Open mike 07/12/2019

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 am, December 7th, 2019 - 80 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 …

80 comments on “Open mike 07/12/2019 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ianmac 1
    7 December 2019 at 8:56 am

    Have a look at Fireblades posts (2) at the end of yesterday's Daily Review (6 December).

    Identifies the hypocrisy of Opposition. Wish I knew how to copy them and paste.

    • greywarshark 1.1
      7 December 2019 at 9:08 am

      This should take you to one of Fireblade's on Daily Review for Friday 6.12 – https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-06-12-2019/#comment-1671358 – and then above it is the other. Good stuff with images.

      • greywarshark 1.1.1
        7 December 2019 at 9:29 am

        When putting the link for a particular comment: You get it by clicking and copying the date and time of the comment you want, which you will copy from the URL address at the top (I call it the header line). With that you paste it in your comment so that you place it within a sentence. See below.

        It may need to have a word in front and at end and a full stop and space to ensure it appears in full – https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-06-12-2019/#comment-1671358 FYI.

        Thanks for the help we get with wrangling our computers and getting control of the pesky things so we can produce a finished comment without getting wiped out!

        • weka 1.1.1.1
          7 December 2019 at 12:38 pm

          Cool, I didn't know that pasting within a line of text avoided the bug.

          the other way for TS links, if you want the link below text, is to once you have copied the URL, click on the Link button just above the Comment text box, and the past the URL into the popup

          (if you just paste straight into the text box below text) the bug will revert the URL to the post link not the comment link).

          • Sacha 1.1.1.1.1
            7 December 2019 at 12:44 pm

            True. System must only auto-embed the link (as a clickable block rather than text) if it is the only thing in a paragraph.

            • weka 1.1.1.1.1.1
              7 December 2019 at 1:14 pm

              annoying for people like me who like to separate out things by line, but I'm guessing that many here just paste the URL after whatever they've just typed.

  2. greywarshark 2
    7 December 2019 at 9:05 am

    Please have a look at weka's post from yesterday about what we can do to progress the ideas of dealing with our problems of climate change etc. It is something we could keep adding to, keep at the front of our minds. It is good to be keyboard warriors, how can we transfer the energy of our minds to our own actions, or if unable to assisting others in action in some ways, perhaps getting information for them, arranging venues – doing support work. Below is the link to take you straight there.

    https://thestandard.org.nz/the-risk-of-climate-tipping-points-is-upon-us/

  3. Anne 3
    7 December 2019 at 10:08 am

    I heard some weeks ago the NZ Council of the Labour Party meet this week-end. I don't know for sure if it is true, but assuming it is:

    My pick is, they will be examining the findings of the sexual harassment report against a Labour Party staffer. If so, we can expect those findings to be released in the next few days. Whatever they are, we can also expect Simon Bridges and co. to distort, twist and infer negative connotations that don't exist.

    Will Labour forcefully respond and call them out for lying and cheating this time?

    • Incognito 3.1
      7 December 2019 at 10:20 am

      Simon is a sideshow in this and a hypocrite. I’d focus on the important stuff such us how to prevent similar things from happening in future and improve things that they can (and must) improve. Simon will still be barking at cars so let him bark and throw him a little bone every now and then to keep him happy.

      • cleangreen 3.1.1
        7 December 2019 at 2:07 pm

        yesI agree incognito

        [Please don’t use capitals for your username, as Weka has already asked you. Please read the replies to your comments, the moderation notes addressed to you, and respond to acknowledge these, as Weka has already asked you to do. Failing to do so will result in you getting blacklisted (AKA banned) – Incognito]

    • alwyn 3.2
      7 December 2019 at 11:36 am

      " If so, we can expect those findings to be released in the next few days."

      If anything at all is released I would say that it will not be until after Parliament rises for the year. Your best bet would be 5pm on 24 December.

      On the other hand you may not see anything at all, at least officially. The PM said that "The third-party review into Labour's processes would be made public on the condition that participants wanted that."

