Open mike 11/06/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, June 11th, 2012 - 152 comments
Categories: open mike, uncategorized - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

152 comments on “Open mike 11/06/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. BillODrees 1
    11 June 2012 at 7:05 am

    ‘Over 400 people attended an Fabian’s excellent event at QTheatre in Auckland yesterday. The recurring message was that we need a very major shift in thinking to stop the decline.  Neoliberalism, and not challenging the conventional wisdom of Tresuryand it’s fans, has seen the real income base of New Zealand whittled away over the past 30 years.  Thank you to the Fabian Society and the excellent speakers.  
    http://thevoyage.co.nz/speakers/
    Labour, as much as National, needs to break away from the rhetoric that has failed to deliver hope for our youth. Fiddling with the image of a leader, trying to appeal to transient “good bloke” or “nice guy” marketing silliness is not how we will change New Zealand.  The young people want and need a strong leader who will break away from the pack and effect real change.  The youth want a future in New Zealand. We want our talent to return home.  None of the current party leaders have what it takes.  We need change urgently. 

    • Pete George 1.1
      11 June 2012 at 7:28 am

      To get the change in leadership you suggest (I agree with what you say) would take a major change in thinking and actions – of political parties, of media, and of the voting public.

      Blogs could play a significant part in leading the new way, but to do that they would have to replace petty niggling and point scoring (and yes, I get involved in that too) with a robust but reasonable contest of ideas.

      New Zealand’s political blogs are often little more than localised mangled moanfests.

      They could be powerful – and guide a path to better political power – if they learnt to harness their collective wisdom, wit and will to make positive change.

      But bloggers and commenters would have to want to break out of their bullshit bubbles.

    • chris73 1.2
      11 June 2012 at 7:46 am

      I agree but one of the main problems as I see it is the “tribalism” surrounding both left wing and right wing parties. How many times have you heard someone say that I vote for (insert party here) because my parents voted for them etc etc

      Theres something wrong when both Labour and National could virtually anyone in certain seats and win simply because they’re red or blue

      • mickysavage 1.2.1
        11 June 2012 at 7:51 am

        That is the reality Chris73.  Your assertions suggest there is no such thing as “class” and is essentially libertarian, which of itself is also a political philosophy.

        Through long and at times bitter experience it has been shown beyond any doubt that National supports already wealthy areas while Labour supports poor areas.

        • Dr Terry 1.2.1.1
          11 June 2012 at 10:10 am

          mickysavage, I am not writing to criticise you, as in general I like your comments (and memory of the man you are named after!) What I need to say is that we do well to avoid “absolutes” in our statements; there are but variations I’m afraid, or “inclinations”. National policies, in general, definitely favour the wealthy, while Labour policies, in general, certainly are inclined toward care for poorer human beings. My fear is that these two parties are showing signs of sharing the ground of the Right, depriving voters of real choice. I hope and pray not. Consequently I have chosen, at least for the present, to go with the Greens and a fresh stance.

          • mickysavage 1.2.1.1.1
            11 June 2012 at 8:54 pm

            Dr Terry

            A considered response.  Politics nowadays is a bit of a triangle, rich, poor and those who want to save our planet.

            And there are shades of grey.  

            But things are heading more and more to class politics as the wealthy are given even more resources.  And the environment adds this terrifying dimension to things.  If we get environmental policy wrong then nothing else matters. 

      • Draco T Bastard 1.2.2
        11 June 2012 at 8:31 am

        How many times have you heard someone say that I vote for (insert party here) because my parents voted for them etc etc

        Um, never. Perhaps it’s the circles you’re mixing in.

        Theres something wrong when both Labour and National could virtually anyone in certain seats and win simply because they’re red or blue

        Now that is something I agree with and one of the reasons I’d like to see electorate seats done away with (It’d remove the inherent bias in the electorates).

        • gareth 1.2.2.1
          11 June 2012 at 8:46 am

          “Now that is something I agree with and one of the reasons I’d like to see electorate seats done away with (It’d remove the inherent bias in the electorates).”

          If we do that won’t it encourage parties to put all there efforts into the bigger population centres that hold the most votes? It would be easy to end up in a situation where communities outside of the main centres are forgotten about and without an elected representative to hold accountable.

          Or perhaps if we went 100% list we could mandate that every seat must have a list mp designated to them they must have a local office etc. This could be done by looking at the relative vote percentages in each area and it would be conceivable that some seats would have mps from multiple parties allocated. If the party lists were perhaps open to all party members to rank (maybe they are?) it should discourage poor performance as the local members could conceivably vote someone down the list next election.

          • Carol 1.2.2.1.1
            11 June 2012 at 8:49 am

            I do think we need geographic representaton as well as nation-wide reps as per the lists.

            If there is no geographic representation, it will continue the trend for city councils being controlled from Wellington. Also poor areas will become even more neglected.

            • felix 1.2.2.1.1.1
              11 June 2012 at 10:57 am

              Agreed. Just because we recognise that not all constituencies are geographic doesn’t mean geographic constituencies cease to exist.

              • Pete George …
                11 June 2012 at 11:10 am

                I agree – but I’ve heard claims from Greens that geographic electorates are obsolete and lists are the only way forward.

                By a strange coincidence, Greens get all their seats via the list. If their party support dropped back threatening the threshold and they got one or two strong candidates with real chances winning/holding electorates I wonder if their stance on list only would change.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  11 June 2012 at 3:00 pm

                  I agree – but I’ve heard claims from Greens that geographic electorates are obsolete and lists are the only way forward.

                  Was it Norman or Turei who said this? Link please.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.2.2.1.1.2
              11 June 2012 at 3:12 pm

              Geographic representation should actually be through the local councils. This would mean strengthening those councils and making them more democratic (binding referendums could actually be more easily put in place) but I don’t see any real problem with that. Of course, as their actions in ECan and the CERA legislation show, NACT would.

          • Draco T Bastard 1.2.2.1.2
            11 June 2012 at 8:58 am

            If we do that won’t it encourage parties to put all there efforts into the bigger population centres that hold the most votes?

            Possibly.

            This could be done by looking at the relative vote percentages in each area and it would be conceivable that some seats would have mps from multiple parties allocated.

            Or we could have a local office in each electorate from each party with the office itself funded by the government but staffed from the party. Even a minimum sized party has enough people in it to do that. The MPs of the parties would then make rounds of the offices.

          • Pascal's bookie 1.2.2.1.3
            11 June 2012 at 9:01 am

            “If we do that won’t it encourage parties to put all there efforts into the bigger population centres that hold the most votes?”

            They do that now. But if it becomes too big a problem, and particularly under a 100% list system, I’d expect to see a ‘Provincial Party’ form pretty quickly. Done right they’d quite concievably hold the ballance of power in perpetuity sitting on about 10-15%.

        • Janice 1.2.2.2
          11 June 2012 at 8:55 am

          I once heard a woman tell someone that she didn’t need to bother about politics as her husband always decided who they would vote for. To make matters worse she was a secondary school teacher and this was 2008.

        • Vicky32 1.2.2.3
          11 June 2012 at 4:46 pm

          How many times have you heard someone say that I vote for (insert party here) because my parents voted for them etc etc

          My mother said that once, and was shocked that I was shocked!
          However, she is and was the only one… We all thought that her statement was completely mad! 😀

      • Campbell Larsen 1.2.3
        11 June 2012 at 9:02 am

        Why is it that the Right are always using ‘tribalism’ as a slur?

        Perhaps because tribalism is one of the oldest, most enduring and most successful forms of cooperative human endeavour.

        After all we can’t have people working together and supporting one another in close knit groups with common goals now can we?

