Open mike 13/10/2015

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, October 13th, 2015 - 259 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen 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 …

259 comments on “Open mike 13/10/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    13 October 2015 at 6:40 am

    Officially we are now sold.

    ‘No ban for TPP nationals buying NZ houses’

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11527924

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1
      13 October 2015 at 7:53 am

      Key is spinning like a top. The official line is that we won’t get sued unless we elect a Labour government.

    • The lost sheep 1.2
      13 October 2015 at 8:23 am

      Mr Key said that if offshore buyers were found to be a major factor in rising house prices, his preferred deterrent would be a land tax, not a ban.
      Under the TPP, New Zealand would retain the ability to impose new taxes on foreigners.

      This kind of mechanism seems to have been quite effective in slowing down overseas buying in the Auckland market?
      So it’s not the case that we will have no ability to address this issue if we decide we need to?

      • Tricledrown 1.2.1
        13 October 2015 at 9:24 am

        Lost creep yeah John Key introducing a land tax!

      • Tricledrown 1.2.2
        13 October 2015 at 9:49 am

        Key govts outside health board consultants waste $300 million of DHB,s costing taxpayers $78 million on top of that for a few friends of the National Party to live it up while those that need the healthcare are denied.
        Paula Rebstock on $ 1500 a day for a partime job.
        While Cyfs carries on with the same failed formula of behaviour not unlike a very sick circus soap opera in which Children are worse off in their care.
        The govt need to ACT fast to fix these seriously damaging issues.
        This govt said it was a better manager.
        What utter BS.
        Doubling consultants pay seems to have had the opposite effect Key Joyce and Brownlie claimed .
        Nepotism is the reason.
        CERA Jenny Shiply on $450,000 per annum for a partime job. $385 million to fix dodgy repairs.
        Highly overpaid Con-sultants are costing the country taxpayers over $1billion a year.
        Where is the ACT party on this bloated bearaucracy .
        No where to be found.
        National and ACT are wolowing in piles of taxpayers money.
        This is the biggest Con since SCF.
        A Junket to end all junkets to fund friends of National and ACT.

        • greywarshark 1.2.2.1
          13 October 2015 at 10:18 am

          Where is the ACT party at all?
          Well this morning it was announced that David Seymour is doing a clean up job for boss Steven Joyce looking at all the old dusty legal Bills and Regs the government has been accumulating. (Getting ready to get our legislation conforming with requirements of TPPA bosses?)

          There were quotes of the amusing old legislation that doesn’t seem needed.
          But what ones are being prepared for abandonment that weren’t mentioned?
          Then there is the confusion that comes about with some being lost in the crowd that no-one had heard about, being ‘Disappeared’.
          http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/286823/goodbye,-y2k-information-disclosure-act

          Then there is the possibility of important basic legislation being lost, because it was passed while attached to some other Bill, as an extra. Often those end up being for the benefit of the incumbent Party or their friends. But they may have had unintended useful consequences and we need to watch out for stray sheep in that flock. There may be a Shrek in there.

          Then there is the possibility of regulations and enabling legislation that we actually need to do some things that are important to the people.

          I wouldn’t trust this lot to p.ss straight when they are sober. And I think that is a fair and considered summation of them.

          So watch out peeps, you have till some time in December to see what they are up to and try and rein in the brutes.

        • greywarshark 1.2.2.2
          13 October 2015 at 10:25 am

          Think I’m in spam again. Put a large comment through 10.18 where is it at 10.22? This is happening all the time. I haven’t changed anything that I know of. But I also haven’t updated to the latest Firefox No. Could that be it? And I don’t think my Comments list is updating regularly.

        • Smilin 1.2.2.3
          13 October 2015 at 11:46 am

          Yes that list is enough to overthrow this govt but summers coming so Key will be off to WAIKIKI, suntan drinking man finding himself a friend cause he aint got any here I know
          Be good to know how will be turning up to his parties over the summer break just to get an idea on the crap we will have to handle next year

    • McFlock 1.3
      13 October 2015 at 12:57 pm

      lol
      so “technically” an enlightened government could ban all non-NZ-resident foreign ownership, they just might be taken through ISDS to provide compensation.

      For his next trick Key will say that there’s “technically” nothing stopping people dealing meth, although they might be taken through the criminal justice system.

  2. Morrissey 2
    13 October 2015 at 7:22 am

    New Zealand rugby writers are ramping up the distortions and outright lies;
    Don’t believe a word by the likes of Liam Napier, Andrew Saville or Phil Gifford.

    According to this absurd and insulting piece by one Liam Napier, the All Blacks are seeking “closure” and to “exterminate the ghosts of 2007”. To give him his due, Napier does acknowledge something that is strenuously avoided by most of his colleagues, i.e., that the superior Tricolors were beaten in the farcical 2011 final not by the All Blacks, but by the fact there was a non-referee in “charge”….

    Lessons of 1999, 2007 and the 2011 World Cup final at Eden Park, where the French still claim they were duded by referee Craig Joubert in the tense closing stages, will ensure the All Blacks don’t take them lightly.”

    Otherwise, it’s the same old same old from Napier, as it is from all the rest of his grim, marginally literate and joyless brotherhood. You can expect far more of this dismal, dishonest crap over the next week….

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/72910063/all-blacks-vs-france-rugby-world-cup-quarterfinal-at-cardiff-chance-for-closure

    Liam Napier is either too lazy or too dishonest to acknowledge it by anything other than his dismissive sneer in the piece I quoted, but some commentators were prepared to tell the unpalatable truth…..

    • ropata 2.1
      13 October 2015 at 7:58 pm

      nitpicky. not huge infringements, the ref will always miss a few things.

      remember Wayne Barnes’ performance in 2007?
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10469541

      • Morrissey 2.1.1
        14 October 2015 at 8:06 pm

        nitpicky. not huge infringements, the ref will always miss a few things.

        The comments by Matt Williams and Neil Francis are thoughtful and fair; they are not “nitpicky”. They are only talking about the most flagrant violations, all of which were committed right in front of Craig Joubert, who was supposed to be the referee.

        remember Wayne Barnes’ performance in 2007?

        The link you provided is a lot more balanced and fair than almost anything else that appeared in the Herald about that match. However, it neglects to mention something vital: In all of the sound and fury following that match—nearly all of it coming from the rabid sports media, not from fans—the forward pass by Michalak leading to the Jauzion try was hammered ad nauseam, but the All Blacks’ forward pass that led to McAlister’s try was resolutely ignored.

        Barnes made two mistakes, which balanced out. Joubert, on the other hand, failed or refused to do his job. There is no credible comparison to be made between the two.

  3. savenz 3
    13 October 2015 at 7:51 am

    http://www.networkworld.com/article/2991534/security/tpp-will-outlaw-security-research-done-without-permission-lead-to-destroyed-devices.html

    The TPP could lead to seized and destroyed devices, outlaw security research done without permission, and pave the way to perpetual insecurity for the IoT ecosystem.

    • Chooky 3.1
      13 October 2015 at 9:26 am

      +100 SAVENZ….very disturbing!

      …will justify the persecution of investigative journalists like Hager

      ….and open the way for white collar crime and political corruption

      …and a police state

      Where is the Labour Party on this?!

  4. Penny Bright 4
    13 October 2015 at 8:50 am

    FYI.

    ‘Open Letter’ to Matthew Hooton from Penny Bright 2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate.

    12 October 2015

    Matthew Hooton,
    Managing Director
    Exceltium

    Dear Matthew,

    According to the ‘bio’ on the following website, you are, purportedly,

    “…New Zealand’s leading public affairs strategist and political commentator.

    He has over 20 years’ experience in political and corporate communications, working for the New Zealand Government and some of the country’s most influential companies.”

    BACKGROUND:

    http://www.exceltium.com/team/matthew

    Matthew Hooton MANAGING DIRECTOR

    Matthew Hooton is New Zealand’s leading public affairs strategist and political commentator. He has over 20 years’ experience in political and corporate communications, working for the New Zealand Government and some of the country’s most influential companies.

    He maintains excellent connections with senior levels of all of New Zealand’s main political parties, and with the senior staff of the National, Labour, Green, Maori and ACT parties.

    Matthew has a close relationship with many New Zealand Ministers and Members of Parliament, and is well known in political circles and by the public as a political commentator on both Radio New Zealand and RadioLive, and as a columnist for the National Business Review.

    He has led a wide range of government relations programmes, from those where government/industry partnerships were sought such as with ZESPRI International, through to seeking controversial legislative change, such as work with the Kyoto Forestry Association.

    A former press secretary to the New Zealand trade and agriculture minister, he played a lead role at the age of 28 in the government relations and communications programmes that led to the creation of Fonterra, New Zealand’s largest company. He has also worked internationally on projects in China, Europe, Mongolia and throughout Australia.

    __________________________________________

    You may recall that on 9 October 2015, the following article:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2015/10/hooton_on_labour_and_tpp.html

    Hooton on Labour and TPP

    October 9th, 2015 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

    ___________________________________________

    You may recall that I made the following two posts regarding this above-mentioned article:

    publicwatchdog (4,654 comments) says:
    October 9th, 2015 at 5:10 pm

    Mathew – would you care to provide evidence which confirms where Professor Jane Kelsey has ever said anything which is factually inaccurate about the TPPA?

    Thanks!

    Penny Bright

    _____________________________________________

    publicwatchdog (4,654 comments) says:
    October 9th, 2015 at 5:15 pm

    Mathew – what’s your view on Trade Minister Tim Groser holding a secret meeting with Mayor Len Brown on the TPPA on 7 April 2015?

    Does that comply with the principles of ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’ local government – in your view?

