Open mike 16/10/2019

102 comments on “Open mike 16/10/2019 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. marty mars 1

   16 October 2019 at 8:26 am

   thick politicians should stick to politics not try to be all brainy and stuff imo

   An essay by Judith Collins MP reported on Carbon News yesterday seems to show an alarming shift in attitude within the National Party. Collins argues against the Zero Carbon Bill, the Paris Agreement, and downplays the magnitude of climate impacts.

   https://sciblogs.co.nz/planetary-ecology/2019/10/15/collins-crushes-climate/
2. Agora 2

   16 October 2019 at 8:56 am

   Nice. Since when did a legal degree confer scientific credibility? Has it been peer reviewed? If so, by whom? Does it provide 'balance' with opposing points of view? It seems to be aimed the government's parliamentary support in the Green party, but I doubt if will have much effect.

   Is Judith making her move on Simon ?
3. ScottGN 3

   16 October 2019 at 9:11 am

   Simon’s gig on Morning Report this morning didn’t really go according to plan…

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/401073/national-s-sroubrek-2-point-0-outrage-backfires
   • ianmac 3.1

     16 October 2019 at 9:24 am

     Simon shouted, over talked and failed dismally to make a case against Ian Lee-Galloway. Suzie made a grand effort to get Simon to explain/justify in spite of his shouty stuff.

     But what did the following news item say? Just repeated the National attack without qualification that Suzie had exposed. News writers? Huh!
     • tc 3.1.1

       16 October 2019 at 9:37 am

       Yet another govt/SOE entity under the influence of the cronies national dropped in.
     • ScottGN 3.1.2

       16 October 2019 at 10:12 am

       He got an easy run on the issue from Garner on the AM Show. He still managed to practically start foaming at the mouth though.
       • tc 3.1.2.1

         16 October 2019 at 11:22 am

         Bridges attends as he knows he gets to do as he pleases. Maybe he should do a shonky and ask for the questions before he attends.

         Mediawonks are lock step with national. Weldon removed JC from air once parachuted into a CEO role he had zero experience previously in media to fill.

         once JC had gone so was marky shortly after, it's another exstension of the rights messaging machine.
   • Jimmy 3.2

     16 October 2019 at 11:58 am

     This is a minor issue that National are just trying to get a bit of mileage out of. The Sroubrek issue was far more serious.
     • ScottGN 3.2.1

       16 October 2019 at 2:11 pm

       Nah. I think the Nats thought they had another easy hit on Lees-Galloway. Thankfully he seems to have been better prepared for this one. I love how Bridges ended up whinging that the minister was selectively leaking from his portfolio like that’s never happened before.
4. marty mars 4

   16 October 2019 at 10:23 am

   Nice article

   Moments before that, upon entering the Standing Rock gym in Fort Yates, the opening of the Indigenized Climate Forum started with a protection ceremony. It was estimated that the gym was filled with over 500 students, who surrounded Thunberg and Iron Eyes along with their fathers.

   The healing scent of burning sage in an abalone shell wafted through the air as Mintz blessed the room. A beating drum and raised voices pulsated through the bodies in the gym like a heartbeat. During the ceremony everyone turned to face the four corners of the room in observance of the four directions, and before it was finished a feather was tied to Iron Eyes’ hair before the two young women ascended the stage.

   The woman in charge of the press area said that they perform the protection ceremony because “Those who protect Mother Earth have a target on their backs.”

   https://hpr1.com/index.php/feature/news/greta-thunberg-at-standing-rock
5. Formerly Ross 5

   16 October 2019 at 10:28 am

   Weka

   It seems you’re a big fan of free speech now. I did make the point when the two Canadians were de-platformed here that that decision was bad and was likely to have ramifications well beyond that decision. I meant that individuals on the Left could find themselves in a similar position.

   Once again, free speech is a minority’s best friend.

   https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PkXbSx-mqm8

   [a conversation better suited to Open Mike – weka]

   [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
   
   • Dukeofurl 5.1

     16 October 2019 at 10:57 am

     Canadians were free to hold their event elsewhere, which they tried to. Except the Powerstation owner said No.

     A Public outdoor event couldnt bring in money so they didnt try that, but they could have gone around the city with a camera creating click bait like they do.

     Do you remember the time sitting MP Hone Harawira got blocked from the University Law School because Campus Nats wanted to do a big protest?
6. The Chairman 6

   16 October 2019 at 11:33 am

   The Council of Trade Unions conference and Fair Work Agreements

   Earlier during the day, NZ First leader Winston Peters was equivocal about his party's support for the measures.

   Yet, Jacinda warned that new laws require consensus in a MMP government, which somewhat implied there wasn't one. So was Winston lying? Was Jacinda being disingenuous or was she suggesting the Greens were/are the sticking point preventing coalition consensus in this regard?

   She also warned that in making big changes to industrial relations law, the Government would have to take the public with them, which somewhat implies the public support isn't there. Yet, when teachers and nurses recently went on strike, the public were largely in support. Suggesting most understand by and far that New Zealanders are largely low paid. Therefore, what makes Jacinda think the public isn't already on board?

   https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/116604410/jacinda-ardern-warns-unions-off-radical-industrial-change

   Surprisingly, Jacinda went on to state "big bold moves that we haven't built public support for are easily dismantled". Admitting they haven't done the legwork to build up this support.