    • ad 1.3
      11 June 2012 at 9:06 am

      Once David Cunliffe’s clients-only speech to Philips Fox tonight goes public, you will I think see the results of someone who has survived within the Labour Party and is still forging his own independent economic style and direction.

      Really encouraging to hear about the Fabians, given that a recent thread on this site complained about how useless economists were. There really is an alterantive in this country.

      And speaking of alternatives, OMG the Socialists and the greens are about to own the entire House in France!

      That, together with the polls, makes me feel more hopeful this morning than I have in, oh, four years.

      • BillODrees 1.3.1
        11 June 2012 at 9:21 am

        Cunliffe needs to speak to the long term issues. The undelying fundamentals need to be changed.  We need strong vision. We need a leader who has the capability to interpret the real world for the youth of New Zealand: make the strong decisions; and have the capability to execute. 

        • ad 1.3.1.1
          11 June 2012 at 9:39 am

          I think you may be pleasantly surprised, Bill. It may well cover the last time New Zealand faced an economic crisis this big, the Great Depression, and the scale and unity of national purpose required to get out of it. He may well also compare to those small countries like Denmark that are doing all right, have really clear cross-party 10 year plans and operational plans to get there. If you liked the Blockhouse Bay one, this is going to be stronger, and to a business audience.

      • Dr Terry 1.3.2
        11 June 2012 at 10:16 am

        Good for you, ad. I am gratified to see your views here. Because I am inclined to be a bit of a cynic, I desperately want you not to be disappointed or disillusioned. Never mind, keep yourself on this most positive track. Well spoken!

      • Enough is Enough 1.3.3
        11 June 2012 at 10:36 am

        Phillips Fox or Kensington Swann

        You said KS yesterday. They aren’t the same place chief.

  2. Carol 2
    11 June 2012 at 7:58 am

    I want to continue the ACC debate, following the 60 minutes broadcast last night featuring Bronwyn Pullar.

    Particularly ianmac raises some significant points

    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10062012/comment-page-1/#comment-481251

    Mr Judge backed the Senior staff but had not listened to the tape.
    The number of ACC payments has plummeted.
    The $3billion profit is a fact, yet ACC claim no money.
    Minister Collins is nowhere and she must stand and front.
    3 months before the complaint was made to the police.
    There have been numerous documented cases of erroneous mail outs of confidential info.
    The collusion between “Independent” doctors is serious.
    Illegal access to Pullar’s file sackable.
    At least there is an appearance of serious problems with ACC.
    http://ondemand.tv3.co.nz/60-Minutes-The-Eye-of-the-Storm/tabid/59/articleID/6789/MCat/22/Default.aspx

    • Carol 2.1
      11 June 2012 at 8:17 am

      Actually Pullar/Boag claimed that he had listened to the tape as played by one of their legal reps. Judges claim was he hadn’t ever had a copy of the tape. So it’s strange ACC is still standing by their original claims.

      I think there is a major problem with ACC following some sort of systematic guidelines to pay out as little as possible. My experiences with ACC (over physiotherapy) are in keeping with Pullar’s to the extent that ACC make you feel you are claiming something you are not entitled to – even when you are entitled.

      I think there is a problem with insecure computer systems – others have experienced similar acquisition of documents sent to them in error.

      But there are things that seem to me to not add up, or to be exceptional with the Pullar case. It seems that Pullar and Boag are taking the opportunity to make claims beyond their experiences of ACC, and beyond the evidence they have. They seem to be aiming to completely undermine ACC, possibly in support of the government’s privatisation agenda?

      My experience is not of the “out of control” ACC organisation that Pullar and Boag are claiming. I have no experience or personal knowledge of the systemic leaking of unorthorised documents – it doesn’t seem to be happening to the extent Pullar is claiming…. and how would she know beyond a few cases? My experience is of a very tightly run ACC ship, aimed first and foremost at saving money. And from what I’ve sen in the media, this has really become quite mean and vicious under NAct’s watch. It wasn’t so much like this in the earlier, Labour years, when Pullar first ran into difficulties with ACC.

      In my experience, the clinical advisor and other ACC people seemed to skew their reports to get the outcomes they want (denial of funding). But the collusion between people, emails claiming Pullar is trying to rort the system etc, goes way beyond that.

      While Pullar is fully entitiled to full ACC coverage, it seems to me she isn’t in as much need as the majority of claimants. For instance, I haven’t claimed some things I’m entitled to because I figured I can manage quite well without. How much does Pullar need full income replacement at a level in keeping with the high wages she was getting before her accident? That would be a sizeable sum.

      Pullar has been badly treated, as have many ACC clients. But the Pullar/Boag agenda seems to be aimed at totally undermining ACC, so I don’t think they are being totally transparent.

      • ianmac 2.1.1
        11 June 2012 at 9:22 am

        “Pullar has been badly treated, as have many ACC clients. But the Pullar/Boag agenda seems to be aimed at totally undermining ACC, so I don’t think they are being totally transparent.”

        I didn’t think that that was what Pullar was claiming Carol. She was I thought, claiming for Medical Support/Treatment to continue as she tried to extend her work days. But I don’t think it was really just about Pullar. She was speaking out on behalf of all those who had been not given the support that they were entitled to under the Act. Whistle-blowers do get a hard time as the System beats them up to protect the system. No doubt it is argued that the System is more important than the individual.
        They know and we know that there are always a few who rort the system, but that should never be an excuse to deny to the majority of reasonable people. ( Bad parents. Abuse. Crime. Beneficiaries ripping off. Fraud. etc)

        • Carol 2.1.1.1
          11 June 2012 at 9:36 am

          ianmac, they were talking about a system completely out of control, and generalising well beyond what they have evidence of.

          This has not been my experience. It is quite a controlled system, but an imperfect one that, first and foremost, aims to save money. I have dealt with some helpful people within that system, and others who just follow the organisation’s mean agenda. Also, ACC has been pretty good in funding my immediate emergency and hospitalisation, as well as my continuing review appointmenst with specialists.

          It seems to be provisions for recovery and substantial long-term support where this current government is trying to save money.

          I’m not so inclined to take at face value Boag & Pullar’s claims to care so much about all the Kiwis who are not getting the service they are entitled to from ACC. They are handing NAct and the media the weapon to continue to undermine ACC and move it towards privatisation. They maybe also are taking the opportunity to provide the means to further undermine Collins.

          60 Minutes tends to give a very selective, one-sided view of such issues.

          There’s things in their claims that make me suspicious. However, I’m with Hague on the way to respond:

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10812163

          Green Party ACC spokesman Kevin Hague told the media last night Ms Collins needed to act decisively to restore public trust in the corporation.

          “The further revelations about shonky assessment and claims handling practices … mean that, at the very least, the ACC Minister should remove John Judge as ACC chair.”

          • ianmac 2.1.1.1.1
            11 June 2012 at 11:04 am

            Carol I fell off my ladder once, and caused a huge bruised buttock. I went to the doctor just to register the event in case there was a repercussion. The doctor could only tick hip as glutomous maximus wasn’t on the list. It is my only experience with ACC but it certainly seems that there are many who have had to fight, and lose, especially with cases of sexual damage.
            It seems that ACC has at least to answer some questions, especially since it is a unique and successful system and worth keeping.
            Although lawyers might resent missing out on the American style litigation!

            • Carol 2.1.1.1.1.1
              11 June 2012 at 11:22 am

              I’m not very familiar with the history of the ACC, ianmac. But it seems to me that it has been making it really hard for people to get assistance since National came to lead the government in 2008.