      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12268112

      I'm sure that they can find at least one of the participants who will object.

      • Sacha 3.2.1
        7 December 2019 at 11:59 am

        If anything at all is released I would say that it will not be until after Parliament rises for the year. Your best bet would be 5pm on 24 December.

        If that party's comms team are doing their job, yes. No point in offering up a free hit.

        • alwyn 3.2.1.1
          7 December 2019 at 1:37 pm

          Quite right. A competent Comms team should certainly be able to do that.

          A good one would make sure that there was nothing in the report to embarrass them. It would be pretty easy to shut the complainants down. Just threaten them with treatment like one of the girls in the youth camp affair got. The defendant's lawyer came out in Court saying that of course it wasn't a sexual assault. After all the lawyer claimed that "she wanted it".

          Or threaten them they will get the treatment that Winston is dishing out to the former President of his Party, and one that the Labour and Green Parties are happily going along with. Tell anyone who won't shut up that you will accuse them of having mental health problems.

          Then you can get a total whitewash as anyone who knows it is false will be too cowed to speak up.

          • Sacha 3.2.1.1.1
            7 December 2019 at 2:09 pm

            Fortunately they can be competent without being arseholes.

          • Incognito 3.2.1.1.2
            7 December 2019 at 3:58 pm

            Strike me down with a feather, Alwyn shows his bias again with a ridiculous comment attacking Labour and his buddy Winston Peters.

            If a case goes to Court, it is a whitewash, obviously.

            The defendant’s lawyer is not a member of Labour or Labour’s comms team, but he (I assume it is a “he”) might as well be if you take Alwyn’s silly comment at face value.

            The context of alleged lawyer’s claims in Court is missing, of course. Context and nuance is for mugs, obviously.

            Alwyn knows that the Labour and Green Parties are happily going along with anything Winston Peters says or does. No link required, of course, because Alwyn knows.

            Now, I’m sure that Alwyn can produce a link in which Winston Peters tells anyone who won't shut up that he will accuse them of having mental health problems. Alwyn would only be too happy to oblige, wouldn’t he? I can sense his glee already.

            • alwyn 3.2.1.1.2.1
              7 December 2019 at 4:50 pm

              The lawyer was actually a "she". With your enormous skills in using a search engine that you talked about here recently I am sure you could have found that out.

              If you were the parent of a teenage girl who was the complainant of a sexual assault, would you tell her that she should go ahead with the complaint and get attacked by the defendant's lawyer in Court or would you suggest that she simply forget the matter and pretend that it never happened? It isn't a question of who employed this particular lawyer. It is the fact that it pretty routinely happens and I am told it is one of the reasons that so few complaints actually get to Court. It simply isn't worth it.

              As far as Winston's attacks on his former party President is concerned there is a very easily found link here

              https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12291423

              All the Labour members on the Committee voted against having them appear before it. The would no doubt have embarrassed Winston. The Green Party, although supposedly wanting to clean up the anonymous and undeclared donations to Political Parties in New Zealand have remained very, very quiet. Surely correcting what appear to be very doubtful activities by New Zealand First should be of interest to them?

              Perhaps you can produce some evidence whar the Green Party opposed something that Winston has asked for. Did they push for a Kermadec sanctuary perhaps?

              Now for a challenge to you. You claim that Winston is my buddy. Perhaps you can produce a skerrick of evidence for your ridiculous claim. I think he is a disgrace to New Zealand politics and every other party in the house should treat him as a pariah. Unfortunately the only party leaders who have ever done so were Jenny Shipley after she took over from Bolger, and, most notably, John Key prior to the 2008 and 2011 elections.

              In 2008 he said he would not work with Winston because he said, as I remember it, "I cannot trust him". In 2011 he said that "If Winston Peters holds the balance of power it will be a Phil Goff-led Labour government,".

              Unfortunately he didn'r say the same before the 2014 election Neither did any party say it before the 2017 election. Shame on them.