   So is the public support already there? Or is there still work to do on this?

   Martyn Bradbury has suggested the CTU needs to embark upon a PR campaign to sell fair pay agreements to the public directly. Which is not a bad idea but also implies the support isn't already there.
   • Incognito 6.1

     16 October 2019 at 12:30 pm

     Me, myself, and I were having a great discussion on OM the other day. It was informative, educational, inspiring, eye-opening, and highly entertaining. Oh, how we laughed!
   • Drowsy M. Kram 6.2

     16 October 2019 at 12:34 pm

     Tiresome – makes no sense, only nonsense. Disappointing mind-reading effort from The "more left than most" Chairman, IMHO.

     "NZ First leader Winston Peters was equivocal…"

     "Jacinda [Prime Minister Ardern] warned…" "which somewhat implied"

     "…was Winston lying?"

     "Was Jacinda [Prime Minister Ardern] being disingenuous…"

     "She [Prime Minister Ardern] also warned…" "which somewhat implies"

     "Therefore, what makes Jacinda [Prime Minister Ardern] think the public isn't already on board?"

     "Surprisingly, Jacinda [Prime Minister Ardern] went on to state…" "…they haven't done the legwork…"
     • The Chairman 6.2.1

       16 October 2019 at 12:56 pm

       We wouldn't have to mind read if 1, politicians were more forthcoming and secondly, if the media did their job and asked the hard questions.

       Has there been any polling on where the public stand on Fair Work Agreements? Jacinda didn't point to anything (in the report) to back this assertion nor has the media (that I've seen) pointed to anything to back or disprove it. They never called her on it. Leaving the suggestion laying there unchallenged, neither confirming or denying it. And considering it's vital info for this story, that is what I call another example of piss poor reporting.
       • Drowsy M. Kram 6.2.1.1

         16 October 2019 at 1:11 pm

         The report you commented on @6 contains two (consistent) Ardern quotes:

         "Big bold moves that we haven't built public support for are easily dismantled,"

         "I do know their chance of sticking is increased the longer we are in Government and the more collaboratively we work to build consensus for them," Ardern said.

         Why follow-up some "piss poor reporting" with some piss poor mind reading?

         Know I'm going to regret asking, but what did you hope to achieve?
         • The Chairman 6.2.1.1.1

           16 October 2019 at 1:50 pm

           The report you commented on @6 contains two (internally consistent) Ardern quotes:

           That doesn't make up for the lack of rigour in their questioning and research on the matter. Leaving us to have to mind read.

           There are numerous objectives in further discussing this.

           First off, where the public stand on this is vital info for what pace Fair Work Agreements will progress, if at all.

           It's an important issue, thus it's politically healthy to keep the topic in discussion. I'm sure the Government wouldn't want the matter to fester with growing unionists impatientness being expressed at the polling both come next election.

           We (voters) need to know if the PM is being straight up or is once again out of touch as shown in her dumping of the CGT suggesting there wasn't enough public support for it.

           Highlighting piss poor journalism is one means to show them we expect better.

           Why wouldn't we want to discuss this further?
           • Drowsy M. Kram 6.2.1.1.1.1

             16 October 2019 at 4:18 pm

             IMHO your intention is to air opposition National party attack lines dressed up as 'concerns'.

             "…the Government wouldn't want the matter to fester with growing unionists impatientness"

             "…if the PM is being straight up or is once again out of touch…"

             The "out of touch" meme is a particular favorite of the right – ironic when you consider the National 'Hollowmen' party's plans to engage in dirty politics, mine in national parks, change the NZ flag, turn NZ into a tax haven, give tax cuts to the rich, transfer public assets to private ownership, politicise the public service, de-fund mental health providers, and house impoverished Kiwis in motels.

             "The only reason Labour got in last time, when they were totally out of touch…"

             "…shows how out of touch his Government is…"

             "Jacinda [PM Ardern] is OUT OF TOUCH…"

             “The Minister of Immigration showed himself to be completely out of touch…”

             "…to suggest that she [Deborah Russell] was out of touch and too academic…"

             "Labour and the Greens are out of touch with middle-New Zealand."
             • The Chairman …

               16 October 2019 at 4:48 pm

               IMHO your intention is to air opposition National party attack lines dressed up as 'concerns'.

               That's incorrect as highlighted in my reasoning above.

               The concerns are genuine and I'm far from the only one that holds them. It could be you can't handle the hard talk I use or it could be you are just trying to undermine me and avert attention from this issue, writing it all off as unscrupulous behaviour.

               This isn't merely a working class issue.

               There are a number of employers who treat workers well and feel they are losing market share due to those that would rather prosper at the expense of their employees. Hence, I've had feedback from a number of employers that also support this.

               The last thing we want is for good employers to go under while bad employers thrive.

               Why don't you tell us where you stand on this issue instead of airing your incorrect opinion on my so-called intentions? Do you not have concerns about this?
               • McFlock …

                 16 October 2019 at 4:57 pm

                 Most people here would support the measure. But as you said, "Winston Peters was equivocal about his party's support for the measures", so in an environment where "new laws require consensus in a MMP government", and if a coalition partner is looking at it a bit cockeyed "which somewhat implies the public support isn't there".