    Kind regards

    Penny Bright

    ___________________________________________________

    Here was your response:

    Matthew Hooton’s Kiwiblog post October 9th, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    Dear Penny

    1. Would you like to provide any evidence that any of the statements in these unscholarly press statements is true:http://info.scoop.co.nz/Professor_Jane_Kelsey ?

    2. I don’t give a fuck who Tim Groser or Len Brown meet with. But it would make sense for the trade minister to brief the mayor of Auckland on his work from time to time.

    3. Pay your rates.

    4. Check yourself into a mental hospital.

    Best as always

    Matthew

    ______________________________________________

    This was my follow-up (albeit belated) response:

    publicwatchdog (4,654 comments) says:
    October 11th, 2015 at 10:55 am

    A belated reply to Matthew Hooton’s post October 9th, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    Gee Matthew!

    For a purportedly experienced ‘spin doctor’ / Media Commentator – that is a rather, (in my view), apoplectic and intemperate response, to my arguably straightforward questions?

    Sheesh!

    You were more pleasant when you were drinking!

    (If you’re stressed, for whatever reason, try Spirulina, those ‘B’ vitamins can really help).
    ___________________________________________________

    Dear Penny

    1. Would you like to provide any evidence that any of the statements in these unscholarly press statements is true:http://info.scoop.co.nz/Professor_Jane_Kelsey ?

    2. I don’t give a fuck who Tim Groser or Len Brown meet with. But it would make sense for the trade minister to brief the mayor of Auckland on his work from time to time.

    3. Pay your rates.

    4. Check yourself into a mental hospital.

    Best as always

    Matthew

    ______________________________________________

    With all due respect, Matthew, quite frankly, I for one, expect a much higher standard of response and behaviour, from someone in your position.

    Having checked with the Public Relations Institute of New Zealand (PRINZ), I find that the company for which you are Managing Director, Exeltium, is not listed as a member, so, as I understand it, their ‘Code of Conduct’, does not apply to you or your company.

    I understand that you and the company for which you are Managing Director, Exceltium, does political ‘lobbying’ work.

    Unfortunately, although New Zealand is ‘perceived’ to be the ‘second least corrupt country in the world’ (according to the 2014 Transparency International ‘Corruption Perception Index'( http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results ) New Zealand has neither a ‘Register’ nor ‘Code of Conduct’ for lobbyists.

    Where is the ‘accountability’ Matthew Hooton, or do you simply think that you can say what you like?

    What do I want?

    I want the public, elected representatives and media, to see for themselves what you have stated in the public domain, and ask the question as to whether you are ‘fit for duty’ to be a ‘ public affairs strategist and political commentator’ or a when you engage in what I consider to be such arguably, seriously unprofessional behaviour.

    Yours sincerely,

    Penny Bright
    ……….

    ‘Anti-Corruption / Anti-Privatisation campaigner / Public Watchdog’

    Attendee: 2009 Australian Public Service Anti-Corruption Conference
    Attendee: 2010 Transparency International Anti-Corruption Conference
    Attendee: 2013 Australian Public Service Anti-Corruption Conference
    Attendee: 2014 G20 Anti-Corruption Conference

    2013 Auckland Mayoral Candidate (polled 4th with 11,723 votes)

    2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate

  5. The Chairman 5
    13 October 2015 at 9:26 am

    Andrew Little now says it is unlikely Labour would withdraw from the controversial TPPA if it gained power at the next election.

    Any party has the ability on six months’ notice to walk away from the agreement.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/72953458/labour-unlikely-to-withdraw-from-tppa-trade-deal-if-in-govt–andrew-little

    Thoughts?

    • Chooky 5.1
      13 October 2015 at 9:29 am

      will be voting NZF

      • The Chairman 5.1.1
        13 October 2015 at 9:33 am

        I’d say a number of people will be walking away from Labour after hearing this.

      • weka 5.1.2
        13 October 2015 at 10:05 am

        “will be voting NZF”

        Useful to know you don’t want a left wing government.

        • Colonial Viper 5.1.2.1
          13 October 2015 at 11:31 am

          Because a Labour Party which keeps the TPPA is “left wing.”

          Face it weka, on economic and trade issues Labour is far to the right of NZ First.

          • weka 5.1.2.1.1
            13 October 2015 at 11:50 am

            “Because a Labour Party which keeps the TPPA is “left wing.””

            Of course not.

            MMP, CV. It’s not about individual party positions alone, it’s about potential governments. Do you think that a Labour/NZF coalition will be more left or less left than a Labour/GP one? Or do you think that there is a such a thing as NZF/GP coalition?

            Peters will knobble any deal between Labour and the GP it can. They’re also quite capable of forming government with National. You can call them left wing if you like, but they public position themselves as centrist.

            Under what circumstances would NZF help shift NZ back to the left again?

            Do you think that either NZF or the GP has the ability to get Labour to withdraw from the TPP if either of them were in a coalition with Labour?

            • Karen 5.1.2.1.1.1
              13 October 2015 at 12:11 pm

              On the Green position I don’t think it is as clear cut as some here believe. When interviewed by Jessica Williams a week or so ago James Shaw said that it may be better to “fix” the TPP than exit it (interview doesn’t seemed to be archived).
              A few people commented on twitter in response that “fixing” a treaty may not be that feasible.

              • Das …
                13 October 2015 at 1:01 pm

                The TPPA shit is baked in and if Shaw thinks he can be Mr Fix It, he can go ahead and delude himself and some of the Greens/Progressive. But I will make my darndest in my own community to ensure that none shall be so daft as to swallow that.

              • The Chairman …
                13 October 2015 at 1:24 pm

                Seems Shaw is playing Little’s game.

                Opposing it, but not really prepared to walk away, opting to tweak it if possible.

                Can anybody confirm where NZ First stand?

                • weka …
                  13 October 2015 at 1:59 pm

                  Are you suggesting that the GP should walk away from a coaltion deal with Labour on this one issue?

                  “Seems Shaw is playing Little’s game.”

                  I’d like to see some evidence of that.

                  • The Chairman …
                    13 October 2015 at 2:49 pm

                    Yes, it’s a rather large issue that impacts on our right to govern, therefore, of course they should walk away.

                    Can you imagine how ineffective the Greens will become trying to infringe on the profits of polluters under the TPP?

                    As for evidence, keep in mind the context of discussion, hence look at the post I was replying too.

                    • weka …
                      13 October 2015 at 3:28 pm

                      Ok, so presumably NZF should walk away too?

                      “As for evidence, keep in mind the context of discussion, hence look at the post I was replying too.”

                      I prefer to base my opinions on evidence not hearsay (all due respect to Karen, who just expressed an opinion that also needs backing up to be taken more seriously).

                  • The Chairman …
                    13 October 2015 at 4:33 pm

                    Re: NZF, one would expect them too. If not, one would expect them to put it to the vote.

                    As for my opinion, you will see I left scope for Karen being mistaken or incorrect. Therefore, your point escapes me.

            • Colonial Viper 5.1.2.1.1.2
              13 October 2015 at 12:35 pm

              Speaking of MMP, I think it very likely that LAB + GR in 2017 will come in between 38% and 44%.

              That’s not a government. NZF will have to be in the mix, somewhere.

        • Shane Le Brun 5.1.2.2
          13 October 2015 at 1:49 pm

          After being a Nats voter, switching to IMP solely for me support of Medical Mary Jane (well that was a wasted vote), and now having met Kevin Hague my personal views are best matched by the greens.

        • The Chairman 5.1.2.3
          13 October 2015 at 2:09 pm

          NZ First is the only party offering a form of Direct Democracy. Allowing voters more direct say in the larger political issues.

          • weka 5.1.2.3.1
            13 October 2015 at 2:14 pm

            How so?

            • The Chairman 5.1.2.3.1.1
              13 October 2015 at 2:39 pm

              From the party manifesto:

              The move to MMP was not the end of political reform – it was the start.

              New Zealand First aims to make Parliament itself a more responsive and accountable institution, and to give greater power to the community.

              New Zealand First wants to form a practical partnership with the New Zealand people by the judicious use of direct public referenda where there is neutrality and impartiality in the question; there is fair dissemination of all of the facts on both sides of the argument; there is certainty in the poll (i.e. the question can be clearly understood); there is appropriate time for debate to be conducted; and the referendum’s objective is capable of being met within the country’s fiscal constraints.

              http://nzfirst.org.nz/sites/nzfirst/files/manifesto_2014_final_version.pdf

              It would give voters a direct say on large issues like the TPP.

              • weka …
                13 October 2015 at 3:37 pm

                Right, so NZF will allow some form of direct democracy once it’s the government. In the meantime, Peters has consistently undermined democracy in NZ by refusing to say before elections who he will form coalition with. I also count his macho politics as counter to democracy as well as his setting the bad tone for MMP with his early bullshit in coalition deals. He’s all about the power and he’s not about transparent democracy despite his rhetoric.

                To that end, I’ll note two things about your quote. One is the use of the word ‘judicious’ (and the subsequent conditions), which gives Peters plenty of wriggle room. The other is the lack of clarity about whether NZF means to include Citizens Initiated Referenda, and whether they would be binding.

                (and as per OAB’s points, there are better ways to encourage democracy than majority rule, although I can understand why Peters wants that, being the centrist he is).

                I don’t know much about NZF’s internal structures, but afaik the GP, Mana and the IP are all ahead of NZF in terms of membership input into and control over policy.

                Have a read of the GP policy on involvement of the people,

                I’ll pull out a few bits,

                The electoral system should encourage close links and accountability between individual MPs and their constituents or constituencies.

