Open mike 07/06/2023

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, June 7th, 2023 - 131 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

131 comments on “Open mike 07/06/2023 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. bwaghorn 1
    7 June 2023 at 6:36 am

    So if the transport minister can't own airport shares.

    Are housing minister s allowed to own a property especially an investment property ?

    It’s fucking ridiculous making him sell his shares, making it public knowledge is enough

    • tsmithfield 1.1
      7 June 2023 at 6:40 am

      It is all about perceived conflict of interest. A minister of Transport making decisions that could potentially benefit his investment is a problem. In this case, it is unlikely because the holding is small. But, it is simply a bad look.

      • bwaghorn 1.1.1
        7 June 2023 at 7:06 am

        Maybe but surely a housing minister could benefit from policy they put forward.

        So why os that different?

        • tsmithfield 1.1.1.1
          7 June 2023 at 7:28 am

          It is all about managing perceived conflicts of interest. I am on several boards for trusts, and we have to declare perceived conflicts of interest so it is transparent to all. And, if the conflict is significant enough, we may have to recluse ourselves from decision making in that area.

          It isn't a problem if it is handled correctly. In this case it wasn't. And given Wood's experience and seniority, he should have known and handled this much better.

          • bwaghorn 1.1.1.1.1
            7 June 2023 at 1:05 pm

            Your still dodging there me old mate, do you think the housing minister should be allowed to own rental properties?

            • roy cartland 1.1.1.1.1.1
              7 June 2023 at 1:15 pm

              That IS and interesting point. I say no. Why the hell should they?

        • dv 1.1.1.2
          7 June 2023 at 8:18 am

          Interesting point bw

        • aj 1.1.1.3
          7 June 2023 at 8:29 am

          A minister of Transport making decisions that could potentially benefit his investment is a problem

          I'm looking forward to every @nznationalparty MP who owns a rental property recusing themselves from a vote re tax breaks on the interest.
          Each house alone could net them more than Wood's whole share parcel.

          No media will pick that up.

          Corrin Dann very weakly touched on this with Luxon on RNZ this morning. Luxon has 5 rentals I think, and stands to make tens of thousands annually by reinstating tax breaks on rentals.

          https://twitter.com/GSilbery/status/1665995662310387714

          • Jack 1.1.1.3.1
            7 June 2023 at 8:36 am

            Difference of course being, the houses have always been declared.

            also, assuming when you assert he @ stands to make tens of thousands annually” you know for a fact he has a mortgage on those properties?

            • Incognito 1.1.1.3.1.1
              7 June 2023 at 9:44 am

              What does having a mortgage got to do with Luxon’s profiteering from his Party’s bullet points policies on home ownership and rental properties? You seem to imply that because he has no mortgage on any of the many properties he owns and therefore pays no mortgage interest he does not stand to benefit at all!? For example, have you heard of the Bright Line test and that National will repeal its extension by the sitting Government from 2 to 10 years?

              Either you’re incredibly ignorant or maliciously manipulative.

              And FYI, Luxon hasn’t declared any mortgage or other debts owed by him (https://www.parliament.nz/media/10239/register-of-pecuniary-and-other-specified-interests-of-members-of-parliament-2023.pdf).

              • Jack …
                7 June 2023 at 10:11 am

                You do not make “tens of thousands annually” from the one off sale as a result of any gain from moving the bright line test.

                You could potentially make “tens of thousands annually “ from the re-establishment of interest deductibility – but of course only if you have a mortgage against which to claim the interest.

              • Johnr …
                7 June 2023 at 10:29 am

                Spot on Inco.

                My son bought a house in 2017 lived in it for 4 years, till his marriage dissolved, sold for $400k more than he paid. That's $100,000 per year of tax free income

                • Belladonna …
                  7 June 2023 at 10:47 am

                  Only if he didn't buy another property.
                  The 'gain' from sale is entirely illusionary if you are buying in the same rising market.

                  • Incognito …
                    7 June 2023 at 11:07 am

                    No, your comment is irrelevant and misleading.

                    The realised gains from a house sale are taxed or non-taxed, depending on whether they pass the Bright Line test or not. This is irrespective of whether or how the money is spent/reinvested.

                    • Belladonna …
                      7 June 2023 at 12:59 pm

                      Not talking about tax – my comment was in relation to the claim of 'tax free income'

                      The fact that this is now taxed – doesn't change the fact that, if you are rebuying in the same market – your gains are illusionary.

                    • SPC …
                      7 June 2023 at 1:29 pm

                      The fact that this is now taxed

                      It was two years in 2017 (when the property was bought). It was sold 4 years later. Not taxed.

                  • SPC …
                    7 June 2023 at 1:28 pm

                    It was not the same rising market of 20201 in 2022 or 2023 or …

                    Having a half share of $400,000 CG – and having a share in the original equity, does not equate to immediately buying back into the market.

                    $300,000 of equity would still means a lot of mortgage to pay in some markets. And despite lower values now, there is the high cost of debt (on one income).

                    It does mean a capability to pair up again sometime – and if a lower property value than in 2021 and lower mortgage rates c2024-2025, someone will have timed the blended/reboot well.

      • Mike the Lefty 1.1.2
        7 June 2023 at 10:56 am

        I think a rich man who reportedly owns seven properties wanting a tax cut for high income earners looks worse than Woods' case but the media ignores that!

    • weka 1.2
      7 June 2023 at 8:42 am

      I think property investment is totally impacting on the decisions successive governments make on housing policy.

      Property investment is so common that if it ruled out being a housing or related Minister then we probably wouldn't have a Minister

      • arkie 1.2.1
        7 June 2023 at 9:07 am

        Agreed. I think it's apparent that many MPs are beneficiaries of the inaction on housing affordability.

        There are a number of MPs that do not own investment properties as the latest Register shows, including the Greens. The full list of declarations: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/05/revealed-how-many-properties-each-new-zealand-mp-owns.html

      • tsmithfield 1.2.2
        7 June 2023 at 10:33 am

        Again, as I pointed out above, the issue is managing conflicts of interest.

