Open mike 14/07/2015

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, July 14th, 2015 - 102 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 …

102 comments on “Open mike 14/07/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    14 July 2015 at 7:03 am

    Are New Zealand homes for New Zealanders to live in or are they part of a global property market?

  2. Morrissey 2
    14 July 2015 at 7:23 am

    “You keep using the word activists rather than scientists…”
    Lynn Freeman confronts, and thereby angers, Matthew Hooton
    Politics From the Left and From the Right, Radio NZ National, Monday 13 July 2015
    Lynn Freeman, Matthew Hooton (“Right”), Mike Williams (“Left”)

    With the temporary absence of regular Nine to Noon host Kathryn Ryan, many long-suffering listeners were no doubt hoping that her replacement Lynn Freeman might do a better job today. If you did hope for that, well…. your hopes were justified! Unlike Kathryn Ryan, Lynn Freeman was not prepared to indulge Hooton’s crude attempt to belittle and traduce scientists, and dealt to him in a way he hasn’t experienced since Andrew Campbell and Laila Harré used to trounce him on this same program a few years ago.

    We join the discussion at the 20:20 mark, with just over four minutes remaining. Williams is winding up another poorly thought out, mealy-mouthed and wandery contribution…

    MIKE WILLIAMS:…but I seriously don’t believe this is an issue which grabs many people.

    LYNN FREEMAN: Do you agree with that, Matthew? Are we going to hear much more about climate change targets?

    MATTHEW HOOTON: Oh we’ll hear a great deal more about this. Again, this is something that comes from overseas, predominantly in the European Union. When you mentioned that activist group that, um, rates countries, errrr, basically they’re telling ALL countries they’re not doing enough, they’re telling all countries that they’re going to embarrass themselves at this big jamboree in Paris, I think forty thousand delegates are expected to jet in to Paris for I think it’ll be the twenty-FIFTH U.N. conference, the Earth Summit—-

    LYNN FREEMAN: Although they do say that China, even China’s doing better than New Zealand.

    MATTHEW HOOTON: Well, isn’t that preposterous! I mean, [scoffs] isn’t that absol—, that shows the fallacy and absurdity of what, um, these activist groups say, um, anyone who thinks that New Zealand is, ahh, more important or, or, is not doing as much as China on this issue cannot be taken seriously. The E.U. groups are very keen on comparing everything, um, to 1990 rather than 2005 and the reason for that is that that is in Europe’s, in the European Union’s financial interest. If climate change targets are based on 1990, they had the collapse of communism in the East that led to a massive environmental clean-up as you always get when socialism is abandoned and the environment improves. Ahm, and also there’s that move to clean and green nuclear power away from coal, which, ham, they’ve done in Europe, and Europe always looks good against a 1990 baseline whereas countries like China and India prefer a 2005 baseline because that makes THEM look good. But as I say, what’s going to happen? Orders will come out of the European Union’s—-um, the head office of Greenpeace will be telling its subsidiaries around the world that what you’ve got to say in your local economy is that your country’s about to embarrass itself in Paris. We’ve seen this every time there’s one of these big conferences. And so I think we’ll see a lot of this in the media, ahhhh, the conference will of course FAIL in Paris, ahm, because the whole approach being used, ahhm, by the U.N. on this issue is flawed. As I say, twenty-five conferences, they’ve all failed. The Kyoto framework has failed, and this will fail. In fact the only country in the world that’s done, did anything useful on this issue is New Zealand, at Copenhagen when we launched the Global Research Alliance on methane emissions. Now they are fourteen per cent of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions. New Zealand’s initiative to reduce that—let’s say it reduces them by ten per cent, that would reduce global emissions by one point four per cent.

    LYNN FREEMAN: Does that mean we shouldn’t try?

    MATTHEW HOOTON: Well we ARE trying to do that. That’s our GOAL. That’s what New Zealand is leading. That’s like removing all the carbon emissions of seventy New Zealands. And so the ONLY THING at, at Copenhagen that may reduce global emissions that was launched, was launched by Tim Groser and it was the Global Research Alliance. Now, all these STUPID targets that the activists are so keen on, ahhhhmm, will achieve nothing. Let’s say New Zealand had, which I think the activists say, we should have, umm, a forty per cent reduction over a 1990 baseline compared with thirty per cent over 2005, these are just WORDS.

    LYNN FREEMAN: Well, you keep—

    MATTHEW HOOTON: They make no difference to the planet WHATSOEVER!

    LYNN FREEMAN: You keep using the word “activists” rather than, you know, on many occasions, terms like “scientists”, so we’ve got we’re you’re coming from. We’ve only got a couple of minutes. Mike—-

    MATTHEW HOOTON: [in a defiant and peremptory tone] The activist group that was reported as being scientists on Morning Report are NOT scientists, they are ACTIVISTS.

    LYNN FREEMAN: They’re not sole voices is what I’m trying to say, Matthew. But anyway, last word to Mike because we’ve given you a lot of time on climate change. Are you as pessimistic, Michael?