                Freedom of information and openness of government and its procedures are essential elements of a democracy.

                Active democratic processes require more than periodic elections and stronger mechanisms are needed for the ongoing engagement of informed citizens in the development and enactment of key national and local policies.

                The principle of subsidiary will guide the devolution of decision-making so that it takes place as close as possible to the communities more affected by the decisions.

                https://home.greens.org.nz/policy/open-government-and-democracy-policy

                • The Chairman …
                  13 October 2015 at 5:01 pm

                  Political power gives one the ability to get their policies through, thus Peters seeks it.

                  Peters prefers to let voters decide before he will consider coalition partners. Voters are generally aware of this. Going either way gives him, thus the party and its supporters more possibility of getting their policy through. Whether that is undermining the process or merely utilizing it is subjective I guess.

                  I agree conditions could be improved, but giving voters more direct say is a step in the right direction

                  Binding referenda will be triggered by petitions achieving support of 10% of the electorate.

                  You seem to be overlooking a major fact, democracy rules is the essence of democracy.

                  • weka …
                    13 October 2015 at 6:20 pm

                    “Peters prefers to let voters decide before he will consider coalition partners.”

                    Ae, that’s the difference. In the GP, it’s the members that decide, well before the election. And the voters know that the GP’s intentions are.

                    “Voters are generally aware of this.”

                    Really? because the number of lefties on ts who believe that Peters won’t go with National and that he is reliable on this is asoutnding.

                    “Going either way gives him, thus the party and its supporters more possibility of getting their policy through.”

                    Yes. NZF is not a left wing party, it’s centrist. I don’t have a problem with NZF doing this, I just think we should be more honest about what it means.

                    Also, NZF may function according to its values once Peters is gone. He is a power monger and it’s pretty hard to further democracy when that is the case.

                    “You seem to be overlooking a major fact, majority rules is the essence of democracy.”

                    Only in its most inhibited form. As we can see from the current govt, majority rules democracy can be manipulated to reduce democracy even further. Many of us here see representative democracy as more fair and more efficient. Democracy is about the people ruling the people, not the people half heartedly putting one lot of power mongers in and then another every three years to do what they like.

                    • The Chairman …
                      13 October 2015 at 7:53 pm

                      “Ae, that’s the difference. In the GP, it’s the members that decide, well before the election. And the voters know that the GP’s intentions are. “

                      Did party members approve of their flag debacle?

                      Who are the Greens prepared to work with? NZF?

                      “Really? because the number of lefties on ts who believe that Peters won’t go with National and that he is reliable on this is astounding.”

                      That’s more a case of wishful thinking.

                      People should know, it has been Peters position for years, and he’s publicly stated it numerous times.

                      NZF may be centrist, but in a number of areas its position is left of Labour.

                      As I said above, political power is necessary to get policy through. Given the power, Peters plans to further democracy by introducing a more direct form.

                      Representative democracy is far from more fair and more efficient because it fails to take into account the majority on major issues, it’s a vote given every 3 years. That’s not fair.

                      Therefore, policies are more short-term and can change direction with a change of government, undoing what has been done. Which is far from efficient.

                      Democracy is about people having a say on the issues that concern them. Representative democracy is about voting in others to have your say. Therefore, a number of people are left selecting the best of the worst to represent them.

                      It’s like being forced to buy the album when you only like a few songs.

                      Direct democracy requires safeguards to protect the minority, such as the Treaty, a Constitution, Bill of Rights etc…

                    • weka …
                      13 October 2015 at 8:42 pm

                      “Did party members approve of their flag debacle?”

                      That’s a daft question and shows that you have no idea how political parties function. Also, I was talking about formation of government which is a completely different thing than day to day policy and actions.

                      “Who are the Greens prepared to work with? NZF?”

                      The Greens will work with anyone on share common ground. Including NZF. It’s NZF that has a problem with working with others (or probably it’s Peters that has that problem).

                      Sorry, I meant to say participatory democracy. Majority rules democracy eventually becomes a form of bullying and coercion. It’s not particularly representative. For instance, I’d like to see government work with a wide range of political view. NZF seems against that (Peters wants to sideline the GP for instance, and MANA too I think). We need more participation and better representation.

                      I’m in two minds about binding CIFs. If they were done alongside other initiatives, maybe, but I think we need to up our game with civics in general in NZ, starting with teaching it properly in schools and reforming local body elections so that people get involved. We have to learn how to do democracy, not just learn about individual issues to tick a box next to. Policy shouldn’t be a popularity contest (the flag is showing us all the pitfalls of that).

                • The Chairman …
                  13 October 2015 at 5:34 pm

                  Sorry, that should have read: majority rules is the essence of democracy.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.2.3.2
            13 October 2015 at 2:48 pm

            Direct democracy, as beloved by demagogues the world over.

            Is there something wrong with the select committee process? Then fix the select committee process – for example by introducing stricter rules of evidence and better understanding of how party lines create conflicts of interest.

            • The Chairman 5.1.2.3.2.1
              13 October 2015 at 2:58 pm

              I prefer democracy, let the people have their say.

            • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2.3.2.2
              13 October 2015 at 3:21 pm

              Is there something wrong with the select committee process?

              Well, the big one would be that the select committee can ignore the submissions made and thus support a law that the majority of people don’t want.

              Of course, it’s then up to parliament to legislate that law but they too need to be accountable to the people. They should not have the power to go against the wishes of the people.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                13 October 2015 at 3:28 pm

                Thank you for helping to illustrate my point about how select committees can be improved.

                Did you read the Chairman’s list of qualifiers? Fair dissemination of facts eh Draco? Snort!

              • The Chairman …
                13 October 2015 at 5:08 pm

                “Well, the big one would be that the select committee can ignore the submissions made and thus support a law that the majority of people don’t want.”

                Indeed. Moreover, how many, opposed to voters, actually bother to make a submission?

                Thus, when it comes to the two, there is no comparison, direct democracy wins hands down.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  13 October 2015 at 5:36 pm

                  Bollocks.

                  Interested parties make submissions – some from duty, others from self interest – all arguments can be heard – and yes, the National Party does it’s best to break it (like they won’t do that with demagoguery 😆 ) .

                  In any event, your list of qualifiers betrays the truth.

                  • The Chairman …
                    13 October 2015 at 7:10 pm

                    Yes, interested parties make submissions. But the point is, their input can be disregarded and their numbers are small in comparison to the amount of people that vote.

                    Hence, when it comes to the two there is no comparison nor is it (the select committee process) a substitution.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      14 October 2015 at 6:08 am

                      You have that arse about face: demagoguery isn’t a substitute for democracy: it’s a death knell.

                      Your list of qualifiers betrays the truth. Did you fail to understand why?

                  • The Chairman …
                    14 October 2015 at 10:40 am

                    Rubbish.

                    Submissions can be disregarded.

                    The number who submit are small in comparison.

                    Emotions and prejudices can be invoked under any democratic system.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      14 October 2015 at 10:44 am

                      Rubbish: your list of qualifiers betrays the truth and ignoring that won’t make it go away.

                  • The Chairman …
                    14 October 2015 at 12:26 pm

                    So you keep on saying, yet you have failed to show this.

      • The Chairman 5.2.1
        13 October 2015 at 1:06 pm

        Your links expose Labours tactic.

        Labour make a big song and dance opposing a certain issue, but when it comes to the crunch, they turn around and support it.

        Little was missed in his break. Clearly people were looking to the leader of the opposition for an alternative solution. However, upon his return he huffed and puffed, but in the end is beginning to show his true colours.

        It’s time the left sent Labour a message. If Labour want to support the TPP they can do it without the help of the left.

        I urge the left to withdraw from Labour.

        If Labour come in at under 10% at the next election, then perhaps they may start to actually listen to their core supporters.

    • weka 5.3
      13 October 2015 at 10:10 am

      “Thoughts?”

      Glad Labour has finally figured out what its message is. This message is about the TPP, but also about where Labour is positioning itself for the next election. Not a lot of hope there for lefties, so my suggestion is to look to the GP in terms of voting and look outside of parliament in terms of change beyond that.

      • Draco T Bastard 5.3.1
        13 October 2015 at 10:13 am

        +1

      • The Chairman 5.3.2
        13 October 2015 at 12:07 pm

        That’s correct, there isn’t much hope for left voters supporting Labour.

        Which begs the question, when are the unions going to walk away from Labour?

        Surely the unions can’t continue to support the party after hearing this?

        It’s time the left sent Labour a clear and loud message.

        I’ll be calling my local Labour MP and expressing my disappointment. I suggest others do the same.

      • Tracey 5.3.3
        13 October 2015 at 12:35 pm

        little agrees and disagrees with tpp. situation normal.

    • Draco T Bastard 5.4
      13 October 2015 at 10:13 am

      And this is why Labour keeps losing voters. Just have to have the Greens pick them up.

      • Tricledrown 5.4.1
        13 October 2015 at 10:18 am

        Andrew little and labour are saying they are going to legislate against some of the provisions of TPPA.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.4.1.1
          13 October 2015 at 10:23 am

          So?

          The majority of people don’t even want us in the TPPA.

        • The Chairman 5.4.1.2
          13 October 2015 at 12:16 pm

          Indeed. To save face on their bottom lines, Labour are considering legislating against the ordinances of the TPP.

          However, they seem to have forgotten the dispute process itself also goes against one of their five bottom lines. And going off their comments, it’s clear they don’t plan to legislate against that.

          Therefore, despite their concerns and so called bottom lines, it seems Labour no longer value our sovereign right to govern. Shame on them.