              I don’t think there’s a big problem with ACC’s limited list of classifications. On many forms, eg physio referrals by my specialist, s/he often just writes the place of fracturing eg fractured X, which could just mean one fracture. In fact, for one of the fractured areas, there is a complicated multiple fracturing. But anyone just has to look at my hospital discharge papers to see along list of fracture here, fracture there, displaced fragment there etc.

              • yeshe …
                11 June 2012 at 11:52 am

                Hi Carol … it was an extraordinary work by Sir Owen Woodhouse, who now, sadly, is too elderly to wish to comment on the predation of this government.

                ACC founding principles …

                Community responsibility
                Comprehensive entitlement ( yes, entitlement)
                Complete rehabilitation
                Real compensation
                Administrative efficiency.

                And a couple of links for you … little did we realize they were already the halcyon days !

                http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/704-sir-owen-woodhouses-speech/

                http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/overview-of-acc/introduction-to-acc/ABA00004

                • Carol …
                  11 June 2012 at 12:01 pm

                  Thanks, yeshe.

                  Hmmm…”complete rehabilitation”…. seems to have fallen by the wayside particularly.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    11 June 2012 at 3:22 pm

                    That’s what happens when a non-profit, pay as it goes, system is changed to act like a profit driven insurance company – save money and cut costs. One day I hope the economists and politicians wake up to the fact that everything must be paid for out of the currently available resources and that saving money makes no difference to this. Which means, in practical terms, that emergencies require slack in the economy so that society can respond to them.

      • just saying 2.1.2
        11 June 2012 at 10:35 pm

        As I said in reply to you on another thread, Pullar was clearly talking from her experience as a long -term client aka (from ACC management reports) a “swamp dewller” as in the “swamp is being drained”. I don’t think your experiences as someone who experienced an injury requiring short-term support (albeit severe) should be compared to those of people who have been on the receiving end of ACC’s liability-limitation policies for many years. Especially when you use your (different kind) of experience to challenge her lived experience and that of many others.

        My last ACC claim was for a scratched cornea. I have no complaints and certainly received nobody else’s private information as a result of it. I think most who have brief encounters with ACC are reasonably happy. In my experience, most of those who have had long experience with the corporation have horrifying stories over many years, with very similar themes to Pullar’s.

        • Carol 2.1.2.1
          12 June 2012 at 9:34 am

          That’s a fair comment, just saying. It just seemed to me that Pullar/Boag were claiming that the problems were widespread throughout the whole of the ACC system.

          I do think most of the issues are about money and saving costs. Injured people who need long term support will be the most costly for ACC.

          Also Pullar seemed to be saying most ACC clients had received some documents relating to other people. I think there is clearly a problem with leaky systems, which probably also is related to cost-saving. But I think only a small number of clients have received such private documents related to other people.

          I am concerned that Pullar and Boag are completely undermining ACC, whereas some aspects of it work well.

    • deuto 2.2
      11 June 2012 at 1:08 pm

      And on top of his out of touch (deluded?) media comments earlier today, Key wades into the Pullar/ACC issue again without having watched the 60 minute programme

      This morning Prime Minister John Key waded into the saga, suggesting Pullar was upset because she had a pre-existing condition before she suffered head injuries in a cycling accident in 2002.
      …
      Key this morning said Pullar’s case was an operational issue and he hadn’t seen last night’s interview.

      ”What is clear is that ACC deals with a huge number of complaints, a huge amount of data and there are always people who feel the system hasn’t treated them fairly and that is partly because the big dispute always comes around the definition of a pre-existing condition,” he told Newstalk.

      ”That at one level is at the heart of what sits with this Bronwyn Pullar claim.”

      Boag said today Key had been misinformed if he believed Pullar had an illness before her accident.

      ”I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt. I think he’s (been) overseas, was talking in general terms about these issues. If he was talking specifically about Bronwyn, he’s been misbriefed… which would not surprise me in the current circumstances.”

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7079141/PM-wades-into-ACC-Pullar-debate

      Some times it is better to keep your mouth shut ……

      • Carol 2.2.1
        11 June 2012 at 1:17 pm

        The pre-existing condition one has become a dubious strategy for ACC. When I was had trouble getting more physio, I asked my specialist & physio if it was due to this pre-existing condition approach that seemed to be prevalent. They both strongly assured me my case was cut & dried. My injuries were due to a significant injury impact/trauma.

        And yet, when I was in my last round of (eventually successfully) hassling over more physio, one person at ACC pretty much told me that one of my more recent symptoms (strongly highlighted by the clinical adviser) could be due to a non-injury cause and was a sticking point for ACC.

        But then the next person I talked to at ACC said that the extent and nature of my injury would have been very likely to cause that symptom, so it was not an issue. That person was involved in over-seeing me being, finally, given some funding for more physio.

        As far as I’m concerned, this “pre-existing” business is the last refuge of scoundrels.

      • Treetop 2.2.2
        11 June 2012 at 2:55 pm

        Yes Key is somewhat ignorant regarding Pullar’s medical and legal case with ACC. I have personally approached Key regarding an extensive medical and legal case with ACC and he referred it onto Power and Power told me to go to the IPCA. Power was misled by the police in 2006 so I chose not to go to the IPCA in 2009.

        You may find the following to be of interest: Kyle Mac Donald Psychotherapist, the comment by Jax in particular May 21, 2012 at 11.34 am
        http://psychotherapy.org.nz/when-a-secret-is-no-longer-a-secret/

        The medical diagnosis in the DSM IV which ACC use to determine the level and cause of injury is insufficent for a person who has Complex PTSD. There is a six symptom cluster that people have with Complex PTSD (the features are listed under DESNOS in the DSM 1V, but not the treatment or the term Complex PTSD) which a person with regular PTSD does not have, (Herman is the expert).

        When it comes to medicine if a person does not have the correct diagnosis how can they receive the correct treatment?

        It is my personal opinion that legal issues can prolong and intensify a persons medical condition. A person cannot settle their ACC case until there is TOTAL agreement in what the level of injury is, the cause, the ongoing assistance required. From time to time a review is required but this should not be adversarial.

        • Carol 2.2.2.1
          11 June 2012 at 3:31 pm

          Do ACC care at all about PTSD? I don’t know anything much about PTSD. But in my experience, ACC has no interest in the emotional or psychological impact of an injury. In my case, I do think my ability to cope with stress, and my energy level was much lowered for several months after my injury. I think I haven’t yet returned to my pre-injury state.

          The measure of the impact of the impact of the accident on my general well-being, is that, for the few hours between the accident, and being put under anesthetic in the operating theatre, my body was continually trembling uncontrollably. This trembling returned intermittently in the first few days after the accident.

          As soon as I got out of hospital, ACC people were talking to me about returning to work ASAP (because it’s best for people to be working). They only wanted to know about the physical requirements of my work, and whether I was physically up to it. They seemed to have no interest in whether I was emotionally or psychologically up to it, or whether I was up to dealing with the level of stress I would encounter at work.

      • Treetop 2.2.3
        11 June 2012 at 3:53 pm

        Does Key think that Smith put his arse on the line if Pullar had a pre – existing medical condition?

        I do believe that defamatory statements can cause mental injury/PTSD. Bullying on its own can cause PTSD.
        http://www.bullyonline.org/stress/ptsd.htm

        As a side issue: When it comes to an ACC assessment for sexual assault/abuse two questions are asked.

        Any other significant trauma?
        Is this trauma related to the claim?

    • Treetop 2.3
      11 June 2012 at 2:17 pm

      Carol the most telling comment for me which came out of Pullars mouth (re 60 Minutes) was how she said that her case was medical and legal. The medical side is the accident and the ACC errors are the legal side AND there is cross over between medical and legal. My solution for Pullar is in Open Mike 06/06/2012 comment 18 & 18.1.1

      • Carol 2.3.1
        11 June 2012 at 2:49 pm

        Gottit, Treetop.