        Wood would be in the clear if he had declared his potential conflict correctly. Given the fact it is only a small shareholding, then likely declaring that should be enough, even as Transport minister in my opinion. I don't actually think he should have to sell them if the conflict was properly managed, because any likely benefit he could get from his possible decisions would be trivial.

        The same with investment housing etc. An MP owning say five houses may, in the scheme of things may not be consequential, whereas owning 100 houses may be a problem.

        As I said above, this is the sort of thing that must be managed all the time when on a board of a trust etc. If the conflict is minor, having it declared is sufficient. If the conflict is considered too substantial, it is best to not be involved in related decisions at all.

        A conflict I need to be aware of is that I am treasurer on two independent trusts, that compete for the same funding. I have this declared as a conflict, and is something I need to make sure I maintain confidentiality over.

        • Incognito 1.2.2.1
          7 June 2023 at 11:16 am

          So, for argument’s sake, the difference is between owning 5 and 100 houses?

          Do you always tilt the field in your favour for you to score points easily & lazily?

          Managing real and perceived conflicts of interest are the issue here, as you correctly stated.

          Of course, Wood has to sell those AIA shares now, as he intended all along, because they’re tainted now. It is not a legal but a moral imperative aka the right thing to do, under the circumstances.

          • tsmithfield 1.2.2.1.1
            7 June 2023 at 11:59 am

            Do you always tilt the field in your favour for you to score points easily & lazily?

            I didn't think I was. And, it is totally contingent on a variety of factors whether 5 houses would be a conflict or not.

            For example, on one hand a decision maker may own 5 houses, so could benefit if a decision is made to drop interest rates. On the other hand, said person may have $10,000,000 in the bank, and may stand to lose income due to dropping interest rates.

            It is all contingent, and has to be judged on a case by case basis. The key thing is to declare potential conflicts properly and have proper processes to manage conflicts.

            For instance, on one of the trusts I am treasurer on the board was keen to know where the other trust had got funding for a new van. The way I handled that conflict was to ask the other board if it was OK to divulge that information. That meant having to ask the first board if it was OK to tell the other board that we were looking at purchasing a van.

            I agree Wood probably has to sell the shares now. Though, he probably didn’t have to if the conflict was managed properly in the first place.

            And, for the record, I don’t agree with opposition calls for Wood to be sacked.

            • Incognito 1.2.2.1.1.1
              7 June 2023 at 2:29 pm

              You keep on deflecting, diverting, and dodging.

              Your idiosyncratic hypothetical examples rarely have any bearing on reality and are often bordering on being absurd.

              How many New Zealanders own 100 houses? Of those, how many are MPs?

              Owning 5 houses may (?) not be a problem but a 100 may (?) be.

              Luxon owns 7 Real Properties, and this may or may not be a conflict of interest depending on how much he has in the bank, depending on which way the interest rates might go, and on position of Venus in the star sign of Sagittarius on Friday 30 February?? Or so does your typical ‘argument’ go.

              The rules are clear: any perceived or real conflict of interest must be declared, with a low minimum threshold, of course, for practicality. End of.

              And such declaration does not actually remove the conflict of interest, it merely declares it.

              So, Luxon and many other MPs do have a declared conflict of interest when it comes to any decisions regarding to housing and landlording, for example. He’s a ‘good boy’ because he declared it and Wood is a ‘bad boy’ because he fucked up his declaration.

              I can see Wood selling his AIA shares, as he’s intended all along, but I can’t see Luxon selling his properties. Can you?

              Stop jumping up & down on the head of a pin and stop hiding behind absurd examples and start engaging in a mature conversation without deflecting, diverting, and dodging, thanks.

              • tsmithfield …
                7 June 2023 at 3:20 pm

                Your idiosyncratic hypothetical examples rarely have any bearing on reality and are often bordering on being absurd.

                The point is not to show real life examples, but to point to the principle that the overall effect needs to be considered, balancing up what may be competing conflicts of interest.

                The rules are clear: any perceived or real conflict of interest must be declared, with a low minimum threshold, of course, for practicality. End of.

                Absolutely agree.

                And such declaration does not actually remove the conflict of interest, it merely declares it.

                Absolutely agree again. And I expect that advice would be sought on how the conflict should be managed, if it is viewed as something that should be. And I don't think this is something the individual with the conflict should make a decision about.

                I can see Wood selling his AIA shares, as he’s intended all along, but I can’t see Luxon selling his properties. Can you?

                I have no problems with the fact that owning property should be declared. And, if Luxon doesn’t want to sell his, then he needs to have the conflict managed in an appropriate way.

                If the conflict is seen as material enough to affect decisions in a particular area of responsibility, then that conflict needs to be managed.

                Likely, in that situation, one way to manage the conflict would be to have decisions reviewed by an appropriate independent person to ensure that the decision is correct and balanced.

                Either that, or delegate that decision to another person not affected by that conflict.

                I have said previously that I don’t think Wood should have to sell his shares. And I think pressure for him to sell previously was likely over the top, and there could have been a way forward that allowed him to keep them. But, I agree with you, that he probably will now given the politics at play.

                So, what are we actually disagreeing on?

                • Incognito …
                  7 June 2023 at 4:08 pm

                  And, if Luxon doesn’t want to sell his, then he needs to have the conflict managed in an appropriate way.

                  What do you suggest? There is no “if”, is there now?

                  Should he recuse himself from voting (abstain) for his own (Party’s) policies? If so, that would exclude many MPs, not just from National, from voting.

                  As to demonstrating the validity of a principle, it strengthens your argument if you’d indeed use real-life examples instead of absurd hypotheticals that are merely rhetorical tools that make you appear disingenuous.

                  • tsmithfield …
                    7 June 2023 at 4:44 pm

                    I actually agree with you, that housing is a problematic area. Because, owning investment houses for rentals has been fairly pervasive with politicians

                    I am not sure what is in place now. But, I think politicians need to be discussing potential conflicts with an independent body such as Parliamentary services, for guidance on whether particular areas of conflict are material to certain areas, and what should be done to manage the conflict.

                    One way to do that is with a blind trust, where all a politicians relevant assets are placed in the trust, and and independent person makes decisions about the trust.

                    I think the Wood situation has shown why politicians need to be careful about conflicts of interest, and it may be necessary to tighten requirements in this area.