          Additionally, the cat was let out of the bag when Robertson said the Party would weigh up the consequences, implying if the consequences are to severe, Labour will back down.

          So brace yourself for that excuse coming into play later on down the track.

      • weka 5.4.2
        13 October 2015 at 10:50 am

        “And this is why Labour keeps losing voters. Just have to have the Greens pick them up.”

        Ae, and get the message out there that voting NZF is not a vote for a left wing shift or government.

        The Greens can’t hold the left on their own. What’s required now is either a big increase in support for them via membership and/or voting, and an extra-parliamentary movement.

      • The Chairman 5.4.3
        13 October 2015 at 12:10 pm

        Will the Greens walk away from the TPP if given the chance?

        • weka 5.4.3.1
          13 October 2015 at 12:49 pm

          What do you mean? Do you mean that if they were the government? Or do you mean it would be a bottom line, non-negotiable in coalition talks with Labour?

          • The Chairman 5.4.3.1.1
            13 October 2015 at 1:00 pm

            Both.

            Can you inform us of the Green’s position in this regard?

            • You_Fool 5.4.3.1.1.1
              13 October 2015 at 3:33 pm

              In the case of coalition talks it is up to the party membership, in the case of if they form the government? I guess the same, but the greens live in the real world and assume the need to work with another party

              • The Chairman …
                13 October 2015 at 4:38 pm

                Well members should ponder this:

                Can you imagine how ineffective the Greens will become trying to infringe upon the profits of polluters under the TPP?

    • Bill 5.5
      13 October 2015 at 10:28 am

      Is the next election is more than 6 months beyond any date of ratification? If so, the neither Labour nor any other party can walk away unless they have gumption. Thinking…essential;ly reformist social democratic party and gumption. Nope. Not seeing it.

      But that aside, this is truly fucking woeful.

      However, Labour was still committed to the policies (restriction on house sales and favouring NZ business for government procurement) and was prepared to enact them if in Government and face a test in the courts if necessary.

      “If one of the other party countries think we’ve flouted [the deal], there’s a process that they have to go through, and I think we’re going to test the boundaries of that..

      Has no-one bothered to tell him (or has he been to lazy to find out) that three employees of corporate law firms sit behind closed doors and come to binding decisions on any dispute; that they need pay no heed to precedents, national laws, international laws, parliamentary legislation…Nothing. And has no-one told him they do not have to publish their deliberations?

      Meanwhile, he wants to test the boundaries!? – fuck-

      • weka 5.5.1
        13 October 2015 at 10:43 am

        Is it 6 months from ratification, or that NZ can walk away with 6 months notice at any time?

        “test the boundaries”. It’s a typical bit of messaging from Labour. Either they’re aware of the disputes process and think that it won’t hold up, or as mentioned below, they believe they can ignore it if it finds against NZ, in which case they believe they will do their hardest to find ways around the agreement.

        Or they already know that most things will be binding enough to not be worth the fight, in which case this is just the same old prevarication from Labour and when the crunch comes it’ll be ‘we’d like to do the right thing but our hands are tied’.

        tbh, I wonder if it’s a combination of the two. That they’re so used to spinning and following the weather vane that they truly believe the intention of the first bit because they can always rely on the second.

        • Bill 5.5.1.1
          13 October 2015 at 10:49 am

          The vid that DtB posted the other day should be watched. I’ve tried to do a break-down of it for a post, but…well, last night’s cynicism was the result of that endeavour. I’ll still take isolated points from it at some point. Meanwhile, if you missed it and have the bandwidth and time…

          http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-12102015/#comment-1081349

          • weka 5.5.1.1.1
            13 October 2015 at 10:54 am

            yeah, sorry, probably not going to watch something that long and depressing.

            Are you saying that the TPP and TTIP use exactly the same disputes resolution process, or that the process the TTIP will use gives us an indication of how the TPP will go?

            • Bill 5.5.1.1.1.1
              13 October 2015 at 11:19 am

              All these deals use the same mechanism. I wouldn’t call it a process. Imagine three thugs have you cornered against a wall. Happily, you got to choose one of them, but they’re all from the same gang.

              They are about to ‘go through a process’. This arbitration – kangaroos would be proud and Stalin would be blushing.

              He, David Malone, fair demolishes all the myths around these ‘agreements’.

              eg – There is no investment lost by not being a party to any bi-lateral investment clause according to separate studies by the World Bank, Yale and Tufts. The bi-lateral investment clauses open the door to the Investor State Dispute Settlements (ISDS).

              Astonishingly, all the economic gains (underwhelming as they are) only result from running the data through a particular ‘general equilibrium model’ that’s been thoroughly discredited because of inbuilt and obviously bullshit assumptions. When the numbers are thrown through a more robust and credible UN model, everything comes out as a negative for everyone (except for the USA).

              – labour share of gdp down
              – government tax take down
              – wages down
              – rates of employment down
              – net exports down
              – increased financial instability

              I’d love to know what model was used for the TPPA, but I think I already know the answer given that the ‘benefits’ are very, very similar to those envisaged for the TTIP.

            • Draco T Bastard 5.5.1.1.1.2
              13 October 2015 at 1:42 pm

              According to that video they just take the agreement as written and copy/paste into new agreements, ergo, all ISDS clauses are exactly the same.

          • weka 5.5.1.1.2
            13 October 2015 at 11:01 am

            And to pick up the convo from last night, I suppose I see it’s easier to get better democracy from having a state and government, than to write off the state and government and try for something else. Particularly in NZ, where we are so far from a revolution (as compared to many other places in the world). I hold that view not because I think this parliament is likely to make steps in the right direction necessarily, but because having some kind of state gives us a kind of reprieve to do the other work.

            For instance if the GP got to 20% of the vote and Labour were forced to form a coalition with them, we’d get a term or three of being able to shift the centre left again (in the culture, not necessarily in parliament). On the other hand I can see the argument that such a government migh just breed more complacency and lead to people not doing the urgent work required..

            I appreciate the degree of cynicism though, esp if you are doing the hard yards of watching 90s mins of in your face reality (somewhere I’m not prepared to go). Keeping the conversation going about what else we could do seems vital.

      • Tony Veitch 5.5.2
        13 October 2015 at 1:59 pm

        Well, I am depressed! Has Labour learnt nothing from the examples of Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders? I will never vote Labour again, and I’ll be letting the local branches know very strongly! F***, F***, F***!

    • Tracey 5.6
      13 October 2015 at 12:34 pm

      yes he came out strongly for and against. bottom will get sore from the picket

      meanwhike jane kelsey had a win in court.

      • b waghorn 5.6.1
        13 October 2015 at 4:55 pm

        I find Littles stance very clear and easy to understand which is there is enough good in it trade wise to keep but he will flout the rules if necessary for the good of the country.
        As someone who’s income over my entire working life to date has come from nzs primary product trade anything that opens up markets is good.
        Edit I just noticed bearded git has said it better below.

        • Tracey 5.6.1.1
          13 October 2015 at 7:32 pm

          so you think the other parties will let labour pick and choose the parts of the tpp it wants? take the good and rejdct the bad?

          • b waghorn 5.6.1.1.1
            13 October 2015 at 8:15 pm

            It lines them up nicely with nzf buy leaving room to ban foreign ownership.
            If labour gets to 40% ,which is were they need to be to change the government, the other parties will have tow the line .
            And I think nz would be safe from prosecution from real estate investors as they are by nature opportunists and won’t waste money in legal battles they’ll just move on.

    • nigel gregory 5.7
      13 October 2015 at 2:42 pm

      Very disappointed with the labour party if this is the case. Will rethink my voting certainly.

  6. Bearded Git 6
    13 October 2015 at 9:44 am

    Just 18 rugby related stories in the Herald today.

  7. Bearded Git 7
    13 October 2015 at 9:54 am

    @puckish above
    I think Little can see that there are some gains and Labour will be portrayed as negative if it doesn’t back the deal. Seems a reasonable position.

    However, he has made it plain throughout that Labour would ignore the agreement in terms of its policy on foreign purchases of residences and any other matter the party felt was not in the interests of New Zealanders, and that this would be fought through the courts. Key has admitted today, among a lot of blather, that Labour would be able to implement its ban on non-residents buying residences.

    The interesting question is would Labour take any notice of the kangaroo ISD court?

  8. r0b 8
    13 October 2015 at 10:32 am

    Lots of regular contributors are having their comments go to moderation today, not sure why. I will try and keep an eye out, but I am off line for the next 30 min.

    • Colonial Viper 8.1
      13 October 2015 at 10:44 am

      Thanks for doing all of this, r0b.

    • lprent 8.2
      13 October 2015 at 11:25 am

      Has someone added something to the auto-moderation queue. That is the most common reason.

      Umm I will have a look at it.

      • lprent 8.2.1
        13 October 2015 at 11:29 am

        Umm. Nope the auto-moderation looks clean.
        Nothing looks like it has been switched on.
        Clearing the auto-moderation.
        Leave the comments in moderation so I can see if that makes a difference.

        • r0b 8.2.1.1
          13 October 2015 at 11:34 am

          There is one from CV in moderation (I released it briefly, sent it back again on seeing your comment here)

          • lprent 8.2.1.1.1
            13 October 2015 at 11:40 am

            I have the comments on auto-refresh now every minute.

            • r0b 8.2.1.1.1.1
              13 October 2015 at 11:52 am

              Thanks – interesting…

            • lprent 8.2.1.1.1.2
              13 October 2015 at 11:53 am

              Odd. I copied the automod out and in again. Cured? More likely a glich on the server processes?

              • marty mars …
                13 October 2015 at 12:10 pm

                mine have been too – I’ll test it now

                • lprent …
                  13 October 2015 at 12:15 pm

                  Interesting. It seems to be you and CV.