        I agree the CEO should be replaced, and ACC needs a do-over, and to be returned to its original mission. I do not trust either NAct, Boag or Collins to be working towards that.

        I do have quite a bit of sympathy for Pullar’s situation, and feel ACC has treated her very badly.

        But this case seems far from straightforward, and I feel various people have been opportunistic in jumping in.

        I also am not trusting that Labour would work to improve ACC enough, though I think that they would work to provide a better service than NAct.

        • Treetop 2.3.1.1
          11 June 2012 at 3:17 pm

          I don’t know all the details about Pullars case, so far I do not fault her. Everything she says about defamatory statements, that is how ACC including clinical assessors and the Office of the Police Commissioners operate when it comes to misleading Ministers/MPs.

          Labour is intolerant to foolish CEOs/Chairpeople compared to National, I approached Clark in October 2008, I recieved a reply in 10 minutes. The change in government sabotaged my case and I did not act earlier as a family member had to come first.

          • Anne 2.3.1.1.1
            11 June 2012 at 4:45 pm

            Professor Grant Duncan has just been talking about the ACC scandal on Radio NZ The Panel.

            Yes, it’s that programme but can someone get it up here as soon as available? (I’ve yet to learn how to do radio links.)

            It’s a brilliant analysis. You won’t believe (until you hear it) what he says about Key’s character assassination attempts on Pullar. His prediction? John Judge is gone. I detected a hint of panic in Jim Mora’s voice. 🙂

            • Carol 2.3.1.1.1.1
              11 June 2012 at 5:09 pm

              There’s a link up here on ACC on the pre-panel show, not the panel-proper as yet:

              http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/20120611

            • Carol 2.3.1.1.1.2
              11 June 2012 at 5:40 pm

              Thanks. Good stuff about how ACC is a very cost effective scheme, is in a good financial state, and needs to restore confidence and not treat everyone as if they are out to rort the system.

              The situation with Pullar is partly because ACC see her as expensive: ie was on a high wage, so expensive to keep supporting her with a high proportion of her previous salary, over the long term.

              Also, Mora mentioned there’s been issues with ACC’s unwillingness to fund on-going physiotherapy over a long period.

              Duncan says Judge is gone, but to a certain extent is a sacrificial lamb. however, that’s necessary.

              Also he queried the whole degenerative, pre-existing wear and tear – of course anyone will have some degenerative wear as they get older. It shouldn’t stop older people getting funding for injuries.

  3. vto 3
    11 June 2012 at 8:32 am

    Perhaps a new Treaty should be created. Nothing to do with te tiriti, but a brand new one between the current peoples of these islands and all immigrants from this point onwards. After all, it seems many most of the reasons for te tiriti apply today for same similar reasons.

    • Uturn 3.1
      11 June 2012 at 8:44 am

      I’ll jump to the conclusion then you can work back. You like doing that.

      To ask is a presumption of power.
      To ignore your negotiating partner is not an act of goodwill.
      If you have all the power, enough to enforce a treaty when one is not required, you’re only intent on oppressing people.

      Tired of it VTO. See a doctor. The constant need to “talk negatively” about a group of people – any group you happen to choose… maori, americans, environmentalists… It’s you that has the problem. Be honest or take your self loathing elsewhere.

      • felix 3.1.1
        11 June 2012 at 9:11 am

        I’ve never seen vto talk negatively about environmentalists. From what I gather he spends a lot of time in the natural environment and understands the environmental challenges we face first hand in a way that many can only intellectualise about.

        • marty mars 3.1.1.1
          11 June 2012 at 10:21 pm

          he may well know something about the environment but he knows fuck all about tangata whenua and there ain’t much intellectualising that i can see from his input in that area – but it takes all types so kei te pai.

          • vto 3.1.1.1.1
            12 June 2012 at 7:20 am

            Oh look, another baseless personal atack by marty mars aka uturn. How surprising.

            • marty mars 3.1.1.1.1.1
              12 June 2012 at 9:28 am

              oh you poor little vot I am not uturn, we just agree on some things mainly on our opinion of you and your input. It’s okay remember there are a few of us who are less than impressed by your trojan horse technique of generating controversy.

              • vto …
                12 June 2012 at 9:35 am

                boring, repetitive and substanceless.

                Betcha your next post will be along exactly similar lines.

                • vto …
                  12 June 2012 at 9:45 am

                  You know, it is a curious fact that since smarty mars turned up again a couple days ago every single post of his has been an attack at me. He has not made one single post on any other subject.

                  You are on a smear campaign so bloody obvious it has instant tedium.

                  All because you are Ngai Tahu and you do not like anything Maori being questioned. It’s history, the place and quality of te tiriti, whether first-in-first-served has a place, etc etc. You are conflicted. You have a vested interest. You are on a mission to shutdown debate. Well good luck with that because censorship has never worked.

                  I await the next attack.

                  • marty mars …
                    12 June 2012 at 10:19 am

                    good observation vot – yes you are on a smear campaign and although it is tedious i consider that i must oppose the bullshit you smear – stop smearing and leave your bigotry behind, just like you left your rightwing voting pattern behind – you can learn and grow and improve, you’ve done it before.

                    • vto …
                      12 June 2012 at 10:51 am

                      There has been no bigotry, and you have provided no proof for such despite about a dozen barren claims in the last couple days.

                      The bigotry rests solely with you, as is evidenced by your relentless attacks on me. As I said and you have admitted, it is you who comes at all of these issues from a predetermined Ngai Tahu position. It is you who is conflicted. It is you who has a vested interest.

                      And it seems you must have used up all your big swear words and abusive terms by now. Got anymore?

                    • marty mars …
                      12 June 2012 at 11:21 am

                      losing it I see – what big swear words have I used in this thread dim?

                    • vto …
                      12 June 2012 at 11:33 am

                      ha ha, you keep adding to yourself. little. blind. racist.

                      … next

                    • marty mars …
                      12 June 2012 at 11:44 am

                      is that your new one vot – “little blind racist”? Bit useless but you got the offensiveness about right – and yes i am proud of my heritage and all my whakapapa – could you say the same shamewearer?

                    • vto …
                      12 June 2012 at 11:50 am

                      oh, shamewearer. Another personal attack. How surprising.

                      … next

                    • marty mars …
                      12 June 2012 at 12:00 pm

                      didn’t think so

                    • vto …
                      12 June 2012 at 12:06 pm

                      lol, the funniest of the lot.. on so many levels ..

                      … next

      • vto 3.1.2
        11 June 2012 at 9:12 am

        You’re pathetic Uturn. And predictable. I suspect you are in fact some previous poster under a newish name.

        “To ask is a presumption of power.”

        Bullshit. And to ask what? I look forward to applying your claim elsewhere.

        “To ignore your negotiating partner is not an act of goodwill.”

        What negotiating partner? If you refer to Maori, then I suggested that te tiriti be left as is. A new treaty would come underneath current constitutional and other arrangements. There was no ignoring, fool.

        “If you have all the power, enough to enforce a treaty when one is not required, you’re only intent on oppressing people.”

        What on earth are you talking about? Full of assumptions as usual. And as for “… when one is not required…”, well you need to wake up and see what is going on in the world. It is volatile times. There are treaties of all kinds going on all over the place all of the time. It is nothing new (although the fact you seem to think it is speaks to your own eye glasses)

        “Tired of it VTO. See a doctor.”

        Then fuck off and ignore me.