              I presume you will be happy to show me your evidence that Winston is my buddy? I'm sure you don't want to try and perpetuate such a foolish, and fallacious, claim.

              • stigie …
                7 December 2019 at 6:12 pm

                Very well said Alwyn, the most open and transparent government we have ever had !~ //

              • Incognito …
                7 December 2019 at 7:06 pm

                The lawyer is irrelevant but what he/she said in Court is not. What happened in Court is not under the control of Labour or the Labour comms team. You created a strawman and I don’t need a search engine to notice that.

                Your link does not support your assertions that “the Labour and Green Parties are happily going along with [it]” [my italics]. In fact, it states that it was “closed business” and you have no knowledge of what went on behind closed doors. So, you’re making up shit again. FYI, using my famous search skills I found that there are no members of the Green Party on the Justice Committee https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/scl/justice/tab/mp Never mind, Alwyn.

                As to Peters telling people about having mental health problems, he has already mentioned it so this is now an empty threat and not what you alleged @ 3.2.1.1. Are you having problems comprehending your own comment?

                Oh, the buddy issue 🙂

                We all know how much you love to hate Tsar Winston and the Green Party, for example, and you can’t help yourself telling lies about them due to your negative bias towards them. You have just provided the evidence (again) so it is QED for you, Alwyn. If you want more: you have used that silly juvenile term 35 times here on TS. I’m happy to provide all 35 links but then I’ll have to ban you for life. Your call, Alwyn, I’m more than happy to oblige.

                You see, Alwyn, it is perfectly ok to criticise but it is not ok to make up shit to ‘prove’ your point, or rather your opinion, and you’re making a bit of habit of it.

                • alwyn …
                  7 December 2019 at 8:58 pm

                  I presume you count of 35 refers to T*** Peters.

                  You told me you didn't like it and asked if I would stop. At 1.32pm on 22 July I said "OK Just for you I'll do it.".

                  Here it is, just in case you can't find it.

                  https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-21-07-2019/#comment-1639279

                  I haven't used it on a single occasion in the last four and a half months. I repeat "I haven't used it on a single occasion in the last four and a half months". Why don't you just accept that I did what I said I would? Why are you the person who brings it up again? Why do you feel the need to use the term if you dislike it so much?

                  You will also see, if you read this carefully that what I said about Peters is that he might threaten OTHER people with the sort of attack that he has mounted on the former President of his own party. He doesn't have to put it into words. People merely have to worry that he might lash out wildly at them, when they have no way to properly respond.

                  You will also see that I never even hinted that the lawyer was part of the Labour Party "Comms" team. I merely said that people who might be among those with complaints are going to worry about having this sort of accusation hurled at them. It is why many women will not proceed with complaints about sexual harassment. They are the ones who end up in the firing line and it just isn't worth it.

                  You also tell me that there are no Green members on the Committee. I know that. I never claimed there were. I said only that the four Labour members of the committee wouldn't allow them to testify. I also said that the Green Party never commented on this even though it appears to be something they claim to be interested in.

                  When Nick Smith moved an amendment to the silly bill Andrew Little pushed though under urgency that would have treated the New Zealand First Foundation donations as being donations to New Zealand First the Green Party voted against the amendment. Hardly following a practice that will provide openness and transparency about donations is it?

                  Meanwhile I will point out that I don't "lie" about the Green Party. I point out occasions when they don't seem to be following the practices they say the would like to see;.I quite happily confess I don't jump into the fray about the occasional good thing they do but there are plenty of people contributing to this site who will do that ad nauseam. I merely try and provide a little balance.

                  Finally of course are you willing to state that you are completely unable to find anything that supposedly demonstrates that Winston is my buddy? Then you will have removed a slur you have cast on my character.

                  • alwyn …
                    8 December 2019 at 7:15 pm

                    I really thought that incognito might have responded to this.

                    Even if only to admit that his complaints about references to T*** Peters were rather off course.

                    Oh well. I suppose it is just another example that hope springs eternal in the alwyn breast, and that it then remains unrequited.