                  I won’t be able to see what is happening until I get to where I can see the logs.

                  • Bill …
                    13 October 2015 at 12:34 pm

                    Me ‘n Tracy and a few others were also getting snagged. If I was signed in I was okay. Anyway. Submitting this from ‘signed out’ to see if it goes through. I’ll let you know in the up-coming edit.

                    edit. okay. The comment didn’t come up. I went back end and both this and a comment from Tracey were pending. I went to release them, but either they released automatically as I went to do that or someone else released them at that moment.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 October 2015 at 12:40 pm

                      OK just signed in and commenting on this now to see if it goes straight through. If it works I’ll try and stay signed in to minimise workload on the mods.

                    • lprent …
                      13 October 2015 at 12:41 pm

                      Tis odd. I can’t see anything that could be causing it. I figure it has to be one of

                      1. the mechanism for dealing with first time comments has an issue or
                      2. the mechanism that lets us get away without a captcha has one or
                      3. the client side mechanism that fills in the commenter details using javascript.

                      I’m going to force everyone to reload cached items from the CDN to see if it is the latter.

                      What I’m wondering is what browser people having problems are on. For that I’ll need database access which is impossible today at work.

                    • Bill …
                      13 October 2015 at 12:46 pm

                      IN the time it took me to type that edit, two comments from tracey, one from CV and one from martymars popped up as pending. And refresh rates all over the back end dropped like a stone.

                      It’s taken me this long – since time of comment above (minus say one minute for typing) to get back here.

                    • lprent []
                      13 October 2015 at 12:52 pm

                      That was me changing the media tag for material from the CDN (content distribution network) that provides the images, css, and javascript to clients. A frequent (ie every few months) issue is that a bad copy of javascript gets out for a browser, and causes client generated issues like this auto-moderation. So I clear everyones caches if I can’t see an obvious cause.

                      I also clearing all cached pages and database queries to ensure that no-one was picking up missing items.

                      It takes about 30 minutes before the site gets back to normal speed, and it is really slow in the first 5-10 minutes afterwards.

                    • weka …
                      13 October 2015 at 12:53 pm

                      I haven’t been going into moderation, but ts pages (including comments and edits) have been very slow to load for the past hour or two.

  9. greywarshark 9
    13 October 2015 at 10:39 am

    I was thinking about Australia saying some time ago that it was going to be the Sherrif of the Pacific, acting for the USA. (Who voted for that? ) Is Israel the Sheriff of the Middle East then? Will Australia take control, attack and corral us like Israel has to Palestine?

    Is this lack of respect and lack of neighbourly good relations between us and Oz a sign of their possible path when we make a nuisance of ourselves wanting to continue sovereignty and fair and legal trading relations, and all things that a principled state expects from another principled state?

    Remember they fought us on the apple front, accusing us of illegal cheating behaviour of planting it himself, from our scientist when he found the dreaded contoneaster (which carries the dreaded fireblight) in a park in Oz. What other goodwill (not!) happenings have cropped up between us, when we have had blame or disadvantage at their hands. All interested NZs will know of at least one.

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      13 October 2015 at 10:54 am

      I was thinking about Australia saying some time ago that it was going to be the Sherrif of the Pacific, acting for the USA. (Who voted for that? ) Is Israel the Sheriff of the Middle East then? Will Australia take control, attack and corral us like Israel has to Palestine?

      Australia has plenty of local and near-regional problems developing. I doubt they will have the attention span and wherewithal to go policing the Pacific.

      • greywarshark 9.1.1
        13 October 2015 at 11:01 am

        Ah CV. but do they know that?

        • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1
          13 October 2015 at 11:42 am

          Well if the Aussies were to follow in true US style, the more things like the economy, infrastructure and social cohesion fall apart on the homefront, the more they will want to do adventuring on foreign shores.

          • Gangnam Style 9.1.1.1.1
            13 October 2015 at 12:10 pm

            In the ODT this morning there was a letter pointing out the fact that Australians living here for one year could vote to decide NZs flag. Seems odd.

            • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1.1.1
              13 October 2015 at 12:16 pm

              Australian citizens who have lived in NZ for 4 years can vote in NZ General Elections.

  10. greywarshark 10
    13 October 2015 at 10:41 am

    Thanks r0b for your work and overview.

  11. Tory 11
    13 October 2015 at 10:53 am

    “I’ll huff and I’ll puff and……., oh fuck it, I am just taking the piss. Of course we will support the TPP cause after all, Labour is all for free trade”

    ‘Labour leader Andrew Little says it is unlikely the party would withdraw from the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPPA) free trade deal if it gains power, following a meeting with Trade Minister Tim Groser to discuss the agreement.’

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/72953458/labour-unlikely-to-withdraw-from-tppa-trade-deal-if-in-govt–andrew-little

    Do you feel betrayed that once again Labour is seen to be weak or as usual, you support a party of no ideas, ideals or policy?

    And cue the apologists for the left………

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      13 October 2015 at 12:41 pm

      Labour and National hold to the same economic and financial frameworks and ideas so its no surprise that they usually agree on everything apart from a few operational details.

      • Das 11.1.1
        13 October 2015 at 1:09 pm

        What we have for a while now in the country is a grand political coalition in terms of economic and financial policies – with regard to Labour, what did post-Rogernomics Clark and Cullen truly do that brought about real change?

      • Draco T Bastard 11.1.2
        13 October 2015 at 1:09 pm

        +1

        And it’s the economics that really do count.

    • Draco T Bastard 11.2
      13 October 2015 at 1:08 pm

      I don’t support right-wing parties and thus I don’t support Labour.

  12. NZSage 12
    13 October 2015 at 10:53 am

    The Avaaz petition is gaining ground.

    https://secure.avaaz.org/en/tpp_2015_loc_nz/?tIkRubb

    Over half a million signatures to date.

    EDIT: Quote from Avaaz website: “…but New Zealand’s parliament can stop it.”

    Really?

  13. Tiger Mountain 13
    13 October 2015 at 10:56 am

    Goff, King, Nash, Shearer, Robertson, Little meet Groser–Labour capitulates
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201774362/little-details-labour's-stance-on-tpp

    NZ Labour is officially stuffed

    this is one long running issue that could have united NZ First, Green and Labour for 2017

    • NZSage 13.1
      13 October 2015 at 11:04 am

      +100

    • Colonial Viper 13.2
      13 October 2015 at 11:06 am

      The Labour Leader Andrew Little says his party is not in a position to oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership deal, but a Labour government would flout some of its terms.

    • Puckish Rogue 13.3
      13 October 2015 at 11:16 am

      Or, heaven forbid, Labour realise this is in NZs best interest

    • Das 13.4
      13 October 2015 at 1:13 pm

      Interesting group of MPs.
      What was the criteria that was decided for those MPs to meet with Groser?
      Labour leader, deputy, finance speckperson, and ….?

  14. greywarshark 14
    13 October 2015 at 10:59 am

    Don’t we love money. The more we have of it, the more we need to have more of it.

    The head of the panel that is carrying out a review of Child, Youth and Family (CYF) is being paid $2000 a day by the government.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/286820/cyf-reviewer-paid-$2000-a-day

    Paula Rebstock (left) will be earning almost double the maximum standard fee. Social Development Minister Anne Tolley (right) said there were ‘very few people in New Zealand with Ms Rebstock’s wealth of experience’
    (Me – As useful mercenary for RW governments. Our overseas expert! One of the professional feminism-empowered ‘Yo-Yo Sisters’ travelling around the world being RW change agents!)

    The government had to create a special exemption to enable the payment to Paula Rebstock, which is about double the maximum standard fee.
    Labour Party state services spokesman Kris Faafoi said he thought most New Zealanders would struggle to comprehend such a daily fee.

    Nice Work if you can get it.
    Ella Fitgerald sings some good thoughts.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu0JjhbaVbE

    The man who only lives for making money
    Lives a life that isn’t necessarily sunny;
    Likewise the man who works for fame —
    There’s no guarantee that time won’t erase his name

    The fact is
    The only work that really brings enjoyment
    Is the kind that is for girl and boy meant.
    Fall in love — you won’t regret it.
    That’s the best work of all — if you can get it.
    Holding hands at midnight
    ‘Neath a starry sky…
    Oh that is nice work if you can get it.
    And you can get it — if you try.
    from ST Lyrics

    • Smilin 14.1
      13 October 2015 at 11:51 am

      Paua Rebstock “wealth of experience” more like her wealth out of our pockets A bit like Paua poaching

    • mac1 14.2
      13 October 2015 at 1:53 pm

      Oh, I can easily understand what the scale of that $2000 per day fee means.

      I am a retired man, and this $2000 is what I earn for 80 hours work over three months. Ms Rebstock is earning x10 what I earn, and some x15 the minimum wage, which my BA Hons daughter earns as a cleaner.

      • greywarshark 14.2.1
        13 October 2015 at 3:01 pm

        mac1
        The reply from the pollies would be, that can’t be true – education overcomes poverty and poor wages. Chanting slogans like that, which have been proved to be true generally, in third world countries, is all you get from these NZ propagandists.

        They haven’t got a handy quote about people working in a declining economy which has as its main aim, to have low inflation. I believe it is 0.8 this quarter, so thank your daughter for helping to provide stability by her restraint in asking for higher wages!