    MIKE WILLIAMS: No I’m not, and uh, um, no. Um, and, and, there has been successes in the past, particularly, ah, the elimination of chlorofluorocarbons which were causing the hole in the ozone layer. They have been virtually eliminated, so there, there IS hope, umm, y’know, CO2 emissions… Methane is a different matter. Methane hangs around in the atmosphere a lot longer than CO2 so—-

    HOOTON: Mmmm.

    MIKE WILLIAMS: Uh, I’d support Matthew in his support for Tim Groser trying to do something about methane. It may be only a small percentage of emissions but it DOES hang around, so I think that, y’know, something WAS achieved….

    [Williams droned on in this fashion for a few more seconds, but this writer was too nauseated to transcribe any more.]

    • Morrissey 2.1
      14 July 2015 at 7:42 am

      ERRATUM:

      In my transcript of the extremely polite but (for Matthew Hooton) devastating bollocking he got from Lynn Freeman yesterday, I transcribed the coup de grâce thusly…

      LYNN FREEMAN: You keep using the word “activists” rather than, you know, on many occasions, terms like “scientists”, so we’ve got we’re you’re coming from.

      Eagle-eyed Standardisti will have spotted the error immediately: of course, what Ms Freeman said was, “we’ve got where you’re coming from.”

      • Skinny 2.1.1
        14 July 2015 at 8:25 am

        Hooton showed a lack of professionalism by not declaring his conflict of interest. instead choosing an attempt to deceive listeners by wearing his media commentators hat and not his corporate lobbyist handle. Obviously it would be a very bad look to his corporate clients if he acknowledged climate change, referring to scientists as activists made this position very clear. In short a lack of a moral compass when money is concerned.

        Very disappointing and quite disgraceful Hooton.

        • Paul 2.1.1.1
          14 July 2015 at 8:40 am

          Why is this charlatan given the 9 to Noon platform?

          • tc 2.1.1.1.1
            14 July 2015 at 12:42 pm

            all part of the DP continuim, along with farrar and blubber boy on red neck radio, Hoskings and Henry on the idiot box and granny etc etc

            • Morrissey 2.1.1.1.1.1
              14 July 2015 at 2:11 pm

              farrar and blubber boy on red neck radio

              Please don’t dignify bigots by calling them “rednecks”. Working people and farmers (rednecks) are usually—not always—decent and hardworking and tolerant. Farrar, Blubberguts, Jordan Williams, Neil Miller, Mike Hosking and the rest of them are not decent or hardworking or tolerant.

          • Heyegg 2.1.1.1.2
            14 July 2015 at 12:45 pm

            The question should be where is Mike Williams when Hooton goes on these Randian rapages.

            • Morrissey 2.1.1.1.2.1
              14 July 2015 at 2:08 pm

              The question should be where is Mike Williams when Hooton goes on these Randian rapages.

              He’s sitting right beside him; you can hear him chortling supportively when Hooton makes one of his sour little quips. When it’s time for Williams to talk, he almost always prefaces whatever he says with “I agree with Matthew…”

              • Heyegg …
                14 July 2015 at 5:15 pm

                Does anyone more suitable spring to mind to counter Matthew?

                • Morrissey …
                  15 July 2015 at 7:36 pm

                  Does anyone more suitable spring to mind to counter Matthew?

                  Andrew Campbell and Laila Harré both firmly countered him when they used to occupy the seat that Williams so ineffectively occupies now. There are many principled, intelligent and strong people more than capable of handling Hooton who is, as was clearly shown so starkly after Lynn Freeman’s intervention yesterday, an intellectual lightweight.

                  Any one of the following would do a far better job than Mike Williams: Morgan Godfery, Mihi Forbes, Gordon Campbell, Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury, Dita Di Boni, Raybon Kan.

                  • te reo putake …
                    15 July 2015 at 7:54 pm

                    It depends on what the job is, Moz. I think RNZ is paying them to fill a slot and keep ears tuned in. The fact that you are listening and talking about the segment strongly suggests they’re meeting their KPI’s.

  3. Skinny 3
    14 July 2015 at 7:59 am

    Real estate company starts a witch hunt looking into a possible leak from a staffer. More interested in fat juicy profits from inflated Auckland house prices rather than calling for a registrar of foreigner’s buying here. The full article of is part of a claim of racism by a local Chinese Kiwi editor linked below.

    “Meanwhile, Barfoot & Thompson chief executive Wendy Alexander said the company would start its own investigation to identify if it was the source of the leaked data. Barfoot sells one-third of Auckland properties and managing director Peter Thompson said if the data did belong to the firm it had been given illegally”.

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11480344

    • Draco T Bastard 3.1
      14 July 2015 at 11:55 am

      This is why we need whistleblower protection legislation. In this case, the information is most definitely in the public interest.

