsibilty direct hire “consultant” contracts!

      http://www.wordsshiftminds.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/iStart-council-IT-feature1.pdf

      The link is a good review of where Aucklanders are being relieved of their money, in just one part of the AKL Council..

    • Dr Terry 13.1
      6 June 2012 at 5:13 pm

      Dave Kennedy. Absolutely agreed!! The terrible shame is that a populace does not want intelligence in governance.

  14. William Joyce 14
    6 June 2012 at 11:49 am

    According to RT news, the FBI are indeed preparing a case against Julian Assange. It seems that they have been watching his interview programme on RT and have detained a couple of his guests at the airport as they transited through the US. They were all asked questions related to Assange.
    One was threatened with arrest when he asked what rights he had as a non-US citizen.
    Another was later followed by a number of guys (read…Spooks) who approached him and asked if he would spy on Assange for them.

    • Vicky32 14.1
      6 June 2012 at 5:20 pm

      According to RT news, the FBI are indeed preparing a case against Julian Assange

      And it seems, a great way they’re going about it! Oh dear…

  15. joe90 15
    6 June 2012 at 12:26 pm

    An ex LDS member posts the Mormon Flow Chart For Your Soul.

  16. Morrissey 16
    6 June 2012 at 12:50 pm

    Susan Wood holds Michelle Boag’s feet to the fire
    NewstalkZB, Tuesday June 5, 2012

    PR trout and ex-McCully squeeze Michelle Boag has an established reputation as a brutal National Party power-broker. She is feared and resented by a substantial section of the National Party, including the Bill English faction, since her campaign for the Double Dipper to be ousted in favour of Don Brash in 2003. She is also persona non grata with the influential right-wing blogger Cameron “Whaleoil” Slater, not because she is morally disgusting and contemptuous of democracy, but because of her vicious behaviour towards his father John, who was president of the party before she lobbied against and replaced him in 2001.

    Most people will be familiar with Boag’s frequent appearances as a cruel and malicious media commentator. She is a regular guest on Jim Mora’s National Radio show The Panel, where she takes the opportunity to indulge in free-ranging right wing rants without fear of being contradicted by either the host or by Brian Edwards, with whom she is almost always paired. The only guest to ever challenge her was Bomber Bradbury, who on one memorable occasion goaded her into a snarling display of incoherent fury by asking her to justify her contention that self-exiled tax dodgers like “Sir” Douglas Myers were a loss to this country. She couldn’t, of course, and I would not be surprised if she had then used her influence with the Radio New Zealand board to initiate steps to get rid of Bradbury, who was fired a year or so later, after daring to criticize the prime minister on the programme.

    In 2008, after the Radio Sport blatherer Tony Veitch publicly confessed to pushing his fiancée to the ground and repeatedly kicking her until he broke her back, Boag went on TV1’s Closeup to praise what she called Veitch’s “great performance” and pointedly demeaned the woman he had crippled by holding up and waggling her fingers as quote marks when she said the word “victim”. Of course, Mark Sainsbury said nothing, and neither did John Tamihere.

    So, as an eloquent and aggressive bully, with hardly anyone daring to cross her and provoke that acid tongue, Boag enjoys pretty much of a dream run when she comes on the radio.

    Listeners to NewstalkZB would have been surprised, then, to hear her being given a hard time during Larry Williams’ Drive programme. She was on the programme to speak about the Bronwyn Pullar versus ACC case. Boag has acted as Ms. Pullar’s “supporter” in her battles with the ACC, and has unwisely decided to support the right of her friend to hold onto thousands of confidential files which were accidentally sent to her.

    Unfortunately for Boag, the not very intelligent, and always supine, normal host, Larry Williams, was not there yesterday. His replacement was Susan Wood, who immediately put Boag on the spot….

    SUSAN WOOD: let me ask you this: if you were sent more than seven thousand confidential files, would YOU have held onto them?

    BOAG: [long pause] That has never happened to me.

    SUSAN WOOD: I’ll try again. Do you think it was right to hold onto more than seven thousand confidential files?

    BOAG: [another long, uncomfortable pause] I… I…. that has never happened to me.

    SUSAN WOOD: I’ll try it again. If you found thousands of dollars had been put into your bank account, would you or would you not tell the bank immediately?