        “The constant need to “talk negatively” about a group of people – any group you happen to choose… maori, americans, environmentalists… It’s you that has the problem. Be honest or take your self loathing elsewhere.”

        Perhaps you would care to provide a reference to where I have talked negatively about maori, americans or environmentalists. Because I haven’t and you are making shit up again to try and discredit me. This is a marty mars trick – are you marty mars? I asked you to do the same the other day when you made up similar bullshit about what I posted, and you didn’t provide any reference.

        You uturn are stuck in a world where everything is already decided isn’t it. Your views are set. Any challenge to your tiny world gets you all hot under the collar.

        Treaties are nothing new. In case you haven’t noticed NZ is negotiating several treaties right now, such as the TPP.

        • vto 3.1.2.1
          11 June 2012 at 9:19 am

          post-edit “I suggested that te tiriti be left as is.” Actually, it appears that wasn’t made clear. But that is the suggestion.

          • vto 3.1.2.1.1
            11 June 2012 at 10:17 am

            Perhaps I outline a little more…

            The world today is awash with treaties. The EU is a form of treaty, North America has one, CER was/is another. There are countless. Most of them come under the guise of trade etc but they do in fact impact on soveriegnty (witness Australian government’s battles with big tobacco) and our ability to make laws for ourselves (witness Euro folk complaining about Brussels making laws for them without any input).

            Underneath these trade treaties is a push for global ‘security’ which can be read as ‘governance’ without much difficulty. Even John Key last week referred to global security and our (his) desire to be part of that. He even signed some other new treaty with, I think, Nato of all groups.

            In addition, with global volatility and looming financial firestorms there is the bogey of potential massive immigration, either controlled or uncontrolled.

            Against this I suspect a substantial majority of New Zealanders do not wish to see their world altered too much from what it is now. The perception and probably reality of such alteration is that the effect would be negative. We have a way of life, a culture/s, heritage, etc that is worth preserving and enhancing.

            So why would we not make moves to protect it? After all, we would only be looking to our own interests, which is exactly what big countries and big business and big people do. Play their own game straight back at them.

            (and for the likes of uturn out there, it aint nothing to do with te tiritit, although it does provide a reasonable template to step off from).

            • weka 3.1.2.1.1.1
              11 June 2012 at 12:24 pm

              “So why would we not make moves to protect it?”
               
              As I said below, the enemy is within. We don’t want Key et al making treaties because they don’t give a shit about sovereignty. Until NZ is willing to vote in governments that take this seriously we are screwed. IMO you’re asking the wrong question. Yes we should be taking our future security in the face of climate change, peak oil and economic collapse seriously, but we can’t do much until we have sovereignty established at home.

          • vto 3.1.2.1.2
            11 June 2012 at 11:20 am

            gah, in moderation for over an hour. What going on? Uturn in control? Oh well, just as well a blog isn’t real..

        • marty mars 3.1.2.2
          11 June 2012 at 10:10 pm

          oh vto you are just a dim – why do you keep bringing me into your demented rants – get this straight – I am not interested in you other than the disinformation and bigotry you put out, which I must oppose. Get a life and please don’t bring my name up unless you have a fucken good reason.

          • vto 3.1.2.2.1
            12 June 2012 at 7:19 am

            “oh vto you are just a dim – why do you keep bringing me into your demented rants – get this straight – I am not interested in you other than the disinformation and bigotry you put out, which I must oppose. Get a life and please don’t bring my name up unless you have a fucken good reason.”

            Stop following me around.

            Face it – you don’t like the current maori way and issues being questioned so you personally attack. There aint no disinformation and there is no bigotry. Perhaps, like uturn, you could point to some evidence for your attack – otherwise you are just another hollow shithead.

        • vto 3.1.2.3
          12 June 2012 at 7:34 am

          And look, once again uturn has fled when his bullshit attack is queried.

          Can’t put up any evidence to support his claims so runs away. This is a common trait.

          Isn’t this called trolling? Uturn, or marty mars, whichever one you are (you do turn up together and post in near identical manners), how about you grow some balls and provide some proof of where I have talked negatively about maori, americans or environmentalists because it doesn’t exist except in that tiny empty head of yours.

          Come on.

          Put up or shut the fuck up.

          [lprent: They don’t look like the same person to me from the look of the IPs and timing. ]

          • marty mars 3.1.2.3.1
            12 June 2012 at 9:32 am

            we aren’t the same person and I can’t understand why the moderators are allowing fuckwit vot to continue implying that i am and continuing to try and ‘out’ an identity. Sure, you let vot disrespect a guest poster (QoT) in the past, fair enough, but this ‘outing’ is a deliberate, repetitive, blatent attempt – is that the way it works now?

            • vto 3.1.2.3.1.1
              12 June 2012 at 9:37 am

              And there it is – the blind little racist smarty mars making more baseless accusations. Point out where I disrespected QoT.

              Boring, repetitive, substanceless.

              • marty mars …
                12 June 2012 at 10:03 am

                don’t act thicker than you already are – you know that I directly queried that with the moderators at the time.

                this is what you said

                http://thestandard.org.nz/new-record-set-in-ironic-racism/comment-page-1/#comment-454899

                What a piece of fucking shit that post is.

                this is what i said

                http://thestandard.org.nz/new-record-set-in-ironic-racism/comment-page-1/#comment-455263

                lucky for you that you don’t have a moderator on your six for attacking a guestposter

                and this is what 1prent said

                [lprent: I looked at it earlier. Decided that the comments had stayed surprisingly on topic through the post. That either QoT or vto or both were channelling Felix playing with his food and I’d be interested on where that wound up.”

                So that one is proved – want me to find some of your bigotry now, there is tons to choose from.

                • vto …
                  12 June 2012 at 10:46 am

                  Well if that is what you see as proof then it is clear you are losing the plot in your rabid smear campaign.

                  There was no such disrespect, there was response in kind. You have proved nothing.

                  The fact that no moderator pulled me up proves it.

                  The fact that no moderator has pulled me up anywhere in response to your school kid-like claims about me also proves that you have nothing and are making it all up.

                  … continue with your smears – they just reflect on you …

                  • marty mars …
                    12 June 2012 at 11:27 am

                    try reading it dim

                    you said, “And there it is – the blind little racist smarty mars making more baseless accusations. Point out where I disrespected QoT.”

                    i showed you by quoting you saying, “What a piece of fucking shit that post is.”

                    Are you saying that your statement doesn’t disrespect that guest poster?

                    I’m letting your rank “blind little racist” go, simply because that sums you up so well.

                    • vto …
                      12 June 2012 at 11:32 am

                      in case you have never noticed, using the word “fuck” is something QoT does. All the time. She is happy to do so and everybody is happy for her to do so. Good for her. Go back through her post and you will see the word “fuck”. So clearly there is no disrespect given that is her standard manner of communicating. If anything, replying to her in her own manner shows respect, not disrespect.

                      You are twisted in how you see things.

                      … next

    • weka 3.2
      11 June 2012 at 10:13 am

       

      Perhaps a new Treaty should be created. Nothing to do with te tiriti, but a brand new one between the current peoples of these islands and all immigrants from this point onwards. After all, it seems many most of the reasons for te tiriti apply today for same similar reasons.
       

      You mean we’re being colonised again? 😉 And the new colonisers will be so good as to make a treaty with us? Who would they be? US cultural imperialists? Neoliberalists? The English (god, not them again) who are buying up so much land with their good exchange rate?
       
      It’s not the incomers we have to worry about this time. It’s those who hold the power over immigration and economic policy. The enemy is within, my friend.