  4. Adrian 4
    14 July 2015 at 8:14 am

    I’m wondering why it appears so difficult to find out who buys what. All house sales, price and location are notified to Valuation NZ and published every 3 months ( or they used to be ). It can’t be too difficult to match this to council records ( also public knowledge ) as to who owns a house and where the rates bill is sent to.
    The suspicion must be that the Nat Gummint doesn’t want to know.

  5. wyndham 5
    14 July 2015 at 8:45 am

    Mr. Fixit fronting the housing issue on RNZ this am. Where’s Housing Minister Smith ? Or better still, where’s Teflon John ? The latter seems to have been quiet of late. Is he overseas ?

    • Paul 5.1
      14 July 2015 at 8:50 am

      The Nats spent a day ignoring the issue.
      Then they decided they had to send Joyce, so clearly
      Does anyone else find his manner when being interviewed highly aggressive?

    • ScottGN 5.2
      14 July 2015 at 9:02 am

      Joyce was in full motormouth mode on Morning Report. Ferguson never got a look in. The government is desperately rushing around all over the place papering over cracks as they appear. Housing, swamp kauri, zero hours, you name it.

      • Skinny 5.2.1
        14 July 2015 at 10:03 am

        The Nats won’t do jack and plenty of Aucklanders don’t want them too either, not as long as their property prices keep skyrocketing.

        It’s all about the money and the votes.

    • ScottGN 5.3
      14 July 2015 at 9:04 am

      I saw the PM when he was in Queenstown recently for Winterfest. He looks bloody knackered.

      • Chooky 5.3.1
        14 July 2015 at 9:35 am

        …and remember the bollocking that David Cunliffe got for spending a few days off with his family down south?!…who was the journalist who whipped that up?

      • infused 5.3.2
        14 July 2015 at 12:06 pm

        Just look how much he has aged since being PM. I don’t think this sort of role is good for anyone’s health.

        • adam 5.3.2.1
          14 July 2015 at 12:14 pm

          Or is it that lying ages you?

          • infused 5.3.2.1.1
            14 July 2015 at 12:29 pm

            Like it or not, that role is something I doubt few people would want to take on. The sort of pressure and long hours takes a toll on you mentally and physically.

    • JanM 5.4
      14 July 2015 at 9:29 am

      I suspect he’s lying low to give the great unwashed time to forget about his latest round of taradiddles and shenannigans. I think he always does that when the heat starts to go on

      • Ffloyd 5.4.1
        14 July 2015 at 11:08 am

        Key is in Hawaii according to Spy in Herald. Showing photo of someone called Amelia Finlayson? (bunny!)A friend of Max’s.

  6. odot 6
    14 July 2015 at 9:52 am

    Step 1) Take data
    Step 2) Give data to specialist in data/statistical analysis
    Step 3) Make data public

    On the flip side:
    Step 1) Accuse data leaker of targeted racism
    Step 2) Mount massive campaign to make the public think data is inherently racist
    Step 3) Get cronies to make random number generator website
    Step 4) Put ads on website
    Step 5) Profit

    The original story is about foreign investment in NZ, specifically how it is driving up the property market and making homes and renting unaffordable in Auckland…but hell we cant have a reasonable public debate about that, it will ruin me and my friends chances of making millions in yet another property boom! You’re trying to take money out of my pocket!

    If anything, this saga should be about the need for accurate data, or even better a registrar on foreign buyers of homes in NZ. Wait for this government to do absolutely nothing about it, and use the line “Oh well actually this is the market at work here….it has nothing to do with easy access to low interest loans or offshore buyers needing an easy and relatively tax exempt method of acquiring high return investments.”

    • McFlock 7.1
      14 July 2015 at 1:07 pm

      “couldn’tpassthe policeexam?” might work, too 🙂

      edit: although on second thoughts, it might be a quick self-selection to the rubber-glove room…

  8. Mike the Savage One 8
    14 July 2015 at 11:16 am

    This is why we need a NEW left of centre, progressive party, because Labour have with signing the NZ – China FTA practically sold our country out, and National supported it. Today Steven Joyce basically admitted that due to provisions in the FTA with Mainland China, we cannot stop Mainland Chinese residential and other property investors from buying property here. If we bring in a law to ban all foreign buyers for investment, this will be in breach of the FTA.

    I raised this trade agreement Article and some concerns to many people before, but most New Zealanders are sleep wandering into their own future lives as tenants in their own country.

    I do not usually get too excited about Sean Plunket and his often biased comments on Radio Live, but today he did an excellent job interviewing Steven Joyce. Here is an audio:
    http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Will-we-ever-know-who-is-buying-Auckland-houses/tabid/506/articleID/91147/Default.aspx

    Read Article 138 of the New Zealand – China Free Trade Agreement:
    http://www.chinafta.govt.nz/1-The-agreement/2-Text-of-the-agreement/12-Chapt-11-Investment/index.php

    Chinese investors cannot be treated less favourably than New Zealanders, as otherwise we would breach the FTA and could be sued for it.

    Those supporting the TPPA and other FTAs should perhaps care read this, and learn from it.

    Either Labour learn from past mistakes and now distance themselves from this provision in the FTA with Mainland China, and renew themselves from within, by learning from past mistakes, or they will be history, I fear.