        • weka 1.2.2.2
          7 June 2023 at 5:18 pm

          the NZ property market needs to devalue if we are to end poverty (or even reduce it to levels of 20 years ago). By quite a lot. Do you really trust MPs who are banking on personal capital gains to do that? It’s not the number of houses, it’s the number of MPs who are currently becoming quite wealthy. They’re the greater majority in parliament.

          • weka 1.2.2.2.1
            7 June 2023 at 5:20 pm

            it's not a perceived conflict of interest, it's an actual conflict of interest.

      • bwaghorn 1.2.3
        7 June 2023 at 1:07 pm

        My pint exactly , so it's ridiculous that woods is forced to sell his shares.

        • weka 1.2.3.1
          7 June 2023 at 5:15 pm

          he should sell his shares just to clear up the perceived mess. Election year and all that.

        • weka 1.2.3.2
          7 June 2023 at 5:21 pm

          but I agree, the air shares are insignificant by comparison.

    • Bearded Git 1.3
      7 June 2023 at 8:57 am

      Wood owns one twenty thousandth of AirNZ-close to nothing. There is no conflict of interest here.

      The rules should make allowance for the SCALE of ownership. There should not be a blanket rule.

      • Belladonna 1.3.1
        7 June 2023 at 10:52 am

        Much easier to have a blanket rule, rather than litigating each and every asset ownership for 'significance'

        All Wood had to do was declare them in the register of interests (as every other MP must do) – from 2016.

        Every incoming MP gets chapter and verse on this as part of their induction into Parliament.

        It's not whether he owns the shares that's the issue, it's his sloppy management of the possible conflict of interest.

        AND follow through on his agreement with the Cabinet office to sell them when he agreed to do this in 2020.

        Again, it's his poor ability to follow through that's the issue.

      • Bearded Git 1.3.2
        7 June 2023 at 2:40 pm

        I stuffed up …my calculation above should have been made in relation to Auckland International Airport not AirNZ.

        So I will make the same point with AIA.

        Auckland International Airport (AIA) currently has a capital value of $12.8 billion.

        Wood's $13,000 shares represent roughly ONE MILLIONTH of the value of AIA shares.

        Wood owns a miniscule part of AIA. This could hardly be called a conflict of interest. There should be some recognition of the SCALE of ownership in the parliament rules in terms of conflict of interest.

  2. tsmithfield 2
    7 June 2023 at 6:51 am

    I see the Russians have blown the Kakhovka damn causing a humanitarian disaster, and in doing so committed a major war crime.

    Not much doubt that it was the Russians. As the video above points out, it was understood last year that the Russians had mined the damn, and had it prepared for demolition. And, it is the most simple answer when the two following questions were considered: Firstly, who controlled the damn, and secondly, what would be required to cause that sort of damage.

    The answer to the first question is obviously Russia. The answer to the second question, according to most commentators, is that it is nigh on impossible to destroy that sort of structure with missiles or the like, and that it would require planned demolition. Thus, the answer is obviously Russia IMO.

    So, what do the Russians get out of this? On one hand, they have cut their water supply to Crimea. But, on the other hand, they have shortened their front line, and are able to redeploy troops elsewhere.

    It looks like it may have been a demolition that went out of hand.

    According to this timeline and the contradictory and developing Russian messaging, it appears that the damn may have been blown at around 2am the preceding morning, with the goal of creating a small breach to flood Ukrainian positions on the other side of the Dnipro. But, the demo caused much more damage than intended.

    • tsmithfield 2.1
      7 June 2023 at 6:58 am

      And, the other thing is that the Russians had raised the water level to maximum height just prior to the explosion, thus maximising the flooding.

      Note: should be “dam” not “damn” in my earlier post. Posting early in the morning lol.

      • weston 2.1.1
        7 June 2023 at 7:59 pm

        " The Russians had raised the water level to maximum height etc Yeah right i guess they just wanted to flood all their fortifications an wash away their minefields ? Why wouldnt they just open the floodgates ?? .I guess for the same reason they blew up their own pipeline rather than simply turning off the tap !!! makes perfect sense lol .

    • Stuart Munro 2.2
      7 June 2023 at 7:12 am

      So, what do the Russians get out of this?

      Same thing as the Seppos got using white phosphorus on Fallujah – the chance to indulge their spite. They know they've lost – they just want to share the pain.

      • tsmithfield 2.2.1
        7 June 2023 at 7:22 am

        Certainly that. But, also some military defensive advantage as well. It makes it nigh on impossible for the Ukrainians to advance across the Dnipro now in that location. So, it simplifies things for the Russians, and allows them to redeploy their troops.

        Though, I tend to buy into the theory that this was a demo that got out of hand.

        • Stuart Munro 2.2.1.1
          7 June 2023 at 7:29 am

          It is, apparently, the source of Crimea's water, so that will complicate the defense.

          I imagine it is part of a larger scheme to precipitate a failure of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, which requires the Khakhovka reservoir as a source of cooling water. Fixes involving extra pumping are surely possible, but Russia would like nothing better than to turn it into a second Chernobyl.

          • tsmithfield 2.2.1.1.1
            7 June 2023 at 7:34 am

            Here Michael Clarke gives a more indepth analysis. Quite interesting.

            • Stuart Munro 2.2.1.1.1.1
              7 June 2023 at 7:51 am

              I'm inclined to think that any defensive advantage will be pretty temporary – especially given that any crossing of the Dnieper was going to be by boat in any case. But Russia is likely desperate enough to seize any momentary advantage – and a local Russian commander in the Kherson region wanting a few days to secure a retreat might have good selfish reasons to do it, together with the means.

              Michael Clarke is always worth hearing too.

      • weston 2.2.2
        7 June 2023 at 8:13 pm

        " What do the Russians get out of this " ? Good question stuart !! You say " they know they've lost " etc Really ?? hmm Soledar has fallen Bakmut has fallen Marinka has a few days if its lucky, the great spring summer offensive has been for the most part repelled with heavy losses to the Ukranians …doesnt really seem like losing to me but you think it is Why ?

        • Stuart Munro 2.2.2.1
          7 June 2023 at 8:25 pm

          Their victories are at best Pyrrhic. They lose a lot of men and materiale. And the West is fed up with their bullshit and are, at last, supporting Ukraine properly.