                    • McFlock …
                      8 December 2019 at 7:53 pm

                      … slowly withering in the dark and evil contrivance that invented it, realising it is merely a chiffon-esque drapery invented to conceal the soulless abyss that would use any form of human suffering to gain meaningless pretended advantage in an online debate. Sad, shrivelled, and hollow, it eventually rots into the pool of ichor that that had originally given it a perverted facsimile of life.

                    • alwyn …
                      8 December 2019 at 8:14 pm

                      @flockie.

                      You really sound unbearably depressed.I think my view of myself is a much happier one than your self portrait of your own existence. You poor chap. How dreadful must be your life with only misery and darkness to look forward to.

                      Please don't do anything that you cannot reverse. Things will get better. They certainly can't get any worse for you, can they?

                    • McFlock …
                      8 December 2019 at 8:28 pm

                      All of that to receive an "I know you are but what am I" response?

                      I don't mind you being an unregenerate lying tory mouthpiece, it's the fact that you're a cut-rate one I can't abide.

                    • alwyn …
                      8 December 2019 at 8:59 pm

                      Can I suggest you splurge on a good cigar. That is sure, providing you can forget the obscene taxes that are levied in New Zealand, to cheer you up.

                      A good cigar, a good night's rest and the world will seem a much more cheerful place in the morning.

                      At least I hope it will be better tomorrow. I am getting sick and tired of the incessant wind and rain we seem to be getting in Wellington. I think I will move to Hawke's Bay

  5. joe90 5
    7 December 2019 at 12:18 pm

    'Murica.

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPPierce/status/1202963986515410944

    The sketches are part of a report entitled “How America Tortures,” which was put together by Denbeaux and his students at Seton Hall Law. The sketches are a trip through hell; Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times. He was left in “stress positions” for days at a time, and confined, shackled, in a tiny crate for the same length of time. Americans did this. The American government sanctioned it. And the American people haven’t given enough of a damn about it to hold its monsters accountable.

    Mr. Zubaydah, who is not known to have formal art training, drew himself in a hood, shackled in the fetal position and tethered by a chain to a cell bar to constrict his movement. In granting the C.I.A. approval to use a technique similar to this, Jay S. Bybee, a former assistant attorney general, noted in an 18-page memo dated Aug. 1, 2002, that “through observing Zubaydah in captivity, you have noted that he appears to be quite flexible despite his wound.” He also noted in the authorization, addressed to the C.I.A.’s acting general counsel at the time, John A. Rizzo, that the agency asserted that “these positions are not designed to produce the pain associated with contortions or twisting of the body.”

    Bybee now has a lifetime appointment as a judge on a federal court of appeals. Rizzo is a fellow at the Hoover Institution.

    Monsters.

    https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a30148805/cia-torture-program-abu-zubaydah-sketches/

  7. Fireblade 7
    7 December 2019 at 1:14 pm

    If Donald Trump has any lead left in his orange pencil, Muhammad would be a popular name for his new baby boy.

    Muhammad makes the list of top 10 baby names in the US for the first time.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/muhammad-breaks-top-10-popular-baby-names-2019-191206064945493.html

  8. swordfish 8
    7 December 2019 at 3:12 pm

    The last two Colmar Bruntons suggest National and ACT currently "have the numbers to scrape together a Government". This is, of course, predicated on the idea that NZF will fall below the 5% threshold.

    How likely is this ?

    The latest Colmar Brunton was conducted at the 25 month mark.

    Here I compare current NZF poll ratings with their Colmar Brunton stats (at the same point in the electoral cycle) during their last two times in Govt.