    • JanM 8.1
      14 July 2015 at 11:28 am

      If that’s the case then I presume we are equally able to buy property in China

      • Mike the Savage One 8.1.1
        14 July 2015 at 11:44 am

        How many millionaires and billionaires have we got in NZ?

        What “balance” is there in financial and other resources, between Mainland China and NZ?

        I think we know the answer. Money is power and can buy you almost anything, on the “free market” we have, with its variances.

        We can buy property in China, but not the land, it will only be leasehold. And their property is only cheap in some regions, where there is not so much economic activity. The fact that housing in major Chinese centres is now so expensive, even for tiny flats, that is one reason for many Mainland Chinese with capital to look for alternatives elsewhere.

        The housing price inflation in major international centres, including London, Sydney and so, is in part due to many wealthy Mainland Chinese “investing” in property there, some for homes to live in during at least parts of the year, some just as pure investment, to earn a return and profit.

        Try buying a property in China, it will not be as easy as it is here.

        • JanM 8.1.1.1
          14 July 2015 at 12:08 pm

          So is all land in China essentially leasehold, or is that just a rule for foreign investors?

          • Lanthanide 8.1.1.1.1
            14 July 2015 at 12:09 pm

            On RNZ this morning someone was saying that for a foreigner to buy property in China requires you to have lived there for 5 years before your eligible, and it’s lease-hold, and there are other restrictions you have to work through too.

          • Mike the Savage One 8.1.1.1.2
            14 July 2015 at 12:11 pm

            In China nobody, except the state, can “own” the land, all land used for residential or other purposes ins basically treated as leasehold land, which can be used for granted purposes, but the land cannot be owned as such, like freehold land in NZ.

      • Thom Pietersen 8.1.2
        14 July 2015 at 6:08 pm

        We’re fine – read g):

        Investment means every kind of asset invested, directly or indirectly, by the investors of a Party in the territory of the other Party including, but not limited to, the following:

        g) any right conferred by law (i.e. resident status – my words) or under contract and any licences and permits pursuant to law;

    • Lanthanide 8.2
      14 July 2015 at 12:08 pm

      I think this is a little bit of a smoke-screen by Joyce. If it really were true that we couldn’t change our law in this regard, I think more pople would be mentioning it.

      Another interpretation, is that if we make it so you must be a resident of NZ to buy an investment property, then we are in no way treating Chinese citizens differently to NZ citizens: if a Chinese citizen is a resident, they can buy property, just like an NZ citizen being resident can.

      What we may not be able to do, though, is base it on citizenship explicitly. This would mean a NZer who has permanently emigrated to Australia, but who still holds NZ citizenship, would not be able to buy and hold NZ property.

      • Mike the Savage One 8.2.1
        14 July 2015 at 12:16 pm

        If you read Article 138 of the China NZ FTA, it does not limit investment into whatever investment type to citizenship being a requirement. Investors from China are meant to be treated the same as New Zealanders, that is within New Zealand:

        “Article 138 National Treatment

        Each Party shall accord to investments and activities associated with such investments, with respect to management, conduct, operation, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal, by the investors of the other Party treatment no less favourable than that accorded, in like circumstances, to the investments and associated activities by its own investors.”

        I heard Andrew Little say on Radio Live (just before midday), that he is going to seek advice on this provision, and what it really means for investors (whether it allows certain restrictions also for Mainland Chinese, even when ALL foreign investors may be presented such).

        So hopefully we get an answer from Labour soon.

      • Mike the Savage One 8.2.2
        14 July 2015 at 12:34 pm

        Article 141 appears to clarify what Article 138 says, and how it must be applied:

        “Article 141 Non-Conforming Measures

        1. Article 138 does not apply to:

        any existing non-conforming measures maintained within its territory;
        the continuation of any non-conforming measure referred to in subparagraph (a);
        an amendment to any non-conforming measure referred to in subparagraph (a) to the extent that the amendment does not increase the non-conformity of the measure, as it existed immediately before the amendment, with those obligations.

        2. The Parties will endeavour to progressively remove the non-conforming measures.

        3. Notwithstanding anything in paragraph 1, Article 138 shall not apply to any measure, which with respect to each Party, would not be within the scope of the national treatment obligations in any of that Party’s existing bilateral investment treaties.”

        I read this as saying, that existing non-conforming measures may be enforceable, but that they are not supposed to be tightened, i.e. made more restrictive for investors. Also do parties commit to progressively remove “non-conforming measures”.

        If Labour want to tighten investment in real estate by non New Zealand, off-shore investors, then that would also affect Mainland Chinese, and that would then lead to a breach of the FTA, it seems. So New Zealand’s hands are tied, as I understand it. The present (rather liberal) foreign investment rules for residential real estate can be upheld, but cannot be further tightened, not for Mainland Chinese investors.