  15. Sabine 15
    13 October 2015 at 11:27 am

    interesting move by Medicines sans frontiers

    http://www.mintpressnews.com/doctors-without-borders-takes-unprecedented-action-against-us-military/210168/

    “Even war has rules,” declared Dr. Joanne Liu, international president of Doctor’s Without Borders (MSF), who announced Wednesday that the aid organization will take unprecedented action against the U.S. military by formally launching an international fact-finding inquiry into the bombing of its hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan.”

    not that I think it will amount to much, but at least they try.

    • Colonial Viper 15.1
      13 October 2015 at 11:29 am

      The erosion of the moral standing of the USA in international affairs accelerates.

      • vto 15.1.1
        13 October 2015 at 12:06 pm

        I think the ‘erosion’ is more of a free-fall at the moment isn’t it?

        • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.1
          13 October 2015 at 12:20 pm

          interestingly that’s from the point of the view of the ‘developed west.’ In most of the rest of the world – South America, Africa, the ME, there are very few illusions left amongst ordinary people as to what the US has been doing to them.

  16. Smilin 16
    13 October 2015 at 11:33 am

    Question :How does Steven Joyce get to or have the qualification to decide the future of Agresearch in NZ when he is a Media entrepreneur ?
    Does it not seem strange that he can create a ministry of everything which in concept is useless other than its seems the ultimate veto over most of the govt development and research activities and enterprises
    A very powerful position to be in and not subject to parliamentary review or it seems democracy only itself and the nationacorp caucus
    Frankly its corrupt

  17. One Anonymous Bloke 17
    13 October 2015 at 11:41 am

    Decision released in Kelsey vs. Minister of Trade

    …I have quashed the Minister’s decision in relation to six of the categories of documents requested by Professor Kelsey.

    Time for corrupt Ministers who break the law to face criminal charges.

    • The lost sheep 17.2
      13 October 2015 at 12:39 pm

      The report doesn’t mention anyone being corrupt and breaking the law ?

      The Chief Ombudsman got it wrong also apparently. Does that make her corrupt and criminal in your opinion OAB?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 17.2.1
        13 October 2015 at 12:53 pm

        Are you unaware of the well-documented pattern of behaviour of government ministers towards their OIA obligations?

        This is no isolated example.

        How do you propose to tackle it? Wet bus tickets? A round of golf? Cabinet Club?

        • The lost sheep 17.2.1.1
          13 October 2015 at 1:09 pm

          How do you propose to tackle it?

          By having a democratic system that allows for fine points of law and Govt. actions to be tested by multiple independent and highly informed bodies such as the Ombudsman and the High Court.
          As has occurred in this case as it happens.

          And if the Minister and/or the Ombudsman had been guilty of a corrupt and criminal pattern of behavior I am confident the High Court would have said so.
          But it didn’t, so I’m just going to read your comments to that effect as politically motivated OTT nonsense.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 17.2.1.1.1
            13 October 2015 at 1:21 pm

            The High Court was not asked to comment on that aspect, as it did not form part of Kelsey’s case. Are you also unaware of how law works?

            Requests are required to be processed in a timely manner. It is clear that the extended delays to this and many other requests deliberately defeats the purpose of the act. Relying on High Court action is no solution at all.

            I’m sure you’ll find some way to justify it to yourself anyway.

      • Pat 17.2.2
        13 October 2015 at 1:06 pm

        the government has been shown to have acted unlawfully….as they did with the CERA Act where they have lost every action taken against them

        • The lost sheep 17.2.2.1
          13 October 2015 at 1:11 pm

          Maybe you should read the report before making such comments Pat?

          • Pat 17.2.2.1.1
            13 October 2015 at 1:16 pm

            http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/286864/tpp-requests-groser-acted-unlawfully
            which part of my comment would you like to refute lost sheep?

            • The lost sheep 17.2.2.1.1.1
              13 October 2015 at 4:25 pm

              The bit about acting unlawfully Pat.

              Despite the Radio NZ headline using that term, the judgement specifically does not make such a finding. To quote…

              [3] The applicants have applied for a series of declarations concerning the lawfulness of the Minister’s approach and the meaning of specific provisions of the Act.
              [4] Rather than issue specific declarations I have quashed the Minister’s decision in relation to six of the categories of documents requested by Professor Kelsey.

              The report makes it clear that..
              [91] This proceeding is confined to questions about the correct interpretation and application of the Act, not the substantive merits of the Minister’s decision or the report of the Chief Ombudsman.
              The issue in this case is how the law should have been complied with, and in the opinion of the High Court in this case the Minister, His officials, and did not correctly comply with the Act.
              The complexity of doing so is demonstrated by the fact that the Chief Ombudsman has also failed to understand how the law should be complied with.

              Therefore the High Court has sent the Minister back to ‘reconsider his decision’ and supplied him with some instructions on how he should apply the law in the way I have explained

              So. No law broken, and no ruling that the Minister acted unlawfully.

              • Pat …
                13 October 2015 at 5:22 pm

                if they have failed to follow the law then ipso facto they have acted unlawfully…which is exactly the same ruling by both the high court and the supreme court re the red zone…the government were sent back to apply the law correctly…i.e lawfully……it is a very simple concept lost sheep

                http://www.minterellison.co.nz/Government_told_to_reconsider_offers_to_uninsured_property_owners_in_the_red_zone_03-26-2015/

                • The lost sheep …
                  13 October 2015 at 5:45 pm

                  if they have failed to follow the law then ipso facto they have acted unlawfully

                  That does not in fact follow.
                  It is accepted that some laws are by nature extremely difficult to formulate in a manner that makes compliance easy to achieve, and so an ongoing process of interpretation is required. The OIA is one such law. (Employment Law is another. ‘Good Faith’? ‘What what a fair and reasonable employer would have done’?)
                  If you actually read the judgement you would find some fascinating discussion around how the law is to be complied with.
                  You would also discover why the High Court did not make a ruling that the actions of the Minister were ‘unlawful’.

                  In the case you link above the Supreme Court did make such a ruling. That is a completely different scenario.

                  • Pat …
                    13 October 2015 at 6:01 pm

                    in fact LS the words unlawful wernt in the summary in the quake outcasts ruling either…yet unlawful it was…..i assume you will now be taking defamation action against all these journalists and media organisations that have erroneously reported this “unlawful” act?

                    • The lost sheep …
                      13 October 2015 at 7:35 pm

                      I think it is widely accepted on this forum that all journalism is beyond redemption Pat.

                      That’s why I don’t take anything I read in the media as fact. I try and verify it at the source. Thanks to OAB for providing the link to that.

                      How did you find the judgement?
                      Excellent and valuable contribution I thought, and should result in better compliance with the intent of the OIA law going forward.

              • mickysavage …
                13 October 2015 at 5:36 pm

                Que?

                If the law had not been broken Kelsey would have lost. Try harder TLS.

                • The lost sheep …
                  13 October 2015 at 5:51 pm

                  Have you read the report Micky?
                  Can you point out where it states anyone acted ‘unlawfully/broke the law’ as opposed to ‘did not comply’?

                  How do you think the Chief Ombudsman failed to understand how to comply?

                  • mickysavage …
                    13 October 2015 at 6:25 pm

                    Check out McFlock’s comments below. There is no difference between breaking the law and not complying with the law.

                    If you are right Groser would have won and Kelsey would have lost.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      13 October 2015 at 6:42 pm

                      There is a difference, as I’ve explained.
                      And as explained to Pat, there is a difference between a Court making a declaration of unlawfulness, and declining to make such a ruling.

                      There is a state in law of failing to interpret how to correctly comply.
                      The judgement in this case says that The Minister, his Officials, and the Chief Ombudsman all failed to correctly interpret how they should comply.
                      That is not necessarily a criminal or unlawful act, and in this case the High Court is not declaring it to be such.

      • McFlock 17.2.3
        13 October 2015 at 1:12 pm

        The declaration says they broke the law.

        All you’re quibbling about is whether this repeated illegal behaviour by cabinet members and their offices is the product of corrupt intentions or abject and repeated incompetence.

        oh look, a flag…

        • The lost sheep 17.2.3.1
          13 October 2015 at 4:25 pm

          See above McFlock.
          The High Court made no ruling that any law was broken.

          • McFlock 17.2.3.1.1
            13 October 2015 at 4:44 pm

            cf:

            [107] None of the steps required by ss 18A and 18B of the Act were undertaken

            [109] […]The genuine administrative challenges associated with complying with the Act in this case did not entitle the Minister or MFAT to circumvent their duties under the Act.

            [110] The “blanket” approach taken by the Minister in this case did not comply with the text, scheme and purpose of the Act.

            They failed to comply with the law. That’s commonly known as “breaking the law”.

            Such a pity you missed that bit in the declaration. Whether it was incompetence or intent, I can’t be bothered speculating – either way you’re spinning while you split hairs.

            • The lost sheep 17.2.3.1.1.1
              13 October 2015 at 5:33 pm

              They failed to comply with the law. That’s commonly known as “breaking the law”.

              We are talking about what the High Court actually determined McFlock, not what ‘common’ interpretation you or anyone else would like to put on it.

              If a law had been broken, The High Court would have said just that. But they did not.
              The judgement uses the specific phrase that the law had ‘not been complied with’, and it very carefully outlines why it did so.
              The reason for that is that ‘not comply’ and ‘broken’ are NOT the same thing at all in relation to laws.
              Which I’m sure someone of your erudition and subtlety understands perfectly, and as you have no doubt read the judgement itself you will also clearly understand why the High Court ‘did not think it is necessary to issue the declarations (of unlawfulness) sought by the applicants.

              • mickysavage …
                13 October 2015 at 5:37 pm

                Are you being serious? Did you read the judgment? And understand it?

                • The lost sheep …
                  13 October 2015 at 6:35 pm

                  Yes.
                  It does not make a judgement of unlawfulness as the applicants requested.