    NZF in Colmar Bruntons:

    2019

    CB at 25 month mark (Dec 2019) = 4.3%

    Average over previous 12 months = 4.18%

    Range over previous 12 months = 3.3 – 5.0

    1998

    CB at 25 month mark (Nov 1998) = 2%

    Average over previous 12 months = 1.96%

    Range over previous 12 months = 1 – 3

    Subsequent Election 1999 GE = 4.26% (up 2.26 points on 25 month mark CB / up 2.3 points on previous 12 month average)

    2007

    CB at 25 month mark (Oct 2007) = 1.9%

    Average over previous 12 months = 2.28%

    Range over previous 12 months = 1.9 – 2.9

    Subsequent Election 2008 GE = 4.07 (up 2.17 points on 25 month mark CB / up 1.79 points on previous 12 month average)

    So … the Winnie Brigade are roughly 2 points more popular than they were at the same point during their previous two stints in Govt … & the historic pattern is a 2 point lift for the Party by Election Day.

    It's also true, of course, that in both cases (1999 & 2008 GEs) they fell below the 5% threshold. National-aligned doomsayers have focussed on the 4% Party Vote NZF received at both of those Elections … (implying it's some sort of Iron Law of NZ Electoral Politics that the Peters Party will always fall to 4% when in Govt), … whereas I'm inclined to place greater emphasis on the roughly 2 point boost they enjoyed at each of these elections (99 / 08) & to highlight their better performance in recent Polls compared to post-1996 & post-19992005. [correction entered by Moderator]

    Also note (given recent events) that NZF received this 2 point boost despite being embroiled in controversy during those previous periods in Govt (including a well-organised media campaign against the Party in 2008).

    To be sure, the context differs a little … in its previous two stints in Govt, NZF had opted to join ailing Third Term Administrations … this time, of course, it's a fresh First Termer … & yes you have to be careful about relying too much on historic precedent … but the best reading of the entrails is that NZF will take around 6% of the Party Vote in 2020.

    • swordfish 8.1
      7 December 2019 at 3:29 pm

      Minor correction: End of third-to-last paragraph should, of course, read: " … to highlight their better performance in recent Polls compared to post-1996 & post-2005". (not 1999).

    • alwyn 8.2
      7 December 2019 at 5:59 pm

      Do you think that the 1998 Poll numbers from November are really meaningful?

      The poll would have been done about 2 months after Jenny Shipley had sacked Winston from the Cabinet and his party had fissioned under him. There were just over half his members who stuck with him and just under half who stayed with the then Government. I would have thought that this would have been the dominant factor in whatever the results of the poll in November were.

      However I can't find the other CB results for that year. Was this November one an oddity or did it match any poll taken in say July of 1998? The sacking took place on 14 August 1998. I can't really remember that much about the lead-up to the event and whether it was a surprise to the general public.

      If it is a real oddball it renders the calculations rather uncertain. There would only be a sample of one in previous sessions on NZF in power..

      • Incognito 8.2.1
        7 December 2019 at 7:37 pm

        Did you read the last paragraph or maybe even just the last sentence?

        It was the right thing to include the 1998 data, for the sake of completeness, if nothing else.

      • swordfish 8.2.2
        7 December 2019 at 8:09 pm

        Have another look at the 1998 stats I set out in my earlier comment, alwyn.

        1998

        CB at 25 month mark (Nov 1998) = 2%

        Average over previous 12 months = 1.96%

        Range over previous 12 months = 1 – 3

        So, as you can see, NZF's support in Colmar Bruntons over the previous 12 months (ie the immediate 12 months before Nov 1998) ranged from 1 to 3% … and averaged 1.96% … so their November rating was pretty much bang on the average.

        The implosion of the National-NZF Govt made no discernable difference to the Peters Party's ratings.

        • alwyn 8.2.2.1
          7 December 2019 at 8:18 pm

          Sorry. I didn't read it carefully enough. I got very interested in the question of the NZF blow-up and didn't think through your published numbers clearly.

          • swordfish 8.2.2.1.1
            7 December 2019 at 8:56 pm

            No probs.

            For the record:

            NZF's CB average in the 8 polls immediately before Winnie's sacking = 1.95%

            NZF's CB average in the 3 polls immediately after Winnie's sacking = 2.00%

            (= 11 Polls over the year up to & including the Nov 1998 25 month CB)

            • alwyn 8.2.2.1.1.1
              7 December 2019 at 9:04 pm

              No effect at all, is there. I am surprised. I would have thought it would have had a significant effect.