        • Lanthanide 8.2.2.1
          14 July 2015 at 1:43 pm

          Like I said, if the restriction is “must be a resident of NZ”, that impacts on Chinese citizens and NZ citizens equally and so would appear to obey the limitations of article 138.

          A consequence of that may be that if you’re a NZ citizen living in Australia, that you can’t own property in NZ. I’m not sure if that would be acceptable to the NZ public.

          Also, treaties can be re-negotiated.

          • Draco T Bastard 8.2.2.1.1
            14 July 2015 at 2:51 pm

            A consequence of that may be that if you’re a NZ citizen living in Australia, that you can’t own property in NZ. I’m not sure if that would be acceptable to the NZ public.

            I think it would be. If they’re not living here then why do they need to own land/housing/business here?

            • alwyn 8.2.2.1.1.1
              14 July 2015 at 3:13 pm

              Because they plan to return seems to be a pretty good reason to me for wanting to own land and a house here.
              I lived, and worked, in Australia for some years in the 1990’s. While I lived there I bought a house to live in. I always planned to return to New Zealand and I kept ownership of my house here. When I left Australia I sold my house there as I was leaving permanently.
              Why would you refuse me the right to keep a property here to come back to?

              • Draco T Bastard …
                14 July 2015 at 4:59 pm

                Because they plan to return seems to be a pretty good reason to me for wanting to own land and a house here.

                I would expect some reasonable time table to be included in the law. Something like having to live here 80% of the time on average while you own the house.

                Why would you refuse me the right to keep a property here to come back to?

                Because of the detriment rentiers do to the economy. Really, go read Adam Smith and a few other classical economists on that one. Also read Piketty.

            • Thom Pietersen 8.2.2.1.1.2
              14 July 2015 at 6:16 pm

              You’re confusing it folks – resident status is either temporary or permanent – it does not matter where you domicile.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                14 July 2015 at 7:00 pm

                That can be changed by legislation and apparently needs to be.

                • Thom Pietersen …
                  14 July 2015 at 11:40 pm

                  My point is non-resident – no own, and still quite open if you live overseas for a while etc.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    14 July 2015 at 11:48 pm

                    No, that wasn’t your point at all. You said that ” resident status is either temporary or permanent – it does not matter where you domicile” with the implication that people who are permanent residents and citizens would get to buy and own houses whether they lived here or not.

                    Both Lanthanide and I are saying that if you don’t live here then you don’t get to own houses (For me I also include land and businesses) whether you’re a permanent resident/citizen or not. Of course, people who aren’t either citizens or permanent residents can’t live here permanently.

    • Draco T Bastard 8.3
      14 July 2015 at 12:13 pm

      Then that FTA is detrimental to NZ and we should drop out of it. It’s as simple as that.

    • ianmac 8.4
      14 July 2015 at 12:46 pm

      MSOne. An interesting interview Plunket v Joyce. I think Mr Joyce was not very pleased with Sean since he had to answer the questions, not allowed to distract and especially testy about the long delay in addressing the Housing problem. Be interesting if the is a followup with a Labour voice.

  9. Penny Bright 9
    14 July 2015 at 12:15 pm

    Seen this ?

    Attorney-General backs Solicitor-General in John Banks case.

    In my view – Crown Law should have have appealed the Court of Appeal decision.

    The New Zealand 14 July

    By Isaac Davison

    Attorney-General Chris Finlayson has backed Crown Law and the Solicitor-General following questions about their conduct in the prosecution of John Banks.

    After Mr Banks was acquitted of filing a false electoral return in May, Mr Finlayson said he would “take a close look” at the Crown’s prosecution of the former Act Party leader .

    He said this morning he had completed his investigation and he was satisfied with the conduct of Crown Law in relation to the case.

    “Mr Banks has had a distinguished career in both central and local government and I acknowledge the distress this matter has caused his family and him,” Mr Finlayson said.

    “I am, however, satisfied that Crown Law’s supervision of the litigation was satisfactory and in line with the Prosecution Guidelines 2013.”

    Mr Banks was highly critical of Crown prosecutor Paul Dacre, QC and Solicitor-General Mike Heron, QC, after his acquittal, saying they had “a lot to answer for”.

    At the time, the Court of Appeal had ruled that Crown Law had misled the court by withholding evidence.

    Mr Finlayson, who is the minister responsible for the Crown Law Office, gave his full support to Mr Heron.

    “Because of the personalised nature of some of the allegations about the conduct of the Solicitor-General, I state for the record that he has my full confidence. He is an outstanding Solicitor-General,” he said.

    The Crown took over the case from serial litigant Graham McCready, who took a private prosecution against Mr Banks in relation to donations he received from Kim Dotcom during his mayoral campaign in 2010.

    Crown Law briefed an independent barrister for the case because it was politically sensitive and because Mr Dotcom, who is facing extradition to the United States, was a witness in the trial.

    Mr Finlayson said the next step in the case would be determining costs, which he said was a matter for Crown Law and Mr Banks’ lawyer.

    “I will be making no further comments,” he said.