          For a supposedly crucial strategic point, Bakhmut has done nothing to swing the war in Russia's favour since its capture destruction. And, as Wagner withdraws, under friendly fire no less, it transpires that Russian regular forces struggle to maintain the positions they once held.

        • joe90 2.2.2.2
          7 June 2023 at 9:00 pm

          The scorched earth policy of an army looking down the barrel of an ignominious trouncing. The Ukrainian offensive to retake Crimea would make continued occupation untenable. Destroying the dam jiggers the water supply to large areas of south Ukraine and makes Crimea virtually uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.

          • weston 2.2.2.2.1
            8 June 2023 at 8:00 am

            " Ignominious trouncing " etc

            Are you serious joe ??!! Despite ' the west' dribbling in weapons to prolong the conflict as long as it can Ukraine remains outgunned in almost everyway .Judging by the increasing use of airpower by Russia Ukraines air defences are seriously depleted and its pretty obvious what aircraft they have left are living on borrowed time .Russia has hypersonic missiles and fearsome weapons like the thermobaric flamethrower systems Russia has industrial capacity such that it can bombard any area of Ukraine anytime it wants .

            Seems to me its Ukraine " looking down the barrel of a gun " because everyday Russia grows stronger and Ukraine grows weaker .The idea that Russia is getting a "trouncing " is delusional .As for the water supply to Crimea it still functioned when the Ukrainians cut off the supply the first time so doubtless it will cope .Id be more worried about the supply to the power station .

    • aj 2.3
      7 June 2023 at 10:10 am

      Not much doubt that it was the Russians

      I wouldn't be so quick to rush to judgement. Russia again had far more to lose than to gain from blowing up critical infrastructure in territory they seek long term control.

      U.S. had intelligence of detailed Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream pipeline

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/06/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-ukraine-russia/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

      • tsmithfield 2.3.1
        7 June 2023 at 11:12 am

        No, they had a lot more to gain than lose from a military perspective. Firstly it effectively reduced their front line so far as defence is concerned. Secondly, it frees up a lot of troops to defend in other areas.

        The other thing is that the damage was done on the Russian side of the dam. And it had been known for months that they had pre-mined it. And, as Michael Clarke points out in the link I gave, missiles can't do that sort of damage to a large dam. It has to be a planned demo job.

        The only downside for Russia is that it cuts the water supply to Crimea. But that was the situation for years when Ukraine had shut the canal. And a lot of people have been leaving Crimea anyway. And, Putin really doesn't care that much about his own people.

        • aj 2.3.1.1
          7 June 2023 at 6:45 pm

          Inside the Ukrainian counteroffensive that shocked Putin and reshaped the war.

          Dec 29th 2022.

          Kovalchuk considered flooding the river. The Ukrainians, he said, even conducted a test strike with a HIMARS launcher on one of the floodgates at the Nova Kakhovka dam, making three holes in the metal to see if the Dnieper’s water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages.

          The test was a success, Kovalchuk said, but the step remained a last resort. He held off.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/ukraine-offensive-kharkiv-kherson-donetsk/

          • aj 2.3.1.1.1
            7 June 2023 at 8:57 pm

            Let's see where Nordstream is.

            1 – Russia did it, and Seymour Hersh is an old has been.

            2 – 4 guys on a yacht did it.

            Latest – Ukraine did it with advanced CIA knowledge.

      • Francesca 2.3.2
        7 June 2023 at 12:04 pm

        There's also the possibility previous shelling with Himars back in October /November last year undermined the dam

        https://www.farsnews.ir/en/news/14010815000740/Ukraine-Targes-Dam-in-Khersn-wih-US-Made-HIMARS-Missiles

        • Ed 2.3.2.1
          7 June 2023 at 12:08 pm

          Why have parts of the left become so pro-war and so pro establishment?

          Once the left was anti-imperialist, anti war and anti nuclear.

          Now some appear to want to want war with both China and Russia.

          • tWiggle 2.3.2.1.1
            7 June 2023 at 1:57 pm

            I agree that all war is shit for those caught up in it. This is a highly-reported and discussed conflict in Europe, unlike most of the miseries of recent semi-proxy wars, like the horror in Syria. So we can see much of the nuts and bolts of extended warfare play out daily.

            The outcome of this conflict is critical to the future political shape of Europe and of political alliances on both sides of the conflict. I'm not a military buff at all, and can imagine only too well the suffering of soldiers and citizens. But I am interested in the decisions on both sides that affect the political future and also reframe conventional warfare. Bury your head in the sand if you want: this is a pivotal time in political history.

            It is clear to me that the moral certitude of an anti-war position has been co-opted by Russian disinformation. Can you imagine even 10 years ago the most right-wing of the US Republican party supporting the Russian Federation over Ukraine and urging isolationism? Ukraine would have been swallowed up by Russia by now if Trump, an admirer of strongmen, had retained the US presidency.

            • Ed 2.3.2.1.1.1
              7 June 2023 at 4:57 pm

              Have you listened or read any of the above on the causes of this war?

              • John Mearsheimer
              • Noam Chomsky
              • Peter Hitchens

              It's a bit more nuanced than the propaganda pumped out by the New York Times and the Guardian.

          • Stuart Munro 2.3.2.1.2
            7 June 2023 at 2:49 pm

            We don't want war with Russia – nothing would please us more than Russia surrendering and delivering Putin to The Hague for trial.

          • Descendant Of Smith 2.3.2.1.3
            7 June 2023 at 11:41 pm

            Pretty sure many leftists went and fought in the Spanish Civil War – Orwell being one of them.

            Appeasing Putin simply isn't going to work. This is the same person who was openly killing people in foreign countries while the capitalist elite made friendly with him.

            I was surprised at the lack of kick back then. Eventually it bit everyone on the arse.

            He is as much of an arsehole as Bush was. Both unjust invasions of other countries.

        • tsmithfield 2.3.2.2
          7 June 2023 at 12:10 pm

          Not even close. Himars etc would only scratch the surface of that structure. It requires properly placed explosives to achieve that sort of damage. Watch that second video by Michael Clarke I linked to.