                 It wouldn't be the first time public opinion supported contradictory positions, but there's only one poll that counts. The one that put NZ1 in government.

                 Buggered if I know what your concerns are, though.
                 • The Chairman …

                   16 October 2019 at 5:29 pm

                   Most people here would support the measure.

                   Yes, that is my opinion too.

                   I also believe it would have good support throughout the wider community. So the first concern would be why doesn't Jacinda believe so as this seems to be slowing her pace to get this in place.

                   Why haven't the media done more legwork to get to the bottom of this is another concern.

                   Have Labour done enough (in front and behind the scene) to get Winston on board would be another.

                   If the Government fail to act with pace there will be further industrial action being taken. That of course is another concern.

                   Losing good employers to bad employers is another.

                   Failure to further address poverty/inequality (which this would help do) is another.
                   • McFlock …

                     16 October 2019 at 9:14 pm

                     So the first concern would be why doesn't Jacinda believe so as this seems to be slowing her pace to get this in place.

                     Clue: election 2017

                     Why haven't the media done more legwork to get to the bottom of this is another concern.

                     clue: not the government's problem

                     Have Labour done enough (in front and behind the scene) to get Winston on board would be another.

                     Yes, but he knows his voting segment

                     If the Government fail to act with pace there will be further industrial action being taken. That of course is another concern.

                     I'm sure that obscure factor never occurred to tLabour. Thanks for your concern.

                     Losing good employers to bad employers is another.

                     Take it up with the unicorn preservation society.

                     Failure to further address poverty/inequality (which this would help do) is another.

                     The peasants thank you for your thoughts, but fair work agreements don't help the people most in need.

                     Any other concerns?
                 • Incognito …

                   16 October 2019 at 6:32 pm

                   Buggered if I know what your concerns are, though.

                   You had to ask the question, didn’t you? But did you really have to ask The Concernman?
                   • McFlock …

                     16 October 2019 at 9:17 pm

                     Half a dozen was pretty poor form, if you ask me. Humphrey Appleby could have invented two dozen apparently-genuine-criticisms-thinly-veiled-as-earnest-concerns before breakfast.
                   • Incognito []

                     16 October 2019 at 9:26 pm

                     Bloody amateurs.
                 • The Chairman …

                   16 October 2019 at 10:43 pm

                   Clue: election 2017

                   Elections are generally won on numerous issues, not one. So that is not a clear indication on where voters sit on this issue.

                   Clue: not the government's problem

                   It could be a problem for the Government if they are shown to be wrong. Also if shown to be right and there is little to no support for this.

                   Yes, but he knows his voting segment

                   If he (Winston) really knew his voting segment they (NZF) would polling far better.

                   I'm sure that obscure factor never occurred to Labour.

                   Yeah right. Yet, they are dragging their feet as if that will fix it.

                   Take it up with the unicorn preservation society.

                   I'll give them a call tomorrow.

                   The peasants thank you for your thoughts, but fair work agreements don't help the people most in need.

                   With work being offered as the solution to poverty/unemployment it does impact the unemployed being encouraged to work. As I stated before, around half the kids living in poverty come from working households.
                   • McFlock …

                     16 October 2019 at 11:25 pm

                     Elections are generally won on numerous issues, not one. So that is not a clear indication on where voters sit on this issue.

                     Actually, when half the voters go nat or NZ1, that's a pretty good indicator that changing work conditions to suit unions probably isn't a vote-winner at the moment.

                     It could be a problem for the Government if they are shown to be wrong. Also if shown to be right and there is little to no support for this.

                     the media doing it's usual half-arsed job is hardly the government's problem. And if the government act slow and by some miracle the corporate media decides to support worker rights, that's hardly going to drive voters to the nats. But it the govt move too fast before the electorate comes along, nat govt in 2020.

                     If he (Winston) really knew his voting segment they (NZF) would polling far better.

                     You gonna teach Winston politics, now? Fool. Winston knows his segment. His segment isn't 45% of the population, it's the 5-10% sitting between the two voting blocs.

                     Yeah right. Yet, they are dragging their feet as if that will fix it.

                     Unions drag one way. Sometimes the bulk of the voters drag in a different direction. Are Labour "draging their feet", "playing a middle ground between voters and unions", or just "dealing with life as coalition partners with a conservative social democratic party".

                     With work being offered as the solution to poverty/unemployment it does impact the unemployed being encouraged to work. As I stated before, around half the kids living in poverty come from working households.

                     The least-poor 40%, usually.
                   • The Chairman …

                     17 October 2019 at 12:31 am

                     Actually, when half the voters go nat or NZ1, that's a pretty good indicator that changing work conditions to suit unions probably isn't a vote-winner at the moment.

                     Again, voters vote for numerous reasons. So lets hope Jacinda is using more credible info than that to base her decisions upon.

                     And to counter your assertion, there are more workers out there than there are employers. Moreover, despite half the voters voting Nat or NZF, support for a CGT was shown in a number of polls. Which goes to show you can't judge the public view on a certain issue by merely looking at election results.