    ———————————————————–

    Penny Bright

  10. fisiani 10
    14 July 2015 at 12:16 pm

    Imagine if the Labour Party had a list of house buyers names and picked out the ones like Cohen, Goldsmith, and Levi and talked about how Jews were buying up Auckland. Does anyone think that would be acceptable? Why is Chong, Li and Wu more acceptable?

    [lprent: If you are worried about this, then you should definitely avoid looking at the Statistics department site.

    As well as ethnicity, that also looks at things like gender, age, religion, meshblock, household income, property, bathrooms, bedrooms, property sizes and literally hundreds of other factors and derivatives. When you correlate that with other public databases like LINZ via meshblock and geographical locations, you reap information about

    Since the end of the 19th century, all states have carried out statistical analysis of populations and businesses with correlations in the analysis. This allows them to anticipate demand and identify issues in the past and the future via trends.

    The new factor that was added into this correlation was an rough estimate (because of the government not collecting data) of a specific group buying property. That could have just as easily been the gender of the purchaser(s), age on the purchaser(s), or immigration status of purchaser(s) or immigration status of the purchaser(s) or a range of other useful and relevant information if the government chose to collect that. Frankly I have no idea why they haven’t been doing so.

    I’d ask you what you thoughts are on that. However in the light of my next paragraph, that becomes somewhat pointless.

    In my view your comment is a stupid Godwin, which I don’t like. But I especially don’t like that you didn’t even make it bother to make it explicit, which makes it an idiotic dogwhistle. Banned for one month.

    Idiot. You should know by now to make your arguments explicit. But you always seem to deteriorate back to the stupid dogwhistles. When you come back next time, you will avoid dogwhistles where you don’t fill in your argument. Otherwise I will just start doubling up on this. ]

    • Mike the Savage One 10.1
      14 July 2015 at 12:38 pm

      Silly comment, we do not have an apparent investment spree from off-shore people with identifiable “Jewish” names. And for all other groups with identifiable “ethnic” origin links, there is no significant disproportionate representation between census figures on the population share in Auckland, and on buyers names of residential real estate for 3 months.

      I get the impression you are trying to make some sinister allegations and comparisons.

    • Sabine 10.2
      14 July 2015 at 12:50 pm

      actually it would be as acceptable.

      The only thing this list showed was that x amount of Chong, Li and Wu appeared on a list of property sales vs x amount of Chong, Li and Wu on the electoral role.

      So if the List would have Cohen, Goldsmith and Levi on the list, one could compare the number of properties sold to Cohen, Goldsmith and Levi, vs the amount of Cohens, Goldsmiths and Levis living in Auckland as per electoral role.

      Does not mean all of the Cohens, Goldsmiths and Levis would be overseas investors from the US or Israel, but it would mean that we seem to have an influx of Cohens, Goldsmiths and Levis from The US and Israel, and many of them might not be New Zealand Citizens or Permanent Residence, and then we could ask the question again ” Just how smart is a country that sells its land to overseas speculators?” (some could even argue that not everyone with a traditionally Jewish surname ,as that what was you implied, be of Jewish faith, or have ever lived in Israel. That is where you dear Fisiani get to hysterically screech racism!!!!

      Feel better now?

      Btw. Have you send a Letter to National asking for this public registar of overseas Property Owners in NZ, so that we could have proper data to look at and discuss, or would you rather not?

    • Paul 10.3
      14 July 2015 at 1:05 pm

      Great to hear fisiani is banned.
      That’s one load of garbage I don’t have to scroll through any more.

      • McFlock 10.3.1
        14 July 2015 at 1:16 pm

        +1

      • Morrissey 10.3.2
        14 July 2015 at 2:21 pm

        A short history of being banned….

        I’ve had not one but TWO one-month bans from this site, with one of those lengthened to a two-month ban. Shortly after that, I was banned from Blubberguts’s notorious Whaleoil site for a week; I am now banned from that site permanently. I’m also permanently banned from Brian Edwards’s site.

        Oh!—I nearly forgot!—I’m also banned from Brett Dale’s site.

        Last week I was banned for one day from The Standard with my good friend Te Reo Putake blowing the whistle.

        • te reo putake 10.3.2.1
          14 July 2015 at 2:32 pm

          And look how much better you are as a result. Spare the rod, spoil the transcript. That is the saying, isn’t it?

        • Puckish Rogue 10.3.2.2
          14 July 2015 at 2:34 pm

          Its so cute you think you’ve been banned alot

          • te reo putake 10.3.2.2.1
            14 July 2015 at 2:39 pm

            Come and see the violence inherent in the system! I’m being repressed!!!

            • Morrissey 10.3.2.2.1.1
              14 July 2015 at 2:53 pm

              I’ve never said that. If you want to see someone who is being repressed, consider the plight of one of our true heroes, Nicky Hager.

          • Morrissey 10.3.2.2.2
            14 July 2015 at 2:46 pm

            I don’t think I’ve been banned a lot. I’m not exactly Norman Finkelstein.