      • vto 3.2.1
        11 June 2012 at 10:20 am

        Yes agreed weka, see my post just above (oh, it’s in moderation). I guess what I am suggesting is a form of treaty which stems from and for the people rather than the usual which stem from government, trade and business.

      • vto 3.2.2
        11 June 2012 at 10:35 am

        One other fact which most New Zealanders never even consider … these islands can support a population of 50 – 100 million (think UK and Japan). The only reason it is not yet at this level is its very recent twin discoveries – there simply hasn’t been the passage of time to take the population up to populations similar in density to UK and Japan.

        But population and human movements are a bit like water finding its level. At some point NZ will be as densely populated as Japan and the UK. This is surely a given. So one of the following questions is how will this happen? Will it happen slowly and in a measured way? Or will it happen with several larger influxes (as it has to date)? I suspect several larger influxes and imo people have forgotten, or not even considered, that this will happen (as it has to date). And these sorts of things happen at times of world volatility – as we are entering / have entered now.

        • weka 3.2.2.1
          11 June 2012 at 12:17 pm

          NZ cannot support that many people. We’re currently at about twice the rate of consumption that this land can support. If we really sorted our shit out and reduced out footprint by half we might be able to sustain our present population over the medium/long term.
           
          But I agree with you that there will likely be immigration pressure on NZ, from climate change and economic crises refugees. Also places running out of potable water and enough food. I haven’t seen a good analysis yet on NZ’s options for that future (although I am betting that certain people in the Ureweras have been thinking about it). We should be thinking about it now.

        • Colonial Viper 3.2.2.2
          11 June 2012 at 12:47 pm

          One other fact which most New Zealanders never even consider … these islands can support a population of 50 – 100 million (think UK and Japan).

          No fraking way, we’d never meet the energy requirements of that population without numerous nuclear power stations and/or massive daily imports of oil.

          • vto 3.2.2.2.1
            11 June 2012 at 1:02 pm

            weka and CV, I was basing that on current parameters i.e. if the UK and Japan (and other high density places like Holland, Sumatra, Bangladesh, etc) can support such densities then so can we.

            If energy and other necessities change and mean we can’t here then they they surely wont there either … that is a scary thought … and makes such treaty ideas worthy of serious consideration. Not that I imagine any document will stop such heavy global changes, but they may soften their blow. A bit like te tiriti again actually perhaps.

            • Colonial Viper 3.2.2.2.1.1
              11 June 2012 at 1:17 pm

              Dude you are talking about places which built those population densities up on massive and increasing inputs of external energy.

              That was the case for the last 50 years. Its not the case for the next 50. We can not get on that curve, we cannot afford to import 2 million barrels of oil a day.

              Re: Sumatra and Bangladesh, yes you can have large populations in a small space but usually resource constraints on the economy mean that the median income is very low.

              • vto …
                11 June 2012 at 1:36 pm

                Understand that but I would suggest that the human ability to harness and utilise energy is probably only just getting underway and as such the scenario of 100million people living between Kaitaia and Bluff is probable.

                Sure, carbon-derived energy may be reaching an endpoint, but carbon is the least common form of energy available. It is just our ability to harness various other energy sources that is the limiting factor.

                I predict some massive waves of change arriving on our shores over the next century or so.

                • weka …
                  11 June 2012 at 1:49 pm

                  “It is just our ability to harness various other energy sources that is the limiting factor.”
                   
                  Actually no. The limiting factor is physics. The crucial bit is energy returned on energy invested (EROEI). None of the other energy sources we currently have available that we could develop technology for have the same degree of energy gained for energy expended in extraction/creation. That combined with how the economy is entwined (because we make money from nothing rather than producing real wealth in the physical world) means that we can’t even make good use of the remaining oil we have to develop solar, wind etc to tide us over during the power down.
                   
                  To put it another way. We live waaaay beyond our means, and the bank manager is about to pull the plug.
                   
                  If the energy stuff doesn’t get you, have a think about how to produce enough food for 100 million people within the NZ landbase without having cheap oil to do so.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  11 June 2012 at 2:55 pm

                  I predict some massive waves of change arriving on our shores over the next century or so.

                  I completely agree, but I don’t think that what I am predicting is what you are predicting.

                  (added:) the change is going be massive and it will only take 15-20 years to become blatantly clear, not 100.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    11 June 2012 at 3:44 pm

                    And some time in that 10 to 20 years we will be closing the border and allowing no one across as we’ll just have too many difficulties with the over-population we already have.

                    • weka …
                      11 June 2012 at 5:00 pm

                      Will we have the capability of defending that?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      11 June 2012 at 5:09 pm

                      Not if we keep going the way we are with our defence forces, i.e, specialising them for UN peace keeping missions rather than national defence and not producing our own weapons systems.

                    • McFlock …
                      11 June 2012 at 5:11 pm

                      Distance is our best defense. Anybody walking down here will piss off so many bigger nations by going through the Pacific that it won’t be worth their trouble. 
                                 
                       But we need a modicum of defense capabilities to deal with overly ambitious boat people and externally resourced insurrection (although this does not mean I think the unregistered firearms raids were warranted in any sense other than the literal).

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 June 2012 at 5:51 pm

                      Its not fashionable in the Lefty crowd but I agree. We need a strong national defence force and a homegrown defence industry.

            • Murray Olsen 3.2.2.2.1.2
              11 June 2012 at 6:07 pm

              The Netherlands, UK and Japan would be able to support nowhere near their present populations if they had to actually feed and clothe themselves from their own resources.

          • Oscar 3.2.2.2.2
            11 June 2012 at 8:10 pm

            We’ve got plenty of coal we can use to support the growing energy requirements.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.2.2.3
          11 June 2012 at 3:40 pm

          …these islands can support a population of 50 – 100 million (think UK and Japan).

          Don’t count on that. Without the advantages of oil fuelled farming I’d be surprised if we could support much more than what we have now.

          • Colonial Viper 3.2.2.3.1
            11 June 2012 at 5:28 pm

            We could support our current population without oil and fertiliser. But 1/3 of NZers would be working on the land.

            • Draco T Bastard 3.2.2.3.1.1
              11 June 2012 at 6:32 pm

              That still leaves 2/3rds to do everything else that we need. Computers, universities, R&D, Art&Culture, mining etc. All possible within the resources that we have even without oil. The problem only kicks in when we get over populated which will happen if we don’t accept that we need to limit population.

      • Fortran 3.2.3
        11 June 2012 at 1:54 pm

        Once we become a Republic, which is closer than you think – see Greens policy – a new Treaty of Waitangi will have to be negotiated because their will be no Crown as the other partner.
        Will be very interesting as will probably take many years to get any agreement, as the original signatories are not around (only by hearsay).

        • Pete George 3.2.3.1
          11 June 2012 at 2:18 pm

          I think it could take quite a while – it will be difficulty to get sufficient popular support while the current queen remains, and she could hang in there for quite a few years yet. It will be difficult in even starting preparations for a change to an independent nation.

          But we can talk and hope and promote.

        • weka 3.2.3.2
          11 June 2012 at 4:58 pm

          Why can the Crown side of the Treaty not be transferred to whatever takes over from the Crown?
           
          Have to agree with Marty below. We’re still not getting the current treaty right. Talk of having to have a new treaty that will take years to arrange sounds suspicious to me.

          • Draco T Bastard 3.2.3.2.1
            11 June 2012 at 5:11 pm

            Why can the Crown side of the Treaty not be transferred to whatever takes over from the Crown?

            That’s already happened. It’s no longer the Crown that holds the responsibility for Te Tiriti but parliament.

    • marty mars 3.3
      11 June 2012 at 3:38 pm

      I can’t see how creating a new treaty would be of any use at all considering the previous one hasn’t been honoured by the Crown. You are trying to create advantage for yourself and somehow that doesn’t surprise me.