                  • mickysavage …
                    13 October 2015 at 6:59 pm

                    No the Judge declined to grant the declaration sought but still ruled Groser breached the OIA. Can you stop trying to teach me to suck eggs?

                    • The lost sheep …
                      13 October 2015 at 7:30 pm

                      I’m not trying to teach you anything Mickey.
                      I just object people attempting to distort the meaning of the High Courts judgement through the deliberate substitution of terms and concepts that do not actually appear in the judgement.
                      I believe that is ‘commonly’ referred to as ‘spin’, and ‘spin’ is widely disproved of in this forum?

                      The term ‘breached the OIA’ does not appear in the judgement. So on what basis do you claim that the judge ruled that to be the case?

              • McFlock …
                13 October 2015 at 9:27 pm

                The reason for that is that ‘not comply’ and ‘broken’ are NOT the same thing at all in relation to laws.

                Actually, they are. The judge was simply refusing to declare whether the illegality perpetrated in coming to the minister’s decision made that decision itself illegal. In the same way that the Court of Appeal might determine that minor breaches of the Evidence Act did not affect the validity of the verdict.

                • The lost sheep …
                  13 October 2015 at 10:30 pm

                  If the Judge didn’t declare it, you are simply projecting your bias into complete speculation McFlock.
                  Unless you happen to be a High Court Judge yourself, I think I’ll stick with the genuine article. No offense.

                  But you know I must be correct in this matter.
                  OAB started this thread.
                  If there is the slightest chink in any argument I put up, he will let me know immediately how many kinds and varieties of idiocy my comments represent.
                  He has said nothing.
                  ‘Ipso facto’ to quote Pat.
                  I must be correct.

                  • McFlock …
                    13 October 2015 at 11:43 pm

                    1) Did or did not the judge repeatedly state that the government failed to comply with the processes and requirements set out in the Official Information Act when it refused Kelsey’s OIA request?

                    2) did the judge make a ruling on whether the refusa was legally correct?

                    I think we are agreed that the answer to 2 is “no”.
                    But the answer to 1 is “yes”.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      14 October 2015 at 8:18 am

                      Nearly there McFlock.
                      We’ve worked all the way from ‘corrupt’ and ‘criminal’, through all the other misinterpretations, and arrived at ‘legally correct’.

                      Now.
                      Did the Judgement state that anyone had acted ‘unlawfully’ and/or that any law had been ‘broken’ ?
                      No.

                      They are just words eh, and you can interchange them and they mean the same? Bollocks.
                      Different words are used precisely because they convey different meanings, and I take it as a rule of thumb that when someone chooses to substitute one word for another, it is because they are attempting to distort the meaning of the original statement.
                      What is wrong with the terms the judge used and why are so many here reluctant to use them?
                      Spin.

                      To back my point, I point out that the judgement itself contains several discussions of the exact meaning of certain words and phrases and the importance of interpreting them correctly.

                      The difficulty in doing so, and the reason the Judge chose to declare ‘failed to comply’ as opposed to ‘acted unlawfully’ is well illustrated by this quote…

                      [127] The terminology used in s 19(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act is contorted…….
                      ……. The drafters of s 19 of the Act appear to have used the terms “reason” and “grounds” in the converse manner to which they are normally used.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 October 2015 at 12:34 pm

                      … two different words mean different things, so therefore these two expressions must mean different things?

                      Well, the next time you “fail to comply” with the local speed limit, let me know whether there is any substantive difference when you point this distinction out to the police officer.

                      The resolution to this argument is quite simple: rather than insisting that the two expressions mean different things, you can link to any reasonable source (such as legal dictionary, encyclopaedia entry, even a post on a fairly sane blog) that provides distinct meanings between “breaking the law” and “failing to comply with the law”.

                      For example, when I googled the two phrases together and ignored the ones about cops shooting people who failed to comply with their orders, several articles used the expressions interchangably.
                      For example, this news article. Or this one. Or this one from the UK. Or even this business law newsletter.

                      Feel free to back up your opinion with something other than a repeated insistence that your fart smells like roses. You argue that the two expressions mean legally precise and different things. Back it up.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    14 October 2015 at 8:35 am

                    There is the slightest chink yawningest gulf in the arguments emotional response you outlined.

                    It’s been elucidated repeatedly by MS and McF, and perhaps you missed my comment at 17.2.1.1.1

                    I propose that deliberate and repeated breach of statutory requirements by a minister be criminalised. National has too much form in this area.

                    Note that this is a proposal, not an interpretation of the Groser verdict.

    • Whispering Kate 17.3
      13 October 2015 at 3:05 pm

      There were eight categories so I wonder why the Judge with held the remaining two – probably considered too top secret for the eyes of the great unwashed.

  18. Gavin 18
    13 October 2015 at 11:54 am

    The government books are out tomorrow – after lunch – we’ll get to see if they are in balance or not. For the record, I think they’ll be short for the year, by over a billion dollars. That’s seven years straight, they’ve spent more than they got in.

    • lprent 18.1
      13 October 2015 at 11:59 am

      I suspect you will be right. Probably several billion once you remove the “specials” and optimistic forecasts.

    • Colonial Viper 18.2
      13 October 2015 at 12:15 pm

      That’s seven years straight, they’ve spent more than they got in.

      The Government needs to be running a bigger deficit.

      What do you want National to do? Tax more in from Kiwi households and small and medium businesses than they spend on goods and services for the country?

      A really simple word for that: austerity.

      • McFlock 18.2.1
        13 October 2015 at 1:36 pm

        Nah.

        “Austerity” focuses on cutting expenditure to pay government debt to corporates.

        This government focuses on transferring money to corporates via debt and diverting end-user expenditure to corporate contractors.

        Damned if I know of a single word that can describe how fucked up that is…

        • Smilin 18.2.1.1
          15 October 2015 at 3:01 pm

          100 BILLION national debt ,how do any of us in this country have any money at all -crime is an alternative but the govt seems to have a mortgage on that to us all

      • Draco T Bastard 18.2.2
        13 October 2015 at 1:37 pm

        Although I do agree with what you’re saying there’s a few things that need to happen as well:

        1. We stop the banks creating credit money
        2. We need to tax the rich far more
        3. We need capital taxes
        4. We need to stop the dollar being set by buyers/sellers and set it as a function of our terms of trade/imports/exports

  19. JanMeyer 19
    13 October 2015 at 11:54 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11528269

    For all those sympathisers and supporters of “file sharing” (read: collective theft of artistic work)

    • Colonial Viper 19.1
      13 October 2015 at 12:17 pm

      Hey JanMeyer

      More like corporate profiteering and abusing of consumers and customers.

      • Psycho Milt 19.1.1
        13 October 2015 at 12:47 pm

        I don’t think file sharing sites, for all the reasons they shouldn’t exist, really qualify as “corporate profiteers.” Or were you trying to claim that Ant Timpson is a corporate profiteer? Good luck with that one.

    • Gangnam Style 19.2
      13 October 2015 at 12:25 pm

      I liked your scary commas, I even put on a scary voice reading out “file sharing”. I need more of a lead in before I will read your article, thanks anyway.

      • JanMeyer 19.2.1
        13 October 2015 at 1:31 pm

        Yeah easier to just turn a blind eye and keep up the “file sharing”. Those evil capitalists deserve it. Too bad it also fucks up the financial return for independent film makers and other creatives trying to make a buck.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 19.2.1.1
          13 October 2015 at 1:36 pm

          Like Lorde, for example. No, wait…

          There has never been more opportunity for artists to leverage income from talent: direct access to a genuinely global market with significantly reduced distribution costs.

          Clouds, silver linings, etc.

        • Puckish Rogue 19.2.1.2
          13 October 2015 at 1:43 pm

          I’m sure they’ll get more job offers from being downloaded so many times (and as such being seen) then if it hadn’t been downloaded and just relied on movie takings alone

    • weka 19.3
      13 October 2015 at 1:06 pm

      After four years spent working on Turbo Kid and producers deferring all fees, Timpson says they needed a payoff to help pay for its creation.

      If they got a dollar from every download: “we would be rich”.

      I suspect there is an answer to the problem right there. Who doesn’t want to share?

      • Draco T Bastard 19.3.1
        13 October 2015 at 1:40 pm

        Yep, all they really have to do is make it so that they can get a dollar from every download.

        Of course then they’d actually be over paid.

        • JanMeyer 19.3.1.1
          13 October 2015 at 1:50 pm

          Another genius! Please engage with Ant Timpson and the other independent creatives – they’re obviousiy idiots who have neglected to simply “charge a dollar for every download”!

          • weka 19.3.1.1.1
            13 October 2015 at 2:12 pm

            Don’t be stupid. The point is that artists are tied into a system that rips most of them off, and that same system prevents them from making money in other ways (ways that many people want to support).

            It’s the corporates and their greed that are preventing artists from making a living. I’d quite happily pay small fees for downloading content (and support people who can’t afford that) but NZ is the classic example of why this doesn’t work under the current system. Content in film and tv is tied up in a whole bunch of location bullshit. The corporates are more interested in making shitloads of money than in supporting artists to create content and make a living and in giving the public access. The corporates could still make a living as well, but that’s not enough for them. Mass response of fuck ’em coinciding with new tech is pretty much why we’ve ended up in the current situation.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 19.3.1.1.1.1
              13 October 2015 at 2:39 pm

              I think it’s the new tech rather than the attitude: just as Edison put candle-makers out of business, history is littered with such examples.

              That said, so long as people want to watch movies there’ll be a profit to be made from making them.