              Out of curiosity are these numbers available on line? I hunted quite hard but couldn't find a record of polls going back to the ones for the period before the 1999 election.

              Have you got a reference or have you got a private set of the numbers from an offline source.

              • swordfish …
                7 December 2019 at 9:42 pm

                The latter … & pretty much like David Farrar I'm inclined to greedily keep them very close to my chest … gives both of us a certain added value, as it were.

                .smiley

                Took quite some time to track all the data down more than a decade ago …right back to the first National Research Bureau Polls of late 1969 (& a few very early NZ Gallup polls from the first half of the 60s) … so might as well get a wee reward for all the effort, I guess.

                Then again, I do like to think I have a few democratic instincts as well … so eventually might look at making them widely available by setting all the poll numbers out on my blog right back to 69 (for Herald-NRB) & 74 (for TVNZ-Heylen / Colmar Brunton).

                Incidentally, I gave a very brief overview of NZ's early polling history in a comment on Chris Trotter's Bowalley Road here:

                http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2019/12/driving-us-up-poll.html?showComment=1575636685912#c5315993626022830853

                • alwyn …
                  7 December 2019 at 11:29 pm

                  Thank you. I tried very hard to find that data but getting back past the 2002 election was beyond my skills. At least it wasn't just my inability to manipulate Google that meant it wasn't showing up.

                  From the 2002 election you can find the polls on Wikipedia of course.

                  My God though. Getting all that ephemeral data right back to '69 is truly impressive. Ah, those were the days. National never, at least so I was told a long time afterward by one of their very senior MPs, never expected to win that one. One of their Ministers built a new house before the election so that he would have somewhere to move to after he had to leave his Ministerial residence. Then they won and he could stay on in the house he was supplied with.

                  I won't waste your time asking for the Poll numbers that might have convinced them they were going to lose though.

                  Thank you for the information. I don't feel bad about not finding it myself now.

    • ianmac 9.1
      7 December 2019 at 5:39 pm

      Sad to disagree Stephen. I was involved with the IHC Sheltered Workshops years ago. Those Intellectually Handicapped people rolled up each day with enthusiasm and socialised with like minded folk. They were paid at less than half the lowest average pay but the daily relationships were a delight. The interactions were worth far more than the pay.

      It was a very sad day when a Government ruling meant that the Workshops were closed down.

      And the people no longer had anything to look forward to. Days empty and lonely.

      So not a bad idea to reopen Workshops eh?

      • greywarshark 9.1.1
        7 December 2019 at 5:54 pm

        That is interesting to hear ianmac. I had heard that the sheltered workshops had been enjoyed and that they could earn their own money and have a job they could manage made them proud and content.

        But the preachy women and some men who decide everything from a point of view that is totally middle class, materialistic with a bit of spirituality thrown in and most of all, are pedantic, pompous and righteous. Their opinion oif what is right rules the day, and the opinions of those affected by their decisions are irrelevant; 'those' people don't understand the range of possibilities available to give them fairness and equity. This may not be what you think but it is observable very often and is something that often occurs in 'consultations'.

      • pat 9.1.2
        7 December 2019 at 6:15 pm

        were incomes additional to a benefit? Seem to recall the change had something to do with minimum wage regs…if that was the case you would expect some better law could be drafted

        • greywarshark 9.1.2.1
          7 December 2019 at 6:28 pm

          They needed to be on a benefit for their security of care, and their working pay should have had an option to be at a rate that was less than minimum pay. This was the welfare system being undone, and everyone being treated the same – equality rather than equity. The fact is ignored, that some relationships don't fit the SWelfs narrow formula, ie a parent being officially paid by the mentally handicapped child, as she works caring for him, therefore he is officially her employer!

          The problem has also been of the state setting minimum rates for things that should be able to be decided on an informal basis with an appeal process if felt too low. Also affects babysitting which used to be done by students for pocket money.