      • vto 3.3.1
        12 June 2012 at 7:17 am

        “I can’t see how creating a new treaty would be of any use at all considering the previous one hasn’t been honoured by the Crown.”

        Of course you can’t and I’ve said that to you before. You’re a bit thick and too caught in your own rigid tiny world

        ” You are trying to create advantage for yourself and somehow that doesn’t surprise me.”

        No. How pathetic.

  4. Pascal's bookie 4
    11 June 2012 at 8:35 am

    Here’s the PM this morning:

    The media can’t run around saying, ‘I don’t like this policy, it’s a terrible thing,’ wind up parents, feed them information that’s sometimes wrong and say how terrible it is, and the Government should do something about it… and then the Government does something about it, and they say, ‘Ooh, it’s terrible’.”

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Key-accuses-media-of-winding-up-parents-over-class-sizes/tabid/1607/articleID/257344/Default.aspx#ixzz1xQNSGGUL

    No word of what he thinks was wrong in media reports, saying that parents were stupidly falling for media spin. Dude should face up. It was a crap policy, people know it. Yes, they backed down, but you don’t get a pat on the head for proposing shit policy, simple as that. Especially when you are still trying to claim that the policy you backed down from was good policy.

    • Carol 4.1
      11 June 2012 at 8:39 am

      Oh, dear. Little Johnny has got so used to the media supporting him and his policies, he doesn’t know how to respond to critical media.

      It’s not a great idea to attack the media, as we have seen following the teapot tapes…. is Johnny losing it?

      • felix 4.1.1
        11 June 2012 at 9:15 am

        Big time.

      • deuto 4.1.2
        11 June 2012 at 9:33 am

        And another example – what planet is he on? Stuff article post Key’s morning TV appearance:

        Prime Minister John Key says he’s not “down in the mouth” about recent polls showing a fall in support for National.

        He has dismissed suggestions the loss of support for his Government is only because of last week’s humiliating backdown on its plan to increase class size, saying voters are also angry because of the rise in tobacco tax.

        and

        Key this morning said the shift in the polls wasn’t because of one issue.

        “I don’t actually accept that,” he told TVNZ’s Breakfast programme.

        A quarter of New Zealanders smoked and the Government was putting a big cost on them, he said.

        …
        “There will be some of those people who say I don’t like that and I’m going to reflect that in the poll,” Key said.

        The Government was raising tobacco tax because it “cared about them and we want them to live”.

        Governments had to “stand up for things they believed in”, Key said.

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7077803/Key-not-fazed-by-poll-results

        I’m a (heavy) smoker but don’t believe that I have ever thought about this in terms of deciding who I would vote for.

        • felix 4.1.2.1
          11 June 2012 at 9:54 am

          That’s either the worst bit of spin ever or a seriously deluded man.

          Yeah there’s this thing I’ve just done that affects almost 100% of the population and almost everybody hates it but my drop in support is because of something else I’ve done which every govt does all the time and only affects a quarter of the population.

          What a dork.

          • Pascal's bookie 4.1.2.1.1
            11 June 2012 at 10:42 am

            His worst was on explaining his slide in the pref. PM poll.

            It’s the National Party’s fault, they’re dragging him down because he is so closely linked with them in the public mind, so don’t read too much into that.

            • felix 4.1.2.1.1.1
              11 June 2012 at 10:49 am

              Crikey. I’m leaning toward “deluded”.

            • Carol 4.1.2.1.1.2
              11 June 2012 at 10:54 am

              And remind me again how Key came to be so closely linked with that National Party? Oh, wait, he’s their leader and was posted all over their billboards last election….. I though he was National’s main strength?

              • mac1 …
                11 June 2012 at 1:15 pm

                Their main strength and their potential weakness. That’s the trouble with ‘strong’ leadership. Once the leader is ‘gone’ nothing is left.

                I liked what Mike Williams said on Nat radio this morning. He acknowledged the essential meaninglessness of the polls this far out but pointed out what they mean in terms of activist support- “puts lead in their pencils’ was what he essentially said. More work done, more money, more commitment generally.

        • Vicky32 4.1.2.2
          11 June 2012 at 5:35 pm

          A quarter of New Zealanders smoked and the Government was putting a big cost on them, he said.

          When my brother was alive, probably 2003 (the year before he died) he told me he’d met a fellow salesman at an hotel, who sold tobacco products, and the salesman had told him that the 30% of people smoking (official figure at the time) was wildly wrong – that the real figure was 55% or more. ‘I could never make a living if it was really only 30%’ he said…
          A quarter of New Zealanders smoked and the Government was putting a big cost on them, he said.
          A quarter? And the rest… 🙂
           
          The Government was raising tobacco tax because it “cared about them and we want them to live”.
          Cared about us? Nonsense. No smoker I know believes that.

          I’m a (heavy) smoker but don’t believe that I have ever thought about this in terms of deciding who I would vote for.

          Agreed! I never have either…

        • Murray Olsen 4.1.2.3
          11 June 2012 at 6:11 pm

          He’s becoming as crazy and deluded as the ACT caucus. I get a perverse sense of pleasure in watching him melt down and can only hope, given that NAct have placed so many eggs in the basket of his cult of no personality, that he takes them all with him.

  6. Carol 6
    11 June 2012 at 9:54 am

    So the Nats are planning to rush asset sales legislation through parliament.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7076581/Labour-leader-says-asset-sales-bill-rushed-back

    Controversial asset-sales legislation is to go before Parliament for a second reading this week.

    Labour leader David Shearer says it was rushed back four weeks early because the Government is concerned about a citizen-initiated referendum on the move to sell up to 49 per cent of state-owned power companies.
    [..]
    “It’s curtailed our ability to have a really good discussion about it,” Mr Shearer said.

    Maybe it’s time to blockade parliament? Are there enough people in Wellington willing to keep up a protest presence outside the Beehive? And people in other cities willing to set up satellite process during the time the bill is being rushed through parliament?

  7. prism 7
    11 June 2012 at 11:31 am

    A policy pronouncement today on radionz – the prospect of Labour needing the Greens alongside to get into power puts off many Labour supporters. Then a recent comment that Labour and National have both moved to the centre. Surely there are enough Labour supporters who wish to see a real left-wing party again, not just one that serves the house-decorating and ostentatious consumption class?

    • Carol 7.1
      11 June 2012 at 11:35 am

      the prospect of Labour needing the Greens alongside to get into power puts off many Labour supporters.

      Wasn’t that a comment from Matthew Hooton? … or even Mike Williams, who said as a centre left person, up til the class size announcement, National hadn’t done anything to make him dislike them……. ‘Nuff said.

    • Anne 7.2
      11 June 2012 at 7:21 pm

      Surely there are enough Labour supporters who wish to see a real left-wing party again,

      Absolutely there is!

      • KJT 7.2.1
        11 June 2012 at 7:56 pm

        I think most of them will refrain from voting altogether until Labour finally decides to be Labour again.

      • prism 7.2.2
        13 June 2012 at 4:24 pm

        Anne
        Bill O’Drees early on 13/6 OpenMike put this link up with a good item on Labour’s possible path. Does he make some good points? Labour supporters can’t afford to be too relaxed. If you fall into a pit there has to be a lot of energy expended to get back to level ground.