        • Draco T Bastard 10.3.2.3
          14 July 2015 at 2:46 pm

          And after commenting here since 2007 I’ve never been banned. Haven’t even read the rules and I don’t try to be particularly polite.

          Perhaps you should be looking at what you’re doing wrong and learning from that.

          • Morrissey 10.3.2.3.1
            14 July 2015 at 2:51 pm

            Oh I know what I’m doing wrong, Draco. It’s just that I can’t stop myself sometimes.

      • half crown 10.3.3
        14 July 2015 at 8:36 pm

        +1

    • Thom Pietersen 10.4
      14 July 2015 at 6:30 pm

      Personally I’d let fisiani keep talking (digging) – we need to be honest and open, and separate nationality from ethnicity and global economics/geopolitics. It is a debate we need to have. The potential for Scapegoats based on look and names has led down a bad path in the past – lets’s remember Jewry went (or were forced) into finance because usury was unpalatable to Christians in Europe at a time.

  11. fisiani 11
    14 July 2015 at 12:40 pm

    Go on, keep trying to defend racial profiling purely based on surname. This is not the 1930’s.

    • Sabine 11.1
      14 July 2015 at 1:24 pm

      so you did write that letter to the National Party demanding a registar of all overseas purchases of residental, commercial and rural properties in NZ, not only AKL, but all of NZ, including Farmland. 🙂

      Just you know, to get proper data.

      • Puckish Rogue 11.1.1
        14 July 2015 at 2:43 pm

        Who needs proper data when you just go to a real estate agent and decide whats happening on the basis that the names sound Chinese

        • sabine 11.1.1.1
          14 July 2015 at 6:25 pm

          see, we still need proper data. 🙂

        • Thom Pietersen 11.1.1.2
          14 July 2015 at 6:51 pm

          Dogmatic to the idealism, or question the facts? You know most people in England have English sounding names – around 85%? Han Chinese make up around 90% of mainland China – from the latter in Auckland 9% of residents – are we not allowed to explore? Can we not make this a yard stick for nationality, rough first guess as it may be?

          This is not about internment camps – FFS. It actually belittles how far we’ve come.

  12. JanM 12
    14 July 2015 at 1:09 pm

    Chris Trotter has just posted some good historical perspective on the subject on Bowalley Road

    • Paul 12.1
      14 July 2015 at 1:26 pm

      Chris Trotter.

      ‘China now stands where Britain stood: an economic colossus with expectations of this country that New Zealanders are only reluctantly beginning to comprehend. The thought that the Chinese might want something in return for opening up their market to our milk powder and baby formula has come very late to the ordinary Kiwi.

      That Labour is leading the discussion about how much, precisely, the Chinese have a right to expect from New Zealanders is entirely fitting. After all, it was Labour who sealed the deal. It was Labour, too, who presided over the electorally unmandated “turn” towards Asia in the late-80s. That they are, at last, addressing the misgivings expressed to me by Sonja Davies’ all those years ago, is to be applauded – not condemned.

      Labour’s Chinese whispers have nothing to do with racism. They’re about national sovereignty and the people’s will.’

      http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2015/07/chinese-whispers.html

  13. Barbara 13
    14 July 2015 at 2:33 pm

    On a lighter note – what’s this with Dan the man having a tanty over photographers catching a shot of his son. Bit rich Dan coming from you isn’t it – you sell your happiest day of your life with your beloved to a woman’s magazine and gladly take the money which is bad enough but then you push yourself into the faces of us all by allowing yourself to be plastered all over billboards and the back ends of buses assailing our senses in your underdaks with everything on display for all to see. For some of us its the last thing we want to see, not everybody is fixated on your body beautiful. Not very private of you Dan, all over the town in your underwear. Calm down, take a chill pill, you cannot easily just cherry pick when you want the adoring public to fawn all over you, at least your kids are cute and innocent and unlike the undaks a pleasure to look at. Concentrate on the game and try and stay on the field longer than 10 minutes – now that’s important.

    • Lanthanide 13.1
      14 July 2015 at 4:54 pm

      +1

      I don’t think an ‘occasional’ photo of someone such as himself with his kid in a public place is so terrible. If they were following or excessively publishing photos, that’s another story.

  14. Draco T Bastard 14
    14 July 2015 at 2:40 pm

    All eyes on Pluto – Newsnight

  15. tinfoilhat 15
    14 July 2015 at 3:09 pm

    Is the Auckland council taking advice from the same people advising the Labour party ?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11480632

  16. vaughan little 16
    14 July 2015 at 3:49 pm

    as the recent herald article shows, many chinese have racial attitudes about themselves being hard workers and good savers, and that’s to be expected. every group who is doing well develops daffy ideas about why they’re so great that emphasises strong moral character and underplays the blind luck of historical contingency. many also may see nzers as lazy, and while wrong, it’s an understandable mistake. developed countries with egalitarian histories have a strong leisure culture, and as legendary china-based economist michael pettis points out, high consumption is a sign of economic strength, not moral weakness. but if you come from somewhere grim to a place where people are so good at having fun, it must be disconcerting. i mean, i know it is, i’ve talked to people.

    something similar is happening in europe, where you get the virtuous german creditors and the vicious greek debtors. the only cure for such understandable but ultimately bullshit attitudes is the study of history.