                     The media doing it's usual half-arsed job is hardly the government's problem. And if the government act slow and by some miracle the corporate media decides to support worker rights, that's hardly going to drive voters to the nats. But it the govt move too fast before the electorate comes along, nat govt in 2020.

                     Before the Government determines what pace to move at they really need to gauge where the public are currently at with this. Now they may have done this, but they haven't made that clear. And the media doing a half-arsed job doesn't help us knowing.

                     You gonna teach Winston politics, now? Fool. Winston knows his segment. His segment isn't 45% of the population, it's the 5-10% sitting between the two voting blocs.

                     Yet, he's only polling at 4%. And that is recently up from 3%. So he may know them, but evidently, he doesn't know them well enough to please them otherwise he would be polling higher.

                     Unions drag one way. Sometimes the bulk of the voters drag in a different direction. Are Labour "draging their feet", "playing a middle ground between voters and unions", or just "dealing with life as coalition partners with a conservative social democratic party

                     Or are they just bloody useless at forming a consensus and getting the job done? Or is it they are so centrist they just don't want to move at pace?
                   • McFlock …

                     17 October 2019 at 2:46 pm

                     lets hope Jacinda is using more credible info than that to base her decisions upon.

                     lols because you have reason to assume she isn't?

                     And to counter your assertion, there are more workers out there than there are employers. Moreover, despite half the voters voting Nat or NZF, support for a CGT was shown in a number of polls. Which goes to show you can't judge the public view on a certain issue by merely looking at election results.

                     Except there really is only one poll that counts, and the rest of 'em are largely bunk.

                     Now they may have done this, but they haven't made that clear.

                     thanks for your concern

                     And the media doing a half-arsed job doesn't help us knowing.

                     not the govt's fault or problem

                     Yet, he's only polling at 4%. And that is recently up from 3%.

                     Boo!

                     Or are they just bloody useless at forming a consensus and getting the job done? Or is it they are so centrist they just don't want to move at pace?

                     Your efforts to sow alarm and despondency tend to slit their wrists on Occam's Razor: the government got elected, therefore they likely know more about getting elected than you ever will.
                   • The Chairman …

                     17 October 2019 at 4:29 pm

                     lols because you have reason to assume she isn't?

                     That's the thing. In this instance, we don't know what she is using to base her decisions upon. Just like her dumping of the CGT. Either she hasn't mentioned it, or she did and the media haven't reported it, or the media haven't even bothered to ask.

                     If she did and the media failed to report it, then it does become a problem for her.

                     As for having a reason to assume she hasn't done the research, along with the reasoning already stated in this discussion (i.e. overwhelming public support for striking workers) I came across this recent study (see link below) by Waikato University that shows there's strong support for people being able to be covered by collective agreements.

                     https://www.waikato.ac.nz/news-opinion/media/2019/public-support-for-union-default

                     Except there really is only one poll that counts, and the rest of 'em are largely bunk.

                     When it comes to elections, pretty much. When it comes to determining public support for a certain issue, not really.

                     not the govt's fault or problem

                     It is a problem for her if the media are failing to covey such salient points.

                     therefore they likely know more about getting elected than you ever will.

                     Yeah, that's what I've heard for the whole 9 years they've been in opposition. And if it wasn't for the rise of Jacinda (the cult of personality) they'd still be in opposition dealing with one of their worst defeats. Talk about arrogance.
                   • McFlock …

                     17 October 2019 at 5:05 pm

                     In this instance, we don't know what she is using to base her decisions upon.

                     Oh you poor, deprived, dear

                     If she did and the media failed to report it, then it does become a problem for her.

                     Nope. Despite your best efforts.

                     As for having a reason to assume she hasn't done the research,

                     [links to irrelevance]

                     Except there really is only one poll that counts, and the rest of 'em are largely bunk.

                     When it comes to elections, pretty much. When it comes to determining public support for a certain issue, not really.

                     lol so the testable bit is bunk, but you have faith in the untestable bit. But you're totally not a concern troll lol

                     It is a problem for her if the media are failing to covey such salient points.

                     You aren't the arbiter of salience.

                     Yeah, that's what I've heard for the whole 9 years they've been in opposition. And if it wasn't for the rise of Jacinda (the cult of personality) they'd still be in opposition dealing with one of their worst defeats. Talk about arrogance.

                     How dare the Prime Minister not obey the reckons of a blog commenter when it comes to politics! What does she know that concerobot doesn't!? /sarc
                   • The Chairman …

                     17 October 2019 at 6:45 pm

                     This is a big issue and voters (not just me) are being left in the dark (either by the Government not being open and transparent in their communication or the media doing a half-arsed job) and all you can say is: "Oh you poor, deprived, dear". Talk about trivializing the issue.

                     When speaking to likes of you, I often wonder if this is how Labour themselves think. Belittling people and trivializing their concerns.

                     The media failing to convey vital points of her communication is a problem for her.

                     I didn't say the testable bit was bunk, I largely agreed with you. The only way to really gauge public support on a certain issue is to put it to referendum. And if the Government wanted to distance themselves from this issue (at the risk of upsetting unions) and test the water, a referendum would be the way to do it. Apart from that and albeit not perfect, polling is the only other credible option.