      • alwyn 9.1.3
        7 December 2019 at 6:16 pm

        I was very peripherally involved. A friend had a son who was employed there and the closure of them meant he was now basically at home all day driving his mother crazy. I had no direct involvement with the workshops though and can only go on what they said, then, about them.

        I remember a very moving interview published at the time with the mother of another person who worked there and who was now unemployed. She said that he was paid about a dollar an hour and that was all his work was really worth. She got a benefit that provided for his actual living costs but the money he received was really his pocket money but was something he was very proud of.

        Why the IHC was so keen on getting rid of them was beyond her and why the then Government went along with the idea made no sense. I have seen comments that it was caused by the IHC administration being taken over by careerist civil servants in Wellington. I have no idea if that was true.

        • Descendant Of Smith 9.1.3.1
          8 December 2019 at 6:14 am

          There was quite a bit of abusing the low wages going on in some of those workshops in order to keep the wages low. I had family working in some of them and standing up against this.

          Some examples – a women with an intellectual disability employed by the IHC to do receptionist work for 12 years. Carried out the role as well as any other receptionist paid well below rate at a few dollars a day. Did everything from phones/reception/typing.

          Each year there was supposed to be a productivity assessment that worked out the appropriate below rate pay rate for each person. A family member in this instance assessed the rate for each person based on the number of widgets at the correct quality they produced. This lift in wages for many workers was deemed by management to be too expensive (after all they had just bought all the managers new cars and were going on a trip to China) and so they buried her assessment and got an unqualified person to assess them at unsurprisingly the same rate as it had been previously. The labour inspector responsible for signing off on this previously worked for the trust involved.

          The IHC has a strong resistance in it's ranks at all levels to any client in it's care earning more than the limits prescribed by WINZ for benefit purposes. It's not that the IHC gets any less money it's that the mix changes – the benefit portion which the IHC gets reduces and the DHB portion increases. The client gets to keep all extra earnings so it is in their interests to earn more. Part of another family member's jobs was finding good quality work for people with disabilities. The IHC did not like the extra paperwork that comes with earning over the exemption and so she used to get told off for having people earn more.

          This is an organisation that used to keep clients money in their own coffers til they were forced to set up individual trust accounts, that took peoples disability allowance to supply finding employment services they often never supplied (friend of ours fought very hard to stop this for her intellectually disabled sister), who often colluded with poly-techs to run profit making employment courses for clients to put them somewhere for the day, that is "Idea Services" to reduce stigma most of the time but IHC when it comes to fund-raising, that for many years paid a pittance to staff working all night and so on.

          I would argue that the careerist civil servants had been colluding with the IHC administration for many, many years to keep paying disabled people low wages, to profit off their work and training and to support the IHC to keep people institutionalised for as long as possible.

          In reality much of the institutionlisation was a loss of freedom for the disabled.

          Robert Martin gives a good insight into life before and after.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Martin_(disability_rights_activist)

          https://books.google.co.nz/books/about/Becoming_a_Person.html?id=zjXYoAEACAAJ&redir_esc=y#:~:targetText=Becoming%20a%20Person%20is%20the,suffered%20neglect%2C%20abuse%20and%20violence.

          "he said that he was paid about a dollar an hour and that was all his work was really worth."

          Parents are part of the problem – so many undervalue their own children and have such low expectations. Particularly the generation that institutionalised the majority of the disabled – out of sight out of mind.

          Compounded by the reforms of the public service to replace effectiveness (e.g. giving people with disabilities a decent paid job because overall it is good for society) versus efficiency (it's only about productivity).

          The joys of being able to walk into a government department if you had Downs syndrome for instance and be able to see someone like you in the workplace need to be welcomed back. Sheltered workshops should stay in the historical institutional past.