  17. marty mars 17
    14 July 2015 at 5:06 pm

    Great post from JMG

    Human beings are simply one species among many, inhabiting part of the earth at one point in its long lifespan. We’ve got remarkable gifts, but then so does every other living thing. We’re not the masters of the planet, the crown of evolution, the fulfillment of Earth’s destiny, or any of the other self-important hogwash with which we like to tickle our collective ego, and our attempt to act out those delusional roles with the help of a lot of fossil carbon hasn’t exactly turned out well, you must admit. I know some people find it unbearable to see our species deprived of its supposed place as the precious darlings of the cosmos, but that’s just one of life’s little learning experiences, isn’t it? Most of us make a similar discovery on the individual scale in the course of growing up, and from my perspective, it’s high time that humanity do a little growing up of its own, ditch the infantile egotism, and get to work making the most of the time we have on this beautiful and fragile planet.

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.nz/2015/07/darwins-casino.html

  18. ianmac 18
    14 July 2015 at 5:49 pm

    Hope we have all been keeping an eye on the Hager case. Fascinating. Middle of the Crown case to finish tomorrow. Compelling Crown? Hardly so far!
    http://eveningreport.nz/2015/07/13/nicky-hager-case-breaking-news-reportage/

  19. Robert Atack 19
    14 July 2015 at 5:55 pm

    Zero Hedge,
    13 July, 2015

    Submitted by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com,

    Spain has shown that it is fully on board with the Brussels authoritarian direction of ending democracy. Those in power have simply convinced themselves that the people do not understand what is good for them so they must impose their will upon the people but raw force. How does this differ in any what from the justification of imposing communism? This is the death of all freedom and it is upon our doorstep.

    Here are the new laws in Spain:

    1. If you photograph security personnel and then share these images on social media: up to €30.000 fine (particularly if photo exposes violence used against a member of the public). This fine could increase depending on the number of Instagram or social media followers you have.

    2. Tweet or retweet information or the “location of an organized protest” can now be interpreted as an act of terrorism as it incites others to “commit a crime” (now that “demonstrating” in many ways has become a crime). Sound “1984”-ish? Read about Orwell and his time in Spain.

    3. Snowden-like whistle blowing is now defined as an act of terrorism. If you write for a local publication, be careful what you print, whom you speak to, and whether the government is listening.

    4. Visiting or consulting terrorist websites – even for investigative purposes – can be interpreted as an act of terrorism. Make sure you use “Tor” browser, reject cookies, and don’t allow pop-ups. Not to mention, don’t post it on your Facebook timeline!

    5. Be careful with the royal jokes! Any satirical comment against the royal family is a new crime “against the Crown”. For example, “What did Leticia and the Bishop have to say after they ––“ (SORRY CENSORED).

    6. No more hassling elected members of the government or local authorities – even if they say one thing in order to be elected, but then go and do the exact opposite. Confronting them about this hypocritical behavior. Even if you see them in the street chatting to a street cleaner, dining at their favorite expensive restaurant, or having their shoes shined by that physics graduate who cannot find a decent job in the country, hassling them about their behavior is now a criminal offence.

    7. Has your local river been so polluted by that plastic factory along the edge that all life has extinguished? Well, tough! Greenpeace or similar protests are now finable from €601–€30.000.

    8. Protests in a spontaneous way outside Parliament are now illegal. For example if Parliament passes a hugely unpopular bill, or are debating something extremely important to you or your community, it is now finable from €601 – €30.000. Tip: Use Google Maps to protest just around the corner – but don’t tweet the location!

    9. Obstructing an officer in the course of their business, “resisting arrest”, refusing to leave a demonstration when told, or getting in the way of a swinging baton are all now finable offences from €601 – €30.000.

    10. Showing lack of respect to officers of the law is an immediate fine of €100 – €600. Answering back, asking a disrespectful question, making a funny face, showing your bottom to an officer of the law, or telling him/her that their breath reminds you of your dog’s underparts is now, sadly, not advisable.

    11. Occupying, squatting, or refusing to leave an office, business, bank or other place until your complaint has been heard as a protest is now a €100 – €600 fine (no more flash mobs).

    12. Digital protests: Writing something that could technically “disturb the peace” is a now a crime.Bloggers beware, for no one has yet defined whose peace you could be disturbing.

  20. Ffloyd 20
    14 July 2015 at 5:59 pm

    So, while all this racist crap is being whipped up into a frenzy by all and National sundry, what is johnkey up to while on holiday in Hawaii?? Just resting???

  21. Robert 21
    14 July 2015 at 9:56 pm

    i thought it a we bit funny the less than IMO honorable j/ banks has a crack at the lesser honorable IMO limp wristed attorney general! hehe haha birds of a feather. both are deluded idiots along with the bog! oops boag.