    BOAG: [barely concealing her anger] You’re asking me a hypothetical question. That has never happened to me.

    Susan Wood never got an honest or straight answer out of her, but the discomfort and the omissions spoke volumes.

  17. mickysavage 17
    6 June 2012 at 1:11 pm

    Paula Bennett is upping the ante and proposing court orders to stop people having babies.

    You can just imagine the CT memos flying around at this stage:

    “Guys you are stuffing up big time. We are no longer able to provide cover for you. The people are seeing through our carefully constructed veneer and are seeing you for what you are. We do not understand why but ordinary people really hate the wealthy engorging themselves further on communal assets. If something is not done soon your chances next election will be ruined.

    So we recommend that all stops are pulled out.

    Beneficiary bashing is always popular and is ideal to divert attention. Parodoxically the more extreme the treatment the more support it garners. Our last proposal of contraception for solo mums went down really well so we wish to move to stage 2 of this campaign. We propose you give the Courts power to order “bad” parents not to have babies. The potential numbers will be small but the outcry will be such that Parata’s stuff ups may be pushed to the background.

    The practicalities do not matter. How you are going to stop people doing the wild thing is beyond our brief as well as beyond the power of any Government. But the mere mention of a ban will ensure plenty of helpful publicity.

    Best if you get that Bennett woman to do it. She has no sense of irony. If the policy develops in the manner intended and was applied in the 1990s she could have been caught herself but she is far too thick skinned to worry about the hypocricy of her making the proposal.”

  18. Treetop 18
    6 June 2012 at 4:01 pm

    Fact: Collins now knows that the ACC Chairman and the ACC CEO have mislead her.
    Fact: Pullar and Boag have been defamed by the ACC Chairman and the ACC CEO and they both say the matter is now closed, also that ACC are sticking by what their managers have said.
    Fact: Collins says it is an operational matter with ACC as they made the police complaint alleging extortion by Pullar

    Well it is not that simple as Collins has one standard for herself when she perceives that she has been defamed and another standard when she is the minister of a department and that her CEO and Chairman have been proved to have made defamatory statements to her.

    The only action that Collins can take is to sack the ACC Chairman and the ACC CEO as what they are saying is also malicious. ACC is far sicker than I realised it was and I do not have confidence in it improving as the CEO and the Chairman appear to be deluded about the December 2011 meeting transcript.

    I send my well wishes to Ms Pullar and I hope that it is the beginning of the end to her interminable situation with ACC. I would like to see Pullar have a QC assigned for them to do an inquiry and to independently settle her case.

    Why? The ACC Minister, the ACC CEO and the ACC Chairman are incompetent when it comes to Pullar.

    • ianmac 18.1
      6 June 2012 at 4:57 pm

      Wasn’t the ACC Chairman a Smith appointee after the previous Chair was forbidden to defend ACC when Nick Smith was busy explaining that ACC was a “disaster?” A fine Chair he turned out to be.

      • Treetop 18.1.1
        6 June 2012 at 5:52 pm

        When the Chair and CEO of a major corporation do not know what their logo stands for: ACC, Prevention, Care, Recovery they are in the wrong job.

        19 September 2011 Ralph Stewart became the CEO of ACC, he replaced Dr Jan White who was CEO for 6 years. Stewart had 27 years experience in insurance and asset management. I do not know about the ACC Chairman’s background. The buck has to stop with the ACC CEO and the ACC Minister.

        When it comes to Pullar receiving ACC client emails, at this stage after 9 years the situation with ACC was a me and them situation and not an us. I feel that Pullar would have sent the emails back a lot sooner had matters not reached the point they had got to. Pullar is still being hung out to dry by ACC and this is not good for her well being or anyone else who finds themself in a goliath and the stone situation.

        The decision I want to hear is the one from the Privacy Commissioner as then the public will know that there was a systemic problem with the breaching of client emails.

        Will ACC try and blame Pullar for ACCs systemic privacy breach?

        No ones case should drag on for 9 years and have the ACC Chairman and ACC CEO misleading the ACC Minister.

  19. Jackal 19
    6 June 2012 at 6:16 pm

    Paula Bennett’s dog whistle

    Clearly Paula Bennett hasn’t based her announcement dog whistle on anything resembling research…

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.