  11. greywarshark 11
    7 December 2019 at 6:18 pm

    Chris Trotter has raised some interesting points and political mqneouvres open to us in NZ if we choose to accept them.

    https://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2019/12/adrian-orr-reserve-banks-revolutionary.html

    • Ad 11.1
      7 December 2019 at 7:28 pm

      Anderton and Cullen gave the voting public the better option of forming our own bank – Kiwibank – as an option that consumers could freely take up.

      However with about 4% of market share, it's just barely achieving its nationalistic vision. It is perfectly within the power of the government to tilt the procurement table and get Kiwibank to do all of its banking. That move alone would quadruple its power.

      https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/115992087/18yearold-kiwibank-still-has-only-4-per-cent-of-the-market-whats-happened

      Orr has given our banking system greater safety, for which he should be applauded.

      But so far I don't detect any political appetite from anyone to re-nationalise anything or indeed make any move of a structural nature that Cullen and Anderton did.

      • alwyn 11.1.1
        8 December 2019 at 11:52 am

        Kiwibank. Doing what their customers want. Well that seems to be what they claim.

        Meanwhile they are, in just a couple of months going to completely get rid of cheques.

        "After 30 September 2019 Kiwibank won’t issue cheque or deposit books.

        After 28 February 2020 cheque deposits will not be accepted into a Kiwibank customer account; other banks may stop accepting Kiwibank cheques.

        After 28 February 2020 Kiwibank will stop providing bank cheques."

        I know one or two , typically elderly, people who still use cheques. The don't want to have to do Internet banking. Well tough luck if you have been with Kiwibank, supposedly the pensioners friend.

        https://www.kiwibank.co.nz/about-us/news-and-updates/media-releases/2019-05-16-kiwibank-go-cheque-free-from-2020/

        They are also closing branches. Johnsonville, one of the largest Wellington suburbs is just losing their Branch. Only six weeks to go.

        https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/117917873/johnsonville-kiwibank-to-close-in-january-steady-decline-of-customers-cited

        Tell me again why we have the bank? If you want a New Zealand owned bank why don't you go the the popular, and well regarded by their customers, TSB or The Co-Operative Bank.

        Consumer found them to have far higher satisfaction ratings than Kiwibank or any of the majors. In 2019 Co-Op got 87%, TSB 83% and Kiwibank 66%. The big ones were lower. TSB were top in 2017 and 2018.

        Incidentally the big four will have higher Capital ratios than the minnows. On the basis of Orr's arguments the big ones will be safer that than the smaller ones.

  12. joe90 12
    7 December 2019 at 7:24 pm

    Bill Clinton was impeached on the 19th of December, 1998.

    /

    Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich called out House Democrats for trying to impeach President Donald Trump “on the eve of Christmas” during an interview with Fox News, Friday.

    […]

    “And really, on the eve of Christmas it is really sad to see the dishonesty and the partisanship that the House Democrats are displaying,” he concluded.

    https://www.mediaite.com/politics/newt-gingrich-slams-democrats-for-impeaching-trump-on-eve-of-christmas/

  14. Cinny 14
    7 December 2019 at 9:38 pm

    yesThe Listening Post is doing an episode about conservative media interference in the UK election.

    Live stream link below, finishes at 10pm, will post link to episode tomorrow yes It's a goodie.



  15. A 15
    8 December 2019 at 6:30 am

    This could be a teenager near you. Restaurant Brands is large enough to affect every region in NZ

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/117973819/pizza-hut-kfc-workers-break-silence-on-rape-threats-and-harassment

    “If they took sexual harassment as seriously as they take petty theft, we wouldn’t be having this conversation,” says UNITE industrial officer Duncan Allen of the raft of harassment complaints he has helped lodge.

    UNITE has had complaints from employees at other companies – but nothing like Restaurant Brands, which Allen says appears to have a deep-rooted issue with its company culture.

    “Far more energy (is) put into protecting the alleged harasser than there is about investigating properly and fixing things.”

    He believes there’s a pattern of employees leaving their jobs because laying a complaint is made too difficult, with the company demanding specific evidence – including exact dates and times – before they will agree to look into allegations.