        • aj 2.3.2.3
          7 June 2023 at 6:47 pm

          Did earlier damage weaken part of the dam – and I read somewhere the water levels were very high? This could could have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

    • joe90 2.4
      7 June 2023 at 2:39 pm

      It's what chekist thugs do. The human cost be buggered.

      /

      In 1941, as Nazi German troops swept through Soviet-era Ukraine, Josef Stalin's secret police blew up a hydroelectric dam in the southern city of Zaporizhzhya to slow the Nazi advance.

      The explosion flooded villages along the banks of the Dnieper River, killing thousands of civilians.

      As Europe marks its Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism on August 23, a handful of Zaporizhzhya residents are battling for the recognition of the little-known wartime tragedy.

      […]

      The team successfully carried out its secret mission — which historians say was ordered by Stalin himself — tearing a hole in the dam and temporarily cutting off part of the city from the invaders.

      But the explosion also flooded villages and settlements along the Dnieper River.

      The tidal surge killed thousands of unsuspecting civilians, as well as Red Army officers who were crossing over the river.

      Since no official death toll was released at the time, the estimated number of victims varies widely. Most historians put it at between 20,000 and 100,000, based on the number of people then living in the flooded areas.

      https://www.rferl.org/a/european-remembrance-day-ukraine-little-known-ww2-tragedy/25083847.html

  3. Reality 3
    7 June 2023 at 8:15 am

    Seems the Herald is keen to deflect from Wayne Brown's public relation disasters by fussing about what Wellington's mayor should or should not be doing. Normally Wellington's mayor would be ignored.

    • The Chairman 3.1
      7 June 2023 at 8:40 am

      Do you mean this:

      Whanau has faced scrutiny for her absence at civic events and meetings, including a meeting of the regional mayor’s forum. But the mayor thinks the focus on her attendance is undue, and largely because people don’t like what she represents as a young Māori woman in council.

      And yet, it goes on to say:

      Whanau has admitted it’s “not ideal” she has missed meetings recently and she “wouldn’t do that again.” “I should have been there.”

      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/wellington-mayor-tory-whanau-says-attendance-criticism-is-gendered/ONOVVKY4XZAO7K7ZF36KVCIFWY/

      So is the criticism valid or was it gendered?

      • Bearded Git 3.1.1
        7 June 2023 at 9:02 am

        The Herald attacking the performance of a young eloquent popular female Green Maori mayor. Surely not? (sarc).

        Meanwhile Wayne Brown’s atrocious behaviour gets an easy ride.

        Spot the difference.

        • The Chairman 3.1.1.1
          7 June 2023 at 9:16 am

          Seeing as Whanau has admitted it’s “not ideal” she has missed meetings recently, stating she should have been there and she wouldn’t do that again. Isn't the criticism valid?

          • Bearded Git 3.1.1.1.1
            7 June 2023 at 10:40 am

            I'm not saying she is perfect….Wayne has been consistently awful.

          • Drowsy M. Kram 3.1.1.1.2
            7 June 2023 at 11:59 am

            Is the criticism valid…

            Isn't the criticism valid?

            What say you? Seems overblown to me, but then I'm "more left than most."

            Newshub Nation: Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau calls meeting attendance attacks 'gendered' in revealing interview [3 June]

            With regard to the meetings she has missed, Whanau admitted "I should have been there. I gave an apology on the morning of.

            "That's not ideal. Wouldn't do that again."
            …
            "I'm here to represent the next generation of leaders, the next generation that I'm trying to set up the city for and our most vulnerable. So I can't change who I am," she added. "I'm not going to change my values and I'm not going to change the policies that I campaigned on."

            And Wayne Brown's thinks some of his critics are "drongos" – what say you?

            Auckland mayor forwards emails calling councillors 'dip shits'

            She [Simpson] said Brown's behaviour – calling councillors "financially illiterate" and forwarding them copies of insulting emails – has not made the budget process smoother.

            "It's not made easier," she admitted to Checkpoint's Lisa Owen.
            …
            Asked if Brown was acting in a manner befitting the office of Auckland mayor, Simpson paused, and said, "he could potentially at times use better language".

            Maybe Mayor Brown can't change who he is – and his supporters wouldn't have it any other way. Let's hope the supercity doesn't face too many more major challenges over the next two and a half years – jeez, Wayne!

            • The Chairman 3.1.1.1.2.1
              10 June 2023 at 1:33 pm

              What say you?

              Seeing as Whanau has admitted she should have been there, coupled with there being no evidence of ageist or gendered language or racism, it seems the criticism is valid.

              Furthermore, she lowered herself by pulling out the gendered, ageist and racism card.

              • Drowsy M. Kram …
                10 June 2023 at 6:17 pm

                So it seems that you had a firm opinion as to the answers to your questions.
                "The gendered, ageist and racism card" is a very heavy one to 'pull out' wink

          • newsense 3.1.1.1.3
            7 June 2023 at 12:27 pm

            Wait- that point where the Mayor has a busy schedule and has to choose meetings as opposed to the Mayor who does almost no media? Imagine if Tory Whanau had done that.

    • PsyclingLeft.Always 4.1
      7 June 2023 at 9:38 am

      And to say the least..so he should ! In your link (thanks) I did also see this..

      Council disowns report revealing consent breaches

      Greenpeace Aotearoa says disowning the report is a “shocker” and the council is throwing its former staff member “under a bus”. “It’s evidence that ECan is failing to take its responsibilities seriously,” says Christine Rose, the environmental lobby group’s senior agricultural campaigner.

      https://www.newsroom.co.nz/council-disowns-report-revealing-consent-breaches

      Ecan..what a mixed bag. A few standouts. One..Lan Pham..but now standing for Greens

      Anway..re the above…very similar to Otago and its seriously fucked over Rivers and Streams. Dairy responsible for much of that….

      And…Mr Parker…do your job. Protect our NZ Rivers and Streams.

    • Bearded Git 4.2
      7 June 2023 at 10:04 am

      Many thanks for that Scotty…interesting that ECan seems to be trying to wriggle out of its role to protect the river despite the fact that it knows that the permitted "take' from the river is being exceeded.