                     This isn't about the PM obeying me, it's about the PM being honest, open and transparent and honoring her promise to the unions.

                     People are struggling out there, so picking up the pace would be very welcomed. After all, this is meant to be the year of delivery and wellbeing. And the Government (IMO) can't afford to leave their run for the next election to the last few months, they need to start delivering more now. Rehashing the little they have delivered on isn't cutting it anymore.
                   • McFlock …

                     17 October 2019 at 7:56 pm

                     Dude, I ain't Labour. I'm just another internet commentator willing to say that you're full of shit.

                     The publicly-available polls are bunk, as I said. Two polls over the same period, each with a 3%MoE, occasioanlly report 9% apart. The only true measure of public opinion is the election.

                     Maybe the more detailed polling done by parties is more reliable, but only a moron would expect that data to be shared openly. That's like a general revealing their maps and order of battle.

                     If people wanted Labour to implement its full manifesto without equivocation, they should have ensured Labour got 51% of the ballot.
               • Descendant Of Smith …

                 16 October 2019 at 6:31 pm

                 We lost many, many of the good employers who looked after their staff and paid decent wages when the employment contracts act came in.

                 They were competing against employers who would only pay minimum wage and could undercut their prices etc and simply couldn't compete. I saw many a good employer go under.

                 Add into that mix the removal of compulsory penal rates, the use of illegal labour, the evolution of back-handers, the government departments to have to move to national suppliers which took work away from good local businesses, and so on the crocodile tears over losing good employers now is pretty unattractive.
                 • The Chairman …

                   16 October 2019 at 7:47 pm

                   Yes we did lose a number of good employers in the past but there is still a number out there today. Thus, this isn't "crocodile tears". Moreover, with half the kids in poverty coming from working households, we all know many low paid workers are struggling. Hence, urgent action is required. Yet, once again the Government is dragging its feet.
                   • Descendant Of Smith …

                     16 October 2019 at 9:13 pm

                     We lost many many good employers. Today we see this behaviour below as a significant part of our labour market Good employers simply can't compete.

                     It's also not fair to say Labour isn't doing anything as there has clearly been a ramp up in both investigation and prosecution of bad employers. Long way to go though.

                     I doubt however they are brave enough to bring back time and a half on Saturday, double time on Sunday, 40 hour working week. You ever noticed that many tradesman charge you still for time and a half for weekend work but don't actually pay their workers time and a half. One way of rorting the customer.

                     Would be a good start to bring those things back and then some of the issues around good vs bad employers might go away. Higher incomes for the low paid would mean more money circulating.

                     https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/116300102/how-the-liquor-store-industry-is-riddled-with-worker-exploitation

                     "Bottle stores are a tough business. An estimated 40 per cent are surviving by ripping off their staff."

                     http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/190063/CRIME-Slaving-for-a-living

                     "Ngoc Viet Dang may have looked harmless enough, but to a group of ship-jumpers who had come back to New Zealand to give evidence against him, he was a terrifying figure, a Vietnamese crime lord who used standover tactics to keep his workers in line and intimidate rival groups.

                     Dang, 39, a New Zealand citizen with links to the Vietnamese mafia in Ho Chi Minh City, had been standing trial on nine counts laid under the Immigration Act, of helping or enticing illegal workers to stay in New Zealand for material gain."

                     277 employers put on name and shame list for breaching employment standards

                     https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/109401842/suspected-slave-boss-arrested

                     Combined slavery and human trafficking charges have been laid for the first time ever as Immigration New Zealand cracks down on what they allege is a major scam involving Samoan migrants.

                     Immigration NZ's chief investigator, former policeman Peter Devoy, has called the Hawke's Bay case "a new low".

                     A 64-year-old Samoan, who holds New Zealand residency, has been charged with both human trafficking and slavery. The first offence carries a maximum tariff of 20 years and the latter one of 14 years.
                 • The Chairman …

                   16 October 2019 at 10:47 pm

                   It's also not fair to say Labour isn't doing anything…

                   I didn't say that.
                   • Descendant Of Smith …

                     16 October 2019 at 11:12 pm

                     "Yet, once again the Government is dragging its feet."

                     Well moving very slowly then – resulting in nothing yet happening.
                 • The Chairman …

                   16 October 2019 at 11:31 pm

                   Moving slowly doesn't mean they are doing nothing at all.
               • Drowsy M. Kram …

                 16 October 2019 at 6:56 pm

                 Regarding were I stand (politically) – long-time Green party supporter (Party Vote GREEN) and was hugely relieved (in October 2017) that NZers weren't going to suffer another three years of National party-sponsored keptocracy. The hollow men and women really were well on the way to gutting the society that grew me.

                 The National party MPs and their beneficiaries gorged on NZ for nine years, leaving huge quantities of unmet need in their wake. And they'll do it all again – just listen to Bridges, Bennett, Collins, Mitchell, Brownlee, Dowie, Tolley, Carter, Barry, (Nick) Smith, Yang, Pugh – it's in their DNA.

                 The coalition government's majority is narrow, and National party support remains stubbornly strong. I'll continue to question what motivates you to couch your relentlessly soggy 'concerns' in this way [some The 'transparent' Chairman quotes extracted from the last four days]:

                 "The Government is already copping the blame for higher fuel costs, rising rents/housing costs (via the lack of state homes being built, increased rental standards along with the talk of a CGT and the dropping of it encouraging investors, not to mention the Kiwibuild failure/reset) and now it seems they want to add higher power costs to the list.