        Chris Trotter in a thought provoking mood in his Bowlalleyroad blog. Have a read.
        http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/

  8. Dave Kennedy 8
    11 June 2012 at 12:06 pm

    There was an interesting interview with Sir Stephen Tindall from the Pure Advantage group on Nine to Noon this morning. He strongly criticized successive government for not supporting our “Clean, Green” brand and positioning us to take advantage of developing green industries. We are losing the Green Race:
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/pure-advantage-and-green-race.html

    • prism 8.1
      11 June 2012 at 1:04 pm

      There was one guy who said that his firm won a contested contract because of the clean, green PR. But is worried that if it becomes just PR about what will happen then. What else differentiates us enough to get notice, overcome distance?

  9. prism 9
    11 June 2012 at 12:59 pm

    On business prospects for NZ – on Radionz They should be OK if the exchange rate stays down.
    If! It’s like an Act of God we’re waiting for not a mechanism set up by supposedly clever gentlemen. And how can we keep the exchange rate down? Perhaps we shouldn’t appear to be such a stable little country. A few riots about conditions might help. Let the fast money maniacs and their money machines get their kicks and marginal profits from some other country.

  10. Penny Bright 10
    11 June 2012 at 1:40 pm

    URGENT!! HELP STOP STATE ASSET SALES – BY FORCING RESIGNATION OF DODGY JOHN BANKS!

    TODAY Mon 11 June 3 – 4.30pm Intersection protest opposite Britomart – then protest outside Serious Fraud Office (SFO) 21 Queen St – demanding SFO DO THEIR JOB!

    (A formal letter will be handed over calling for URGENT ACTION by SFO staff responsible for Fraud and Corruption).

    Investigate John Banks for BRIBERY and CORRUPTION re: $50,000 donated by Kim Dotcom in return for ‘immigration assistance’ ; assistance to help purchase the Coatsville mansion and undeclared ‘gifts and hospitality’ worth more than $500?

    Spot the difference!

    Taito Phillip Field gets sentenced to SIX years jail for bribery and corruption for providing immigration assistance to Thai nationals in return for work on his properties – dodgy John Banks continues to be politically protected by shonky John Key – Prime Minister of NZ ‘perceived’ to be ‘the least corrupt country in the world’?

    Mind you – given shoinky John Key’s proven track record over effective ‘insider trading’ over his undisclosed Tranz Rail shares – no surprises that he is not leading from front when it comes to ‘ethical’ behaviour?

    SFO have NOT treated formal complaint as ‘BRIBERY and CORRUPTION’ complaint – but as a ‘SERIOUS AND COMPLEX FRAUD’ complaint – which it is NOT!!!

    For details of complaint – check out http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    PLEASE! If you can – get your butt down to Britomart! 🙂
    (Bring the rest of you as well 🙂

    Cheers!

    Penny Bright

  11. ianmac 11
    11 June 2012 at 1:44 pm

    I followed up on freedom’s link to PM questions. Very long shot with:
    “Teachers are used to larger classes and teach accordingly.

    It seems that Smaller classes are only effective if teachers learn to modify their teaching strategies in order to cater for the “Long Tail. ”

    Therefore would you support such Teacher Training and Re-training?

    And in due course modify the class size to suit modern methods?”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7065313/Live-chat-with-the-Prime-Minister

  12. Pascal's bookie 12
    11 June 2012 at 3:19 pm

    Dpf has gets his prick on:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/06/call_in_the_un.html

    sets the tone for comments.

  13. Pete George 13
    11 June 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Another call for a wideranging debate on the future of Super:

    Genuine debate on Super affordability needed now

    Political leaders must confront the looming crisis of the future affordability of Superannuation now rather than risking having to make harsh cuts to entitlements down the track, says Labour Leader David Shearer.

    “It’s not good enough for John Key to say that he’s worried about governing for today and somehow the future will look after itself. As Prime Minister, he has a responsibility to look after future generations too.

    “It’s time we had a genuine, open and honest discussion about how we can continue to afford to provide New Zealanders with financial support when they retire.

    “At the moment there are 5.6 workers for every retired person but in less than 30 years that will be reduced to 2.5. This is a problem that is growing and we must address it now.

    “It’s about being fair. We must be fair to young New Zealanders by making sure there will be a pension scheme in place for them when they retire.

    “We must also be fair by giving all Kiwis time to discuss, accept and prepare for any changes that need to be made to the current system.

    “Labour is prepared to be flexible and come together with other political parties to work towards a solution. We are interested in genuine cross-party talks and a nationwide discussion with New Zealanders. We must do what is in the best interests of the country,” said David Shearer.

    It’s a pity he included an inter-party dig, but otherwise he’s correct.

    How about support from bloggers from The Standard for an inter-blog call for discussion, and a pledge to have a wide ranging blog debate on the future of super without resorting to political point scoring?

    • Dv 13.1
      11 June 2012 at 5:09 pm

      I believe Lab, NF, Maori, UF and now act are calling for a debate/rethink.

      That is a majority in the house.
      Why dont they put up a bill in the house?

      • Draco T Bastard 13.1.1
        11 June 2012 at 6:35 pm

        Because they can’t. The only parties who can are the parties in government which means that they need Nationals permission and they won’t get that.

      • Pete George 13.1.2
        11 June 2012 at 6:54 pm

        It’s going to take substantial discussion inside and outside parliament before getting to the bill stage.

    • KJT 13.2
      11 June 2012 at 8:01 pm

      The only discussion we should be having on super, is, how successful a GMI has been on removing poverty amongst the elderly, and how soon we can extend the same to the rest of our people.
      Starting with the 20% of children living in poverty.

      Removing the tax cuts to the top 1% would be a start, in affordability.

  15. Campbell Larsen 15
    11 June 2012 at 8:36 pm

    Reducing Impaired Driving in NZ

    Number 2557382 View Certificate Of Incorporation
    Name RIDNZ
    EMAIL CERTIFICATE
    Incorporated 16-FEB-2012
    Current Status REGISTERED
    Organisation Type Charitable Trust

    In existence for less than 4 Months and now the ‘go to’ organisation for comment on the issue for National TV news?

    • North 15.1
      11 June 2012 at 11:42 pm

      You mean Key and his merry band of backwoodsmen/women are a car wreck ?

      I’m just waiting for the gutless and rather thick eggs who comprise what passes as the Fourth Estate in NZ to get their little yuppie tits in a tangle when they conclude that KeyShit’s been bullshitting them all for years.

      Oh how they will turn ! Even that Tracey Watkins rubbish I reckon.

  16. North 16
    11 June 2012 at 11:18 pm

    I’ve just watched……yes I’m gonna say it……that utter bastard Key on late news saying that the only problem with the dumbing down of NZ education (higher quality teaching my arse!) is that it wasn’t sold well enough…….”end orl th’ Cebnit ‘gree ‘bet theret…” simpers he in that weak, effeminate little voice of his.

    Watch the eyes……they’re dead…….he’s utterly bored with it all. Why ?……because he’s simply mouthing off spin lines written by some twisted thing in Sydney or wherever.

    Just like the little girly who thought she was his favourite Cab Min…….Hek Yeah Stoolie Hung Out to Dry. Bet you Sir Well Paid-Off Wira is pissed seeing his wahine treated like shit. But still she mouths off spin, spin, spin turns to spam, spam, spam, in 4 hours. Call from King John in Angela Merkel’s waiting room. And she’s still smiling, according to the spin manual. As though she/they had a victory in the whole bizo.

    Anyone old enough to agree with me that she’s a dead ringer for the not unattractive Elsie Tanner of Coronation Street 1966 or so ? Whatever happened to the venerable Pat Phoenix ?

    Bets on Hek Yeah rising from the flames ? Dunno. There’ll be a cache of spin to deal with that question, one way or the other. That’s all that matters to a cheapie like Key. Obama carries that bloody nuclear briefcase. Key carries the equivalent of a make-up box. What A Man !