              • McFlock …
                13 October 2015 at 3:25 pm

                One of the criticisms I loved about the case against KDC was that essentially the media corporations were targeting kdc simply because his model of monetising information and its storage was much better suited (dare I say “most fit”) for the evolving technology situation.

                A smart organisation would have simply negotiated a reasonable licensing fee for any copies found on the servers – providing an incentive to locate and legitemise copies. And then the fee could have been small enough per download to work within the download service’s model without incurring fees to amateur users.

          • Draco T Bastard 19.3.1.1.2
            13 October 2015 at 2:20 pm

            Your problem, and those like Ant Timpson, is that you haven’t really considered what changes are happening both socially and economically. The artificial monopolies that once existed are going the way of the dodo because they don’t work. This means that they, and we, need new ways. One of those new ways happens to be file sharing.

            Capitalism is dying and what we’re seeing is the last grasp of the bludging capitalists on our wealth and power.

          • grumpystilskin 19.3.1.1.3
            13 October 2015 at 4:41 pm

            I charge a modest $1-7 for my downloads, pity they seem to pop up on filesharing sites and have around 1million+ downloads all without bothering to give me my share. Seems people are happy with fileshare sites as along as they are not the artist concerned. Do I not deserve an income from my efforts, especially as others are happy to steal but no pay for?
            (yes, I do provide samples of work online for free but it’s not these that are “shared”)
            Don’t start the “it’s a new age so evolve or die” bullshit. That’s ignorant talk. Do you get paid for your 9-5? What If I came to your workplace and took a few items without asking then distributed to friends, is that not theft?

            Not pointing at anyone, just venting.
            feeling better now!

            • McFlock 19.3.1.1.3.1
              13 October 2015 at 5:03 pm

              In my workplace, our information outputs are freely available. We produce them because clients pay for them. If people want the outputs to exist, they pay for them. After that, anyone can have them. They are tailored to the client requirements, but other people find them useful.

              Information is not physical. Copying things incurs a negligible cost to us. Do you really think that you’d have more than a million extra sales if filesharing didn’t exist? How about you start leveraging that advertising edge, rather than lamenting a dying business model?

              If you’re in entertainment, take an example from some of the funk bands of the 1970s: locked out of the mainstream recording industry, they succeeded through improving their live performances. Or you could look at who’s downloading your material, and leverage that into endorsement deals.

              If you’re in software, there are other models you can use.

              If you’re adamant that only “legitimate” copies must exist, look into digitally watermarking each sold copy so you can identify the leakers.

            • Gangnam Style 19.3.1.1.3.2
              13 October 2015 at 6:48 pm

              I too see my bands on file sharing sites, 1000s of copies of my songs all shared. But I am not stupid enough to think they would all buy my albums, most ppl are just curious hoarders downloading files for the sake of it, its a fast moving world the internet.

              I liked KDCs proposed file sharing model where you would have your songs on a streaming site, have a page like bandcamp, have everything for free, (stream or download) but you get paid by ppl viewing your bands page (through border ads). Seemed like a good idea, so if you are Kanye West you would get millions of views (oodles of cash) & someone a bit more low key like myself would get a few 100 views (a little bit of cash). Funnily enough, he was just in the process of setting it when he got raided.

              & there was a story recently about the guy who wrote that ‘All About the Bass’ song (which was the most pad-for-streamed song ever, number 1 in a bunch of countries) yet he only got a few thousand dollars, so the model still needs work!

            • Smilin 19.3.1.1.3.3
              15 October 2015 at 2:54 pm

              Yes nothing worse than doin work and not even get a mention or payed by the beneficiaries of it
              A bit like this govt basic value for the masses

      • alwyn 19.3.2
        13 October 2015 at 3:18 pm

        I wonder if we can get an opinion from Brian Edwards, once the beloved of the left, on whether clamping down on file sharing is a good thing?
        He was the one who, a few years ago described Public Libraries as being involved in “Grand Theft Copyright”.
        He will probably be of the view that the PPA rules people seem to think are in the agreement are a wonderful idea.

    • millsy 19.4
      14 October 2015 at 12:35 am

      If you think I am going to stop downloading torrents, then you can get fucked.

      Really.

      Kind over the copyright morals brigade who want me to pay through the nose for music that I cannot freely play on any device I want and see fit.

      Last time I looked the music industry was pretty healthy, even though people have been downloading music for the past 15-16 years.

      We are not all hipsters who listen to Mumford on Sons on their spotify playlist on their iPhones.

      Sometime people want to listen to their Mp3’s of Les Paul and Mary Ford on their Galaxy on the way to work.

  20. Smilin 20
    13 October 2015 at 11:57 am

    Solution for TPPA when it arrives in hard copy
    Rip it apart page by page and build a boat out of it and send it back to America and name the boat “Thanks but no thanks “

  21. Hami Shearlie 21
    13 October 2015 at 12:04 pm

    Jane Kelsey has just had a win in the High Court against Tim Groser – with costs! GO JANE!! (on TV1 news at 12 midday)

  22. Puckish Rogue 22
    13 October 2015 at 2:49 pm

    So with National and Labour both supporting the TPP and the two most successful PMs of the last few decades supporting it as well do you think that maybe those opposing it are on the wrong side of history?

    • Draco T Bastard 22.1
      13 October 2015 at 3:25 pm

      No, that those two parties and leaders are on the wrong side of history. Society is changing and these people seek to stand in the way of that needed change.

      • Puckish Rogue 22.1.1
        13 October 2015 at 3:29 pm

        The interesting thing is we both do agree that society is changing

        • Draco T Bastard 22.1.1.1
          13 October 2015 at 3:32 pm

          Well then, why do you support the TPPA and other similar agreements that seek to prevent that change?

          • Puckish Rogue 22.1.1.1.1
            13 October 2015 at 3:48 pm

            You misunderstand, I think society is changing for the better and trade agreements such as this will help facilitate that change

            Trade not aid is what raises people out of poverty so the more trade the better

            • Paul 22.1.1.1.1.1
              13 October 2015 at 5:21 pm

              You really do talk nonsense.

            • Draco T Bastard 22.1.1.1.1.2
              14 October 2015 at 1:07 am

              The FTAs aren’t facilitating change as their whole purpose is to prevent it. The capitalists keep demanding stability in laws and such because they don’t things to change and the politicians give it to them in laws and trade agreements.

              And, no, trade doesn’t raise people out of poverty. Increased access to the necessities of life does. The present paradigm is about preventing that access so as to make a few people rich.

  23. Rosemary McDonald 23
    13 October 2015 at 3:28 pm

    Time for a tune, perhaps the new National Anthem?

  24. Hami Shearlie 24
    13 October 2015 at 5:50 pm

    I find it rather worrying that the Labour Party when meeting with Tim Groser over the TPPA, did not think fit to include their two financial heavyweights, David Cunliffe and David Parker in the discussions – What would David Dead-Fish Shearer know about trade? Stuart Nash is only very recently back in Parliament (don’t think he is a financial or trade expert). Phil Goff has a background in foreign affairs and trade, and Annette King in Health re Pharmac, so those people with Robertson (I suppose) make sense but not including David C and David P is very very strange indeed!

    • Paul 24.1
      13 October 2015 at 5:54 pm

      Totally agree.
      Shearer, Nash and Goff are all to extreme right of the Labour Party and our just as much neo-liberal ideologues as Key’s cadre.

      • savenz 24.1.1
        13 October 2015 at 8:06 pm

        Extremely odd. I have to agree if Labour have decided to agree with Key and keep TPP because it is ‘too hard’ to oppose it – then the centre and left have to go with NZ First, Greens or Internet Mana.

        In fact I think Cunliffe and quite a few others should leave Labour if Labour decide to go with TPP by default and actually get in power and create more of a central peoples party.

        Labour clearly no longer is working for it’s people if that is their attitude.

        Oh too hard to challenge TPP… Key such a nice guy when he is undermining (oh I mean buttering up) Labour.

        No wonder so many in Labour did not win their electorate seats. Voice of the people they are NOT!

  25. Chooky 25
    13 October 2015 at 9:51 pm

    ‘ Is the End of Independent News and Websites of Bloggers in Sight? “Operating an Independent Website could become Completely Outlawed”.’

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/is-the-end-of-independent-news-and-websites-of-bloggers-in-sight-operating-an-independent-website-could-become-completely-outlawed/5481689

    “According to Matt Drudge it is. He is an American political commentator and the creator and editor of the Drudge Report, an online news aggregator.

    His website, according to Alexa has a global website rank of 616 and ranks in the USA at 132 and according to Quantcast is receiving, we think around 3 million hits a day or 90 million a month.

    In a startling unscheduled interview with Alex Jones on infowars.com Drudge warns “that the very foundation of the free Internet is under severe threat from copyright laws that could ban independent media outlets, revealing that he was told directly by a Supreme Court Justice, “It’s over for me.”….

    ….Worse, it doesn’t matter where your servers are. For that’s not what defines publication. It also doesn’t matter who the material is aimed at: nor even what language it is in. Publication happens if someone in the UK downloads whatever it is. That, in itself, is the act of publication. This effectively censors the entire world’s press and media in the United Kingdom.

    If the copyright laws in the US do go the way that Drudge says then one can only assume that the UK’s downloading rules will also apply there…

  26. Smilin 26
    15 October 2015 at 2:37 pm

    I reckon its about time we change our govt system to a republic officially

  27. Smilin 27
    15 October 2015 at 2:37 pm

    I reckon its about time we change our govt system to a republic officially
    It seems that this shyte that holds up this govt is as shaky as as the Isles we live on hence the production of BS by this govt could be the cause of our rising greenhouse emissions