Open mike 14/02/2024

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, February 14th, 2024 - 66 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

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

Step up to the mike …

66 comments on “Open mike 14/02/2024 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Robert Guyton 1
    14 February 2024 at 7:26 am

    The Spinoff dissembles Ngata’s claims in a very readable manner:

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/05-02-2024/according-to-apirana-ngata-maori-ceded-sovereignty-by-signing-te-tiriti-is-he-right

    "That sounds pretty clear. So, Māori did cede sovereignty by signing Te Tiriti?

    No. The Waitangi Tribunal has been clear that Māori did not give up their sovereignty by signing Te Tiriti. In its 2014 report, He Whakaputanga me Te Tiriti,the tribunal found that:

    “The rangatira who signed te Tiriti o Waitangi in February 1840 did not cede their sovereignty to Britain. That is, they did not cede authority to make and enforce law over their people or their territories.”

    “But Ngata is an important and respected person, living at a time much closer to 1840 than we are. Shouldn’t we take his views seriously?

    Yes, Ngata is an important figure and one of significant mana. We should not dismiss his views out of hand. But, respected figure though he is, he is only one person, and we should not uncritically accept his views without any other context.”

    [link fixed – Incognito]

    • Ad 1.1
      14 February 2024 at 7:58 am

      Such arcane anxiety.

      In the face of 200 years building a modern state with complex bureaucracies, vast legal structures, and a completely intermarried population, "sovereignty" granted or not is so pointless.

      • Robert Guyton 1.1.1
        14 February 2024 at 8:43 am

        Until it comes to decisions about resource exploitation.

        • Tiger Mountain 1.1.1.1
          14 February 2024 at 9:45 am

          Indeed! as we have discovered with 3 Waters, Foreshore and Seabed and provisions in the original TPPA fine print over Rongoā Māori etc.

          Act and others “one people” appeal is majorly about removing Māori and ultimately everyone else's ability, to keep international capital and corporates at arms length.

        • Francesca 1.1.1.2
          14 February 2024 at 10:01 am

          Exactly

          Without Maori input we're buggered

          Happening right here , vultures circling just waiting for the fast tracking approvals to be put in place
          Oh Joy! for the exploiters

      • Drowsy M. Kram 1.1.2
        14 February 2024 at 9:22 am

        …”sovereignty” granted or not is so pointless.

        Depends whose "sovereignty" you're talking about – not mine, thank providence.

        The myth of the cession of Māori sovereignty [3 Feb 2024]
        Part 1 of a 3 part series ahead of Waitangi Day: Believing Māori ceded sovereignty in 1840 requires a suspension of disbelief – and also a suspension of humanity

        If you do nothing else this Waitangi Day, my plea would be this – try to think about Te Tiriti and Māori sovereignty on a more personal level every now and then. I think the logic that sovereignty was ceded in 1840 might start to unravel pretty quickly once you do.

        Waitangi, as the dust settles [13 Feb 2024]
        For all the talk of debate and protest, last week at Waitangi was an incredible display of unity and kotahitanga. If we really want to honour Te Tiriti – the time is now.

        • veutoviper 1.1.2.1
          14 February 2024 at 10:33 am

          Thanks for putting up these two links to some of Luke Fitzmaurice-Brown's posts over the last week or so. I would highly recommend people read all of them to get the full picture. They are short and easy reads. This link provides the full series:

          https://newsroom.co.nz/author/luke-fitzmaurice-brown/

          I was not sure whether Ad was "taking the micky "and forgot the sarc/ or was about to join ACT … LOL

      • weka 1.1.3
        14 February 2024 at 11:14 am

        In the face of 200 years building a modern state with complex bureaucracies, vast legal structures, and a completely intermarried population, "sovereignty" granted or not is so pointless.

        This is close to the view that Māori should assimilate into Pākehā society. How archaic.

        • Ad 1.1.3.1
          14 February 2024 at 11:22 am

          Nothing to do with it. Don't be tiring.

        • Graeme 1.1.3.2
          14 February 2024 at 12:36 pm

          I think that over the last 200 years of building our state and society there has been considerable assimilation between Māori and Pākehā societies. The reality is that this assimilation has been bi-directional, particuarly in the last 20 years, and now Pākehā are fast becoming much more Māori.

          Hence the current blow-back from some conservative circles.

          • weka 1.1.3.2.1
            14 February 2024 at 5:02 pm

            hard agree on that. The mainstreaming of some te Ao Māori concepts, more Māori in positions of power and thus influence, that Māori are at the forefront of environmental protection, and that the NZ population will be increasingly Polynesian. The neolib right can't win other than by fascism. I expect they're having the same fear based reaction to the climate crisis too, where progressives want transition and reactionary right want power, money and resources while they still can.

            • Anne 1.1.3.2.1.1
              14 February 2024 at 5:16 pm

              yes Especially this:

              I expect they're having the same fear based reaction to the climate crisis too, where progressives want transition and reactionary right want power, money and resources while they still can.

    • William 1.2
      14 February 2024 at 12:21 pm

      Clicking the first link gets me a page not found.

      Removing the &quot at the end solves it.

  2. Robert Guyton 2
    14 February 2024 at 10:01 am

    Luxon said this:

    “Something I feel very passionate about is modern slavery… that’s something that I think we could do a better job of”.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350178210/newsable-whats-next-issue-pm-chris-luxon-would-march-streets

  3. Ad 3
    14 February 2024 at 10:22 am

    Curious to see the US State Department really is researching war crimes against Israel.

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/us-israel-gaza-international-law-war-crimes_n_65cb7662e4b065628a609e5c#

    Let's see how Blinken plays this with the next military aid package.

    • SPC 3.1
      14 February 2024 at 6:59 pm

      At the moment blocking the military aid to Israel in any separate legislation is about the only leverage Biden has to get the Senate approved wider aid package through the House.

  4. millsy 4
    14 February 2024 at 10:34 am

    Am I still banned or what is the story on here?

  5. Robert Guyton 5
    14 February 2024 at 12:17 pm

    Luxon: “Cleaning up the ungodly mess the previous government left behind”

    Ungodly?

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350178939/nz-politics-live-opposition-mps-slam-governments-changes-benefits

    • dv 5.1
      14 February 2024 at 1:24 pm

      HA IMPLICATION

      we will leave a godly mess.

      • Chris76 5.1.1
        14 February 2024 at 1:51 pm

        Aka an almighty mess

        • dv 5.1.1.1
          14 February 2024 at 4:33 pm

          yesyes​​​​​​​yes​​​​​​​​​​​​​​yes​​​​​​​​​​​​​​yes​​​​​​​​​​​​​​yes​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

    • Kay 5.2
      14 February 2024 at 1:41 pm

      I believe God had something to say about how it's a bad thing to help the poor?

      Proverbs 19:17 Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed. Proverbs 22:9 The generous will themselves be blessed, for they share their food with the poor. Proverbs 22:16 Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty. (quick google search, plenty more out there)

      Proverbs 22:16 seems eerily similar to cutting benefits to pay for tax cuts. I look forward to the instigators being cast into poverty.

      • bwaghorn 5.2.1
        14 February 2024 at 3:25 pm

        . I look forward to the instigators being cast into poverty.

        I wouldn't hold my breath.

      • alwyn 5.2.2
        14 February 2024 at 3:26 pm

        We have been told, almost ad nauseum, that when we consider what the TOW says we must use the Maori version. Surely, when we are looking at what God said we should only look at the words he used. In that case we should only us the words that he gave us in Hebrew via Solomon when we look at the book of Proverbs.

        What did God really say? Knowledge of ancient Hebrew will first be required.

        Personally I think you may be using a faulty translation but of course what would I know?

        • Robert Guyton 5.2.2.1
          14 February 2024 at 3:35 pm

          Alwyn – use, or acquire if you don't have one, your kindness lens to understand the world. They come in several colours: benevolence, generosity, altruism and more.

          Get them while stocks last!

        • adam 5.2.2.2
          14 February 2024 at 6:54 pm

          As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly

          Proverbs 22:11

    • SPC 5.3
      14 February 2024 at 4:00 pm

      Prosperity religion is related to the old concept that those with power and wealth are up their with God – raptured – to rule and reign over the poor folk.

      Landlordism of the pre-democratic era restored via growing income and wealth inequality into a restoration of the old class system. In that one either inherited property or did not count as one of the establishment.

  6. bwaghorn 6
    14 February 2024 at 3:20 pm

    https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/13/seafood-industry-donors-lobby-jones-over-wine-and-oysters/

    Not even trying to hide it, is it cyruptiin or just money before environment?

    • millsy 6.1
      14 February 2024 at 3:23 pm

      It all comes down to money before environment.

      I sometimes wonder if we should just nationalise the fishing industry, and force sustainabiltily on it that way.

  7. bwaghorn 7
    14 February 2024 at 3:32 pm

    https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/national/kiwirail-cancelling-cook-strait-mega-ferry-contract-with-south-korean-shipyard/

    Can't wait to see how many millions it's going to cost to break thos deal the short sighted fools

  8. SPC 8
    14 February 2024 at 3:55 pm

    If we did not pay super to those receiving work income over $100,000, there would be $1.25B pa freed up.

    1. Paying super rate benefits to those with long term disability.

    2. Paying super rate benefits to those over 55/60 unable to work in their jobs because of sickness/age related decline

    3. money for housing those over 65 no longer able to work and without home ownership.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350177826/50000-people-earn-over-100k-get-pension-commission

    • millsy 8.1
      14 February 2024 at 4:13 pm

      Why not just increase taxes to people over $100,000 instead? Im sorry, but imposing paperwork and forcing people to sell whatever they have to be able to get the pension is morally indefencible.

      I dont want to have what we have in the USA where you have 90 year olds working at WalMart.

      • SPC 8.1.1
        14 February 2024 at 6:40 pm

        In what way is that an intelligible response?

        If Joe Biden wrote that he would be placed under evaluation by his own staff for dementia.

        It requires no paperwork for IRD to identify someone is receiving wages over $100,000 and thus deny super.

        How is a person on or over $100,000 a year having to sell anything because they do not get super at age 65?

        Anyone not working over 65 gets super (even those working and on the median wage like most people are).

        The $1.2B comes from the richest 10% in our society and helps those who need it.

        • millsy 8.1.1.1
          14 February 2024 at 6:46 pm

          Benefit are means tested, and it is an absolute nightmare for people who have do the paperwork. I dont think we should impose means testing for the super, as it will create a nightmare for people. Perhaps just tax the rich pricks more.

          • SPC 8.1.1.1.1
            14 February 2024 at 9:20 pm

            No CGT/wealth tax/estate tax coz of tax accountants … paperwork …

            Only the top 10% earn over $100,000.

            And there is no paperwork in IRD identifying a wage income over $100,000 and not paying out super.

            PS Everyone applying for super does some basic paperwork anyhow. And they won’t apply if they know they do not qualify.

            • millsy 8.1.1.1.1.1
              14 February 2024 at 9:32 pm

              Means testing super will only mean that heaps of people will go without because they narrowly miss thresholds.

        • UncookedSelachimorpha 8.1.1.2
          14 February 2024 at 9:08 pm

          Better still, forget about people with more than 100k IRD-declared income and focus on people with $20m+ wealth. That is where the real money is.

          The $1.2b is only about 8% of the wealth of NZ’s richest person – ONE PERSON could fund it all for 10 years, and still have more money left than anyone could ever need.

          Instead that one person donates money to right-wing political parties so they can hammer on the poor and the “IRD income” people – and leave the likes of him to carry on looting and corrupting our political system.

          • SPC 8.1.1.2.1
            14 February 2024 at 9:26 pm

            The Greens wanted a wealth tax on those with over $2M, Labour said make it 4. You say $20M.

            Not the top 10%, the top 5%, not the top 5% – the top 1% … when will anything be done if it is always something else …

            • UncookedSelachimorpha 8.1.1.2.1.1
              15 February 2024 at 11:44 pm

              Good points, and I just picked $20m out of the air actually. My main concern is that the truly wealthy are often barely considered in some conversations – when their wealth in fact dominates things. And $100k IRD-income does not identify them.

              A good way would be to tax the top 50% of national wealth – currently about the top 5-10%.

    • KJT 8.2
      14 February 2024 at 4:24 pm

      What about those receiving "investment income" from house hoarding?

      Making super non-universal is a very dangerous slippery slope.

      Of course if we taxed wealth acquisition from rentiers and capital gains tax farmers at the same rate as earnings from actual work, there would be a good deal more than 1.25 billion freed up, including money for welfare, public housing and our huge infrastructure deficit.

      • SPC 8.2.1
        14 February 2024 at 4:50 pm

        Making super non-universal is a very dangerous slippery slope

        That is the sort of argument made by landlords – if one takes away their right to deduct mortgage interest payment as a cost against rent income – they will increase rents (when rents go up because of market conditions regardless).

        Work testing super, is only doing to middle class people with good health and well above the median wage, what we do with benefits.

        A government that would do it, is the same government that would look at

        1. adding sickness to ACC

        2. no deduction for mortgage interest payment as a cost for landlords, except for new builds (the revenue assists with state housing provision).

        3. wealth tax for 10 years until superseded by a functional CGT and estate tax system.

        4. progressive tax on companies – to bring in a form of windfall tax on large banks/supermarket duopoly.

        It's not an either or, we need all of this if we are to remain a first world nation, rather than a place where some of the world's "propertied" class have gated community citizenship.

    • dv 8.3
      14 February 2024 at 4:32 pm

      It is taxed so there is some balance.

      • KJT 8.3.1
        14 February 2024 at 4:34 pm

        Those still working, on over 100k, are contributing both skilled work and paying tax.

        Those living off rents, however!

        • Rosielee 8.3.1.1
          14 February 2024 at 5:16 pm

          After about $30,000 – not sure of the exact amount – the pension is reduced. They do not get the full pension.

          • KJT 8.3.1.1.1
            14 February 2024 at 5:26 pm

            If you are working and getting super it is taxed at your marginal tax rate. The base amount before tax, is the same.

      • SPC 8.3.2
        14 February 2024 at 4:53 pm

        What they pay in income tax they receive back in super.

        At 64 they pay tax, at 65 it is basically tax free income.

        • alwyn 8.3.2.1
          14 February 2024 at 5:37 pm

          "t is basically tax free income"

          I wish you could persuade the IRD that this is the case. They tax you on the combined income from whatever you earn and the super. It is most definitely not tax free.

      • KJT 8.3.3
        14 February 2024 at 5:08 pm

        You can't equate removing super from universality to the other things you mention.

        It comes from the same suspects who want to privatise super altogether.

        "Work testing super, is only doing to middle class people with good health and well above the median wage, what we do with benefits."

        No it isn't. And if you do why not apply it equally to non-work income. Fairness after all.

        And we should be aiming for more universal social wages, not less.

        • SPC 8.3.3.1
          14 February 2024 at 6:27 pm

          You can't equate removing super from universality to the other things you mention.

          It comes from the same suspects who want to privatise super altogether.

          No, because it is based on the same principle they oppose, from those who have to those that do not.

          It is just another middle class privilege being protected, having health and the sort of job one can do over age 65.

          "Work testing super, is only doing to middle class people with good health and well above the median wage, what we do with benefits."

          • No it isn't. And if you do why not apply it equally to non-work income. Fairness after all.
          • And we should be aiming for more universal social wages, not less.

          The undeniable fact is we do not pay universal income support to those with jobs (except by means test as per WFF tax credits), so why to those working after 65 should we pay super?

          And it is a known that we encourage people to save to supplement their super payment, not to justify reducing it.

          Interest, dividend and rent income is taxed before and after age 65.

          Any extremity of wealth in that regard would/should be being taxed long before age 65 in CGT/wealth taxation and subsequent estate taxation – the orbit where it belongs, rather than impost on historic savings people make for retirement.

          • KJT 8.3.3.1.1
            14 February 2024 at 9:01 pm

            Rather incoherent justifications there you have for removing universal super.

            I would have thought you would know better, than supporting the right wing in privatising and removing universal super.

            If it is removed, later generations will never get it back. I am fighting to keep it for my Grandchildren.

            It is not middle class privilege. Having three houses is. Super is a social contract which we paid for over decades. An investment we paid taxes for. It differs from Kiwi saver only in that it is State, not private, provision.

            • SPC 8.3.3.1.1.1
              14 February 2024 at 9:15 pm

              There was no step to privatising and removing universal super, when in the past applying a surtax, increasing the age from 60 to 65, or reducing the increase in annual adjustment to the CPI.

              Just as sames sex marriages were not sending us on the path to partnerships with pets and farm animals.

              Those three were wrong. A surtax on savings discourages something this country needs more of. Increasing the age suddenly while unemployment was high led to a lot of people struggling on benefits in their 60's (they should have received super rate benefits). And the universal rate reduction caused those without other income hardship.

              The change I suggested is equitable. From the top 10% – only the top 10% get over $100,000, let alone then super on top at age 65. And it funds those who need it.

              It is a privilege to get $25,000 when on a top 10% income – those on benefits who get $15,000 can only earn $150 a week in part-time work (they pay tax on that) so a little over $20,000 all up.

              How many people are earning over $100,000 at age 65 without owning their home and significant other assets?

              • KJT …
                15 February 2024 at 7:32 pm

                How many people are earning over $100,000 at age 65 without owning their home and significant other assets?

                More than a few given the number of people I know who are in the situation of heading for 65 with few assets, because they have only just got to that income in trades or other skilled employment, after decades of irregular employment due to re-structuring and redundancies. Heading for retirement renting or in substantial debt.

                We don't need more savings, we need more investment in productive business, infrastructure and future capability. Mostly that requires more tax on wealth to pay for the necessary investment, for time frames beyond the ken of private capital

                The myth of “Retirement Savings” « The Standard