      Quite a court battle on the horizon. Well done David Parker indeed for wading in on this (no pun intended…though with the illegal low flows at the moment wading wouldn't be needed)

  5. Francesca 5
    7 June 2023 at 9:36 am

    Not sure if this has already been posted

    Kathleen Stock at Oxford, covering and replying to the usual old chestnuts



  6. PsyclingLeft.Always 6
    7 June 2023 at 10:30 am

    Primary teachers reach deal with government over pay, conditions

    Primary teachers have voted to accept the latest Ministry of Education collective agreement offer.

    In a statement this morning, NZEI Te Riu Roa said the offer was the fourth put to teachers.

    It followed a long negotiation campaign which included the largest education strike in this country's history.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/491467/primary-teachers-reach-deal-with-government-over-pay-conditions

    All good. And good on Labour. Actually..I have been thinking on this…and other recent Labour ups. Incl..

    Apprenticeship scheme would be permanent under Labour government

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/490832/apprenticeship-scheme-would-be-permanent-under-labour-government

    I have already said elsewhere…that I sure hope a lot of these..recipients…. might remember who gave them. For sure Nact…(charter schools, tax cuts for rich etc etc) do NOT have their best interests at heart (heart? Im being ironic)

    Anway…I was wondering..did teachers ever strike under..the Nats? I cant remember many? If any? I found this…seems a bit…well, excuse making. IMO.

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/22-11-2018/why-didnt-teachers-strike-under-national-they-were-fighting-to-save-education-itself

    Yea of course Labour could and should do more. But dont forget who are looming in the corner. Nact.

    All IMO of course. But..i think valid.

    • Stephen D 6.1
      7 June 2023 at 10:53 am

      Tha chat in my PPTA staffroom is that Labour has lost votes over this. Probably to the Greens for want of a decent left alternative.

      • PsyclingLeft.Always 6.1.1
        7 June 2023 at 11:04 am

        Hi, thanks for reply. And FYI.. I support NZ Teachers and Education.

        I cant help how they see it? But please …must vote. Green..Labour ? The alternative… Nact..is just awful.

        • Grizz 6.1.1.1
          9 June 2023 at 11:44 am

          I am supportive of teachers and don't know that what they have just rejected is good but if they are not careful they are going to be negotiating their collective with an ACT minister….

          • PsyclingLeft.Always 6.1.1.1.1
            9 June 2023 at 12:14 pm

            Well I can only agree. And they dont want to go with that scenario! Wonder how Nact would respond to them… and strikes?

    • Patricia Bremner 6.2
      7 June 2023 at 12:05 pm

      yes 100%. PLA, yes, Teachers were attending meetings to find out which schools would close, under National, and which Teacher conditions would be removed. Communities don't matter to National apparently… as they constantly talked up Individual Responsibility while Key swapped hats to suit his needs!!. Teachers know Labour tries to assist them and children, and not treat Education as a cash cow!!

  7. Ad 7
    7 June 2023 at 10:49 am

    Infratil takes over full control of OneNZ previously Vodafone.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/infratil-taking-full-control-of-one-nz-in-18-billion-deal/OI5IEIFKY5EBDLIXCS2G66ORT4/

    Infratil are essentially our government without any public accountability.

    Well and truly more powerful than any government department other than MBIE and Treasury.

  8. arkie 8
    7 June 2023 at 10:57 am

    An independent panel has recommended changes to the electoral law:

    "There have been piecemeal changes to electoral law over many years, including some recently, but this review is an opportunity to step back and look at the bigger picture," panel chair Deborah Hart said.

    The draft recommendations include:

    • Lowering the voting age for general elections to 16 and extend overseas voting rules
    • Extending voting rights to all prisoners, not just those sentenced to less than a three-year jail term
    • Holding a referendum on extending the Parliamentary term from three to four years
    • Lowering the party vote threshold from 5 to 3.5 per cent and abolishing the coat-tail rule
    • Restricting political donations to registered voters, rather than organisations, and capping them at $30,000 to each party and its candidates per electoral cycle while reducing the amount that can be anonymously donated
    • Rewriting the Electoral Act to modernise its language (e.g. eliminating references to faxes)
    • Requiring the Electoral Commission to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/491390/electoral-system-review-recommends-voting-age-lowered-to-16-party-threshold-to-3-point-5-percent

    These are sensible and have long been requested by numerous reviews and interest groups for many years. Time to take action one would think.

    • SPC 8.1
      7 June 2023 at 11:28 am

      My question is why no restriction of the vote and or donations to citizens and putting all the recommendations to a referendum?

      Allowing parties to veto change (the 75% criteria) just disenfranchises voters.

      • arkie 8.1.1
        7 June 2023 at 11:42 am

        Because permanent residents shouldn't be disenfranchised because they aren't 'citizens'.

        While we live under a representative democracy as opposed to a direct democracy the parties represent the will of the voters so there is no disenfranchisement there. The head of the panel makes a valid point on this issue in the article:

        If some of the recommendations were to proceed, including lowering the voting age to 16, they would require a 75 percent majority in Parliament or a referendum.

        Hart did not believe that was a problem.

        "When you're talking about electoral reform you do want broad support. You don't want electoral reform to become a political football."

        • SPC 8.1.1.1
          7 June 2023 at 12:15 pm

          Allowing political parties to determine electoral matters is a conflict of interest.

          • Incognito 8.1.1.1.1
            7 June 2023 at 4:23 pm

            That’s an interesting position to take. If Parliament cannot determine electoral matters then who can (or should)?

            I’ve had an (growing) unease about the power of political parties in democracy and the democratic processes and have been meaning to write a Post about this for quite some time. I recently read On the Abolition of All Political Parties by Simone Weil (see https://thestandard.org.nz/kerekere-quits-greens/#comment-1948834) and this almost made me write it but perhaps Election Year is not the most appropriate time to start kicking against the political establishment and parties wink

            • SPC 8.1.1.1.1.1
              7 June 2023 at 4:35 pm

              One would only have to note the USA practice as to what could go wrong if political parties (in government) had determination of electoral and election matters. Less of it, rather than more.

  9. Chris 9
    7 June 2023 at 11:39 am

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/491476/retail-crime-worst-it-s-ever-been-with-dozens-of-incidents-daily-foodstuffs

    In desperate times people get desperate. You'd expect right wingers to understand this.

  10. newsense 10
    7 June 2023 at 12:30 pm

    Wait- the Nats have looked at their success here and overseas (as in their absolute failure) and want more private- public partnerships here!

  11. newsense 11
    7 June 2023 at 12:32 pm

    Someone needs to make a graph or a visual description comparing the scale of Wood’s shares and Luxon’s properties as Luxon has been making up policy on the fly which benefits home owners…

  12. arkie 12
    7 June 2023 at 1:02 pm

    Soil health is important to sequestering carbon:

    The relationships between plants and the fungi that colonise their roots are responsible for locking away a huge amount of carbon underground – maybe equivalent to more than one-third of global emissions from fossil fuels.

    Almost all land plants on Earth have a symbiotic relationship with fungi that live in the soil around their roots, trading the carbon they draw from the air for nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus.

    These mycorrhizal fungi store the carbon they get from their plant partners in their tissues and the surrounding soil, thus keeping it out of the atmosphere. But despite the interest in nature-based solutions to climate change, mycorrhizal fungi have been largely overlooked, says Heidi-Jayne Hawkins at the University of Cape Town, South Africa. So, she and her colleagues set out to calculate just how much carbon plants might be transferring to these fungi.

    By scouring data from dozens of scientific studies on the relationships between plants and fungi, the researchers estimated that between 3 and 13 per cent of the carbon dioxide that plants pull out of the atmosphere ends up in the fungal tissue.

    The team then used global data on which plants live where, how productive they are and which fungi they are associated with to estimate that about 13.1 gigatonnes of CO2 is transferred to fungi each year – equivalent to around 36 per cent of annual emissions from fossil fuels around the world.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2376827-underground-fungi-absorb-up-to-a-third-of-our-fossil-fuel-emissions/

    It's a complicated topic: https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ourchangingworld/audio/2018891321/the-complexities-of-soil

    It's good to see our farmers looking to revitalise our soils:

    Evans believes regenerative farming techniques can provide farmers with a practical solution for building long-term soil health.

    On a smaller scale, it's the same as what many growers do in their home food gardens, he says.

    "It is possible to scale it up, we have the technology, but there's not enough people doing it all at once to turn this big ship around, of losing topsoil at crazy rates."

    There's a groundswell of fresh awareness amongst Australian farmers, Evans says.

    "Farming for a long time was seeing soil as a way to grow plants and animals, but now there's a new breed of farmers who are saying hang on, how do we use plants and animals to build soil."

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/countrylife/audio/2018890905/get-your-hands-dirty-says-soil-advocate-and-farmer

  13. SPC 13
    7 June 2023 at 2:00 pm

    And so it begins.

    NACT reveal their governing modus operandi – exploit migration worker numbers to place upward pressure on property values and downward pressure on wages (growing the gap between haves and have nots). And while low wage workers are struggling to afford rents let alone own their homes – divert attention from this with this sort of politics.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/richard-prebble-wholl-do-all-the-work-if-the-jobseekers-wont/QYRKRVJD3ZBO7JNBMNATUDGXVY/

    It's a sideshow of building more prisons to house those they would not employ into jobs.

    It's the Americanisation of our society.

    People under 25 on the benefit placed under the care of (faith based provider, fear and obey regime) overseers who decide whether they are deserving poor. The period of pre employment trial on the jobs (guess what happens to those who join unions).

    • arkie 13.1
      7 June 2023 at 2:13 pm

      Be nice if the current govt differed on this issue, sadly they also seek to supress wages by maintaining immigration levels which will exacerbate the number of crises which already have insufficient infrastructure spending:

      While acknowledging a lot of uncertainty, the economists say the surge in migration “has the potential to disturb the grand plan” the Reserve Bank has for reining in inflation. Westpac economists are forecasting a net inflow of 100,000 people over 2023, adding almost 2% to New Zealand’s population. That would be the fastest rate of population growth New Zealand has seen in decades.

      https://thespinoff.co.nz/the-bulletin/23-05-2023/welcome-to-the-immigration-resurgence

      • SPC 13.1.1
        7 June 2023 at 2:41 pm

        At the neo-liberal policy setting a bit of commonality.

        But the divergence is in how the disparity is then managed. One mitigates it, the other places the jackboot on the neck of the poor.

        A cost of living crisis is hitting New Zealanders hard, with grocery prices and inflation all spiking over the last 12 months.

        But despite this, Quin said this has nothing to do with the rapid spike in crime and there are three factors driving retail crime at supermarkets.

        "The first is organised activity, so it's organised crime activity, stealing to order, stealing to revenue or an ability to dispose of the product," he told AM.

        He seems to fail to note a connection to there being an underclass (cannot afford stuff and or in motels etc) and those who organise to escape this, via crime.

        As in the 1980's USA in Volcker's recession and subsequent family break-up, levels of crime rose as a last resort to fulfil the American dream

        The second level, sadly and unfortunately, is it's feeding an addiction, habit, drugs or alcohol.

        There is no evidence that any of these have suddenly got worse in recent months.

        NACT and Seymour of course blame it on Labour for letting people out of prison and not puting them back (Seymour calls them "criminals as if they are a class branded") in there asap.

        Is NACT proposing an end to parole? And then a return for any infringement upon release (thus a form of 2 tier legal system) as a crime prevention programme?

        https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/06/foodstuffs-boss-says-crime-hitting-supermarkets-is-not-acceptable-amid-spike-in-thefts.html

        Even Muldoon

        https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2107/S00037/on-when-nationals-leaders-had-a-more-enlightened-approach-to-gangs.htm

        But back then National was not seeking to Americanise our society.

    • Phillip ure 14.1
      7 June 2023 at 3:02 pm

      It pays to read any link before posting..'cos despite reading like a puff-piece for the flesh industries..your one is quite bullish on the red meat gives you cancer evidence..

      And claims in it that 'fake meat' is 25 times more polluting than cow flesh …is just total horseshit…

      • joe90 14.1.1
        7 June 2023 at 3:20 pm

        Here's the pre-print the figure was taken from. Refute away.

        https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.21.537778v1.full

        • Phillip ure 14.1.1.1
          8 June 2023 at 1:38 pm

          (from your link)

          Didya read the bit where it said that due to environmental costs/pressures..that beef production should be eliminated…?

          Didya read that bit…?

          • joe90 14.1.1.1.1
            8 June 2023 at 2:06 pm

            Yet no refutal of the paper's assertion that the GWP of all purified scenarios ranged from 246 to 1,508 kg of CO2e per kilogram of ACBM which is 4 to 25 times greater than the median GWP of retail beef.

            Weak.

      • bwaghorn 14.1.2
        7 June 2023 at 6:22 pm

        I'm well aware of your views Mr Ure and respect your right to air them.

        Moderation is key to meat consumption, and at today's prices that's easy.

    • SPC 14.2
      7 June 2023 at 3:15 pm

      The Davis paper published recently in the journal Nature Geoscience found the warming effect of methane was 30% lower than previously thought because, in addition to the heat trapped in the earth’s atmosphere, methane also creates cooling clouds which partly offset the heating impact. This supports the argument from B+LNZ about the need to apply the GWP* measurement instead of GWP100 to arrive at a more accurate assessment of the warming of methane.

      Maybe. But its no reason, for critics of farmers doiing anything, to pull out of agreements here that connect to our meeting international commitments.

      There is somewhat of a play for time aspect to that, because of research to find a measure to reduce methane from livestock. If that does result in 50% reductions – based on a seasonal dose, then with this latest calculation that would significantly impact determination of the emissions from pastoral farming.

      As some might point out, as to nutrition and meat alternative comparisons (including emissions), they object to the farming of animals on other grounds.

    • Drowsy M. Kram 14.3
      7 June 2023 at 4:35 pm

      In the abstract of that UC Davis paper Barber refers to, the final sentence is spot on.

      Despite our findings, methane remains a potent contributor to global warming, and efforts to reduce methane emissions are vital for keeping global warming well below 2 °C above preindustrial values.

      Barber's comment about "unreasonable constraints" on agriculture is intriguing. I support his plea that "politicians need to follow the science" – now, if not sooner, imho.

      'Ridiculous', 'pretty reasonable', 'backward step': Mixed reactions to National's new farming policies [19 April 2023]
      National's 19 proposals included: "Scrap[ping] two regulations for every one it introduces", and "A new panel to review all regulations that affect farmers".

      The Green Party's Eugenie Sage said binning two old regulations for every new one "suggests that National is going to roll back a lot of our environmental regulations… All of those regulations are about ensuring that nature survives, thrives, and not is just exploited to maximise farm production".

      He Waka Eke Noa: Luxon accuses government of 'blowing up' agricultural emissions plan [7 June 2023]
      He [Luxon] said the National party will be releasing its climate and agricultural emissions policy in the next few weeks.

      National pulls support for He Waka Eke Noa [7 June 2023]
      The National Party has found itself fighting off a farming flip-flop.

      Leader Christopher Luxon has revealed the party is pulling its support for He Waka Eke Noa – a group made up of industry leaders trying to put a price on agricultural emissions.

      National has labelled the process as dead, accusing the Government of not listening to the primary sector.

      Luxon said National wanted to go back to the drawing board.

      He Waka Eke Noa? Not if Luxon can help it. Will he "follow the science", or feed us more repeal and delay ‘policy’? Time “to go back to the drawing board“? Time will tell.

  15. SPC 15
    7 June 2023 at 3:04 pm

    National has withdrawn from the Primary Sector Climate Action Partnership.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-says-he-waka-eke-noa-climate-change-farming-emissions-group-is-dead/CKQ3GCTSLZAO7MHRPEEHAE3ZUY/

    In Oz, women noted that the Liberal caucus was misogynist and loved coal, so they formed the Teals, and the Alban elbowed his way into government.

    Who here will note the fart/frat boy boarding school pack nature of the National caucus and spare us their return to government.

  16. Visubversa 16
    7 June 2023 at 3:48 pm

    Another charity captured by Gender Ideology.

    "In June 2021, The Telegraph reported on an Oxfam staff training document called ‘Learning About Trans Rights and Inclusion’.

    This manual claimed that “Mainstream feminism centres on privileged white women and demands that ‘bad men’ be fired or imprisoned”, which, it adds, “Legitimises criminal punishment, harming black and other marginalised people”. The text was accompanied by a cartoon of a weeping white woman.

    The training manual was drawn up after the Oxfam’s LGBT+ network wrote to the leadership team, demanding that it must publicly support trans rights. The letter stated, “To argue that trans-inclusivity would undermine the vital work we do for women and girls is not only transphobic, but also perpetuates the white saviour complex that assumes that we know best for the people we work with”. It went on to claim that it is ‘transphobic’ to question whether men who identify as women could pose a threat to women and that discussions around identity within the charity exposed ‘queer’ employees to ‘harm’.

    The training manual Oxfam subsequently produced told staff that protecting single-sex spaces for women “Contributed to transphobia and undermining of trans rights”. It added that “Oxfam stands actively against any implication that the realization of trans rights and inclusion poses a threat to creating a safe environment for all”."

    https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/oxfam-when-misogyny-is-the-mission?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&fbclid=IwAR2BeTQKgsLTecEGo2DV4ZXw_6Ega4JCmrmoTR9psu0ih9fbwg0RjeKrikA

    We remember how Oxfam failed to protect women and girls from sexual exploitation from its own staff in Haiti – including the former Oxfam "Country director" and not only failed to investigate allegations about the sexual abuse of children, but repeatedly fell below expected standards of safeguarding and tried to cover up the Haiti scandal and failed to care for the victims.

    Maybe they should be updating those manuals instead.

    • Ed 16.1
      7 June 2023 at 4:24 pm

      Thanks for all the information Visubversa. I have a learnt a lot about this topic thanks to you and others about this concerning issue.

    • Nic the NZer 16.2
      7 June 2023 at 6:43 pm

      Turns out the gender critical characterisation of feminism is superfluous?

  17. newsense 17
    7 June 2023 at 9:11 pm

    Austerity muppets

    Closing child care facilities where the savings likely won’t even meet the costs of shuttering the centres. Heck of a job.