                 If they can't see the potential voter backlash from this (higher power costs) they are clearly out of touch. And the list is growing, there is now talk of higher rubbish disposal charges."

                 **********

                 "Considering only 40% of power consumers are on a high use tariff, it seems the Government are going to piss off the majority of low use consumers when faced with power price hikes as a result of the Government's reform.

                 That's going to hurt the Government come election time. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. And talk about giving National another club to bash them with." [And talk about The Chairman drawing attention (in their relentlessly soggy fashion) to perceived failings of the coalition government. Substantial, or hollow? You be the judge.]

                 **********

                 "If the Government's reforms don't result in lowering power costs and in fact drives them up, it will piss off thousands of households thus will really hurt them (the Government) come next election."

                 **********

                 "Did Jacinda [PM Ardern] comment on this petition on her return?

                 Is she even aware of it?

                 Will she or did she give any indication on delivering on the hope she will provide some leadership on this?"
                 • The Chairman …

                   16 October 2019 at 7:51 pm

                   Regarding were I stand (politically)

                   No, where you stand on this issue. No concerns?

                   You can quote me as much as you like, I stand by what I say. Therefore, the challenge for you is to show I'm wrong.
                   • Incognito …

                     16 October 2019 at 9:22 pm

                     In this post-modern era, all opinions are equal, and feelings, beliefs, and concerns are the news ‘facts of reality’.

                     If you are (so) concerned about things, it is up to you to do something about it in a pro-active way. Sharing your concerns here and looking for support on this site from like-minded concerned is like playing the violin while Rome is burning and the screaking sound is starting to grate.

                     Most of your comments here seed discontent and your leading questions almost never elicit genuine debate. At best, your comments generate a bored yawn and at worst, they are an annoying distraction.

                     You can disagree with me as much as you like, I stand by what I say. Therefore, the challenge for you is to show I’m wrong.
                   • The Chairman …

                     16 October 2019 at 11:16 pm

                     Change first comes about from people having discussions.

                     And political blogs such as this could be used as a powerful tool to help bring about change.

                     Evidently, you underestimate the power of political discussion and building consensus. The voice of many is louder than the voice of one.

                     Most of your comments here seed discontent and your leading questions almost never elicit genuine debate.

                     Only for the politically sensitive. In politics there is generally always an opposing or alternative view and it's not always what some want to hear. If people can't handle my opinions or if they find them boring or a distraction they don't have to read them. There are some that are happy to debate, some that support what I'm saying and there are some that want to shut me down and undermine me. Wonder where you sit on that?
                   • Incognito []

                     17 October 2019 at 8:00 am

                     Wonder where you sit on that?

                     You know the answer because I’ve told you many times, as another regular commenter and as moderator of this site. You are fishing for an argument so that you can defend and justify your behaviour here and litigate your way out. We have been there, done that and this will be yet another exercise in futility and a massive waste of time – you seem to have plenty of it.

                     I’m interested in genuine debate and constructive criticism. Your comments, however, do not make for that. They do not build consensus, and you should accept this by now, but only discontent.

                     Your constant negativity towards Labour is distracting other commenters from building consensus because they cannot stand for your wailing about Labour. You say that they don’t have to read your comments and opinions, but they do. As a moderator, that concerns me and I say to you that you don’t have wail all the time but you continue to do so.

                     Indeed, they are your opinions, which are light on fact and devoid of practical solutions. In a nutshell: Labour bad, must do better.

                     Your concern baiting is a problem on and for this site, in my opinion, but you refuse to accept this. The question is whether to let the needs and wants of one dominate or not. So far, nothing has worked with you and there has been no improvement – except you seem to be referring more occasionally to the Government than simply to Labour – and to shut you down completely may be the only option left. What you don’t seem to accept is that this is in your hands but martyrdom beckons, it seems – it fits your MO here.

                     That is where I sit. But you already knew that.
         • Sacha 6.2.1.1.2

           16 October 2019 at 4:27 pm

           the more collaboratively we work to build consensus for them

           That is, with other coalition members who are resisting on behalf of the population they represent. Gee, I wonder which party that might be?
           • The Chairman 6.2.1.1.2.1

             16 October 2019 at 5:11 pm

             With two years in Government and Jacinda implying they haven't yet built public support on this, one wonders how long do they foresee it taking for a collaborative consensus to form?

             Moreover, can struggling workers afford to wait that long? Additionally, how many good employers will go under by then?

             As for work being done to build this collaborative consensus, has Labour polled NZF supporters to gauge were their supporters sit? And perhaps (if there is good support for this) use this to show Winston there is support for this among his supporters?
             • Sacha …

               16 October 2019 at 9:51 pm

               They are talking about political party support as a proxy for public. And I doubt Winnie would take kindly to being second-guessed. A Green-Labour government will be simpler to manage.
               • The Chairman …

                 16 October 2019 at 11:23 pm

                 It will be interesting to see if a Labour and Green only coalition will perform any better. Labour could always turn to National to get their more centrist policy through. And the Greens have shown they have no backbone so will them having a few more seats really make much difference?
                 • Sacha …

                   17 October 2019 at 11:01 am

                   'Have no backbone' = are forced to concede to Winston First due to vote share this time.
                   • weka …

                     17 October 2019 at 11:06 am

                     apparently they should man up.
                   • Sacha …

                     17 October 2019 at 11:08 am

                     does that mean turn to the Bish?
                   • The Chairman …

                     17 October 2019 at 12:34 pm

                     Having no backbone equates to them seldom speaking up and failing to stick to their core principles. For example, their support of the waka jumping bill

                     Moreover, I'm talking about the Greens conceding to Labour as they would have little bargaining power despite attaining a few more seats.

                     They've shown they would rather be in power with Labour than sitting on the cross bench or go with the opposition, thus Labour know the Greens have nowhere else to turn. Hence, if they want to be in power they will have to further concede to Labour.

                     Nevertheless, on their current polling trend (and historical data) the Greens attaining a few more seats seems very unlikely.
                   • Sacha …

                     17 October 2019 at 1:56 pm

                     They've shown they would rather be in power with Labour than sitting on the cross bench

                     Really? Let's see what they do next term, depending on how coalition voter support stacks up.
7. formerly ross 7

   16 October 2019 at 1:02 pm

   It’s great to see a post about the importance of free speech. Israel Folau and the two Canadians who were de-platformed here will be delighted to learn that we take free speech very seriously. That’s as it should be.

   [I already moved your last comment to OM and said that was a better place for this conversation. If you want to talk about what’s happening with XR in regards to free speech, you can use the XR post, but please don’t use that post to grandstand a separate conversation about the free speech of white supremacists – weka]

   [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
   
   • Dukeofurl 7.1

     16 October 2019 at 1:14 pm

     Did the Police arrest them too?

     Anyway you will be moved to Daily review , as it should be.
     • Formerly Ross 7.1.1

       16 October 2019 at 1:30 pm

       Alas, you don’t understand the importance of free speech. Protestors in the UK are probably now beginning to understand its importance.
       • left_forward 7.1.1.1

         16 October 2019 at 3:08 pm

         What patronising hogwash!

         There is no comparison between the hate speech of abhorrent individuals and the collective voice of those concerned about our future well being.

         Is there any place for morality within your uncompromising free speech?
       • greywarshark 7.1.1.2

         16 October 2019 at 4:35 pm

         The sort of free speech rhetoric that emerges from Formerly Ross gives rise to thoughts of the song, "If I had a bell, I'd ring it in the morning, I'd ring it in the evening all over the land", until the windows would be full of people shouting 'Shut up you noisy b..tard we're trying to sleep here".

         And FS would look up all innocent, and say "I felt like it and it's my right to speak, sing or play wherever I like."
         • Sacha 7.1.1.2.1

           16 October 2019 at 9:53 pm

           Freedom from the consequences of their speech is what they seek. F%$k em.
8. marty mars 8

   16 October 2019 at 1:08 pm

   jeepers – so going to get so messy this – lots of toast coming

   The hearings have been held behind closed doors but Democrats may yet decide to publish transcripts. Trump, who has been leading his own defence, tweeted on Tuesday: “Democrats are allowing no transparency at the Witch Hunt hearings. If Republicans ever did this they would be excoriated by the Fake News. Let the facts come out from the charade of people, most of whom I do not know, they are interviewing for nine hours each, not selective leaks.”

   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/15/trump-impeachment-inquiry-george-kent-hunter-biden
   • Sacha 8.1

     16 October 2019 at 4:28 pm

     Marmite futures soaring..
9. Andrea 9

   16 October 2019 at 2:39 pm

   The property value people have just wafted by and sent a letter saying we're now the holders of a grossly over-priced property and the council will be thinking about the rates take…

   Is anyone going to en masse, collectively, all together call out this fakery?!

   Relatively few people want to use the 'value' of their property to borrow against. The rest of us simply want to live where we do, using the scruffy old amenities we've already paid for. Wait for the overdue upgrades and repairs. Plod along as always.

   And there's wonderment about why we don't vote for local government.

   It's rigged against the ordinary folk. Once voted for – our 'representatives' are invisible for the next three years and seriously unaccountable for the harms they are about to inflict on so many people earning less than a quarter of their income.

   No matter how you vote – you're still voiceless and powerless.
   • weka 9.1

     16 October 2019 at 6:55 pm

     it is a daftness. I fear that the same thinking will end up creating bad land banking laws. Lots of people have traditionally bought land and let it sit for many years until they can afford to build or retire. That's not the same as buying a section and sitting on it for a few years with the intention of selling to at $100,000 profit.

     Likewise TOP's policy proposal to have a tax on capital gains even if you don't sell.

     Everything seems geared towards the idea that everyone is an investor.
     • Sacha 9.1.1

       16 October 2019 at 9:56 pm

       And parties including Labour talking about building more units as their only answer does not address the fundamental distortion of our system treating housing as a preferred investment asset type. Change the demand, not just the supply.
       • weka 9.1.1.1

         16 October 2019 at 11:29 pm

         I really don't get this about Labour. We could build more than enough houses and that won't drop house prices or rents enough to make up for low wages and benefits. The gap between what people earn and what their housing costs are is massive. The only way I can make sense of it is the intended sacrifice theory. Labour see their job as pulling some people up and leaving some people behind. They can stabilise the housing situation, raise wages a bit, and sorry about the big cracks that some people can't avoid falling through.
         • Stuart Munro. 9.1.1.1.1

           17 October 2019 at 2:14 am

           Labour doesn't want to discuss the real driver of the housing crisis – low-wage migration. Labour means to stick with a 50k per annum migration gain, down from 70k under the Gnats. Housing growth is nothing like that – so in addition to driving down wages and conditions, this policy also drives the housing crisis, at least at the low end.

           The politics of kindness it's not, and, having never sought a public mandate for migration levels four times those of the US and UK, this policy is one of those little autocratic excesses to put us "peasants" in our place – just like the slave fishing Labour enabled for decades.
           • Sacha 9.1.1.1.1.1

             17 October 2019 at 11:07 am

             Migrants are a red herring. Importing cheap money has been the core problem, not importing people.
             • marty mars …

               17 October 2019 at 11:24 am

               +1 yes I agree
             • weka …

               17 October 2019 at 11:33 am

               Can you explain this? The housing crisis looks to me as being driven by multiple factors, I can't see how immigration policy isn't part of this. Technically we could have that level of immigration and build enough housing for them and for existing residents, but how would that happen given the housing crisis?
               • Sacha …

                 17 October 2019 at 12:21 pm

                 Not quickly. Population increase is a factor, sure, but most of it in regions like Auckland is projected to come from our relatively young residents having babies, and migrants from other parts of NZ.
                 • weka …

                   17 October 2019 at 12:41 pm

                   I was meaning in the past. Are you saying that our immigration policy hasn't been a factor?

                   Having Aucklanders migrate to the South Island is a factor in the housing crisis here. Complex.
                   • Sacha …

                     17 October 2019 at 12:54 pm

                     I'm saying it has not been as big a factor as some seem to believe it is.
                   • weka []

                     17 October 2019 at 1:31 pm

                     I’m sure that’s true but I don’t know what it means in relation to the problem of housing (rather than the problem of people commenting on immigration).
                   • weka …

                     17 October 2019 at 1:33 pm

                     Speaking of which, I think the left's prohibition on talking about the problems with immigration policy isn't helpful here.
                   • Sacha …

                     17 October 2019 at 1:53 pm

                     Nobody is prohibiting discussion.
                   • weka []

                     17 October 2019 at 2:21 pm

                     Let me rephrase then. I think the left’s strong disapproval on talking about the problems with immigration policy and the strong social pressure to not have that conversation isn’t helpful.
                 • Pat …

                   17 October 2019 at 1:09 pm

                   https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/migration-drives-high-population-growth
                   • weka …

                     17 October 2019 at 1:32 pm

                     thanks.
             • greywarshark …

               17 October 2019 at 12:01 pm

               Edit
               Migrants and selling the country's brand and then bits of it to wealthy people is a business that government is behind all the way, and demand for housing becomes a lure. The scrabbling capitalists in the world have accreted lots of credits, and feel uncomfortable having too many in insubstantial form, too ephemeral to rely on, so they must be converted to physical form somewhere. Their portfolios of investments must prudently have a mixture of risk and assets that are rooted in something, somewhere that can't be wiped out by intense emotion that sweeps quickly through the stockmarket and brings down all the hot air balloons in deflated condition.

               The migrants that cause the people to be outbid for dwellings that are needed by them, are just an externality to the money they bring in, which shows up as export returns in the national financial boasting lists.
               • Sacha …

                 17 October 2019 at 12:23 pm

                 Most of our debt is imported by Australian banks.
                 • greywarshark …

                   17 October 2019 at 1:35 pm

                   Yep so double the problem. Too much debt from outsiders, and being carried out by outsider financial institutions who stack up the profit and then take it away in golden wheelbarrows or recycle it to us peasants for a nice sum.
           • weka 9.1.1.1.1.2

             17 October 2019 at 11:19 am

             What is Labour's rationale for that level of migration? Is it ideological? Economic?
         • Sacha 9.1.1.1.2

           17 October 2019 at 11:06 am

           Any government now has a tricky balancing act of fixing the housing market without immediate costs being imposed on those who cureently own overvalued stock. They vote and they love the illusion of wealth.

           Hence trying to use long-term inflation etc to gradually drop prices which they know full-well maintains the same broken market for another decade or two. Climate shocks may be the reckoning before that.
10. ianmac 10

    16 October 2019 at 2:40 pm

    During Question Time today the PM has made some oblique remarks about a leadership run by the Opposition. Huh? What is happening?
    • observer 10.1

      16 October 2019 at 2:56 pm

      She was taking the mickey.

      National decided on a new approach today: the leader of the opposition's questions were shared around other MPs (Kaye, Bennett, Bishop, and Simpson, who nobody has ever heard of).

      It backfired. Ardern has (IMHO) too often been passive in the House, letting Bridges get jabs in but not counter-attacking. Today she was giving it back, with humour, and scoring. Maybe the weekend polls were the wake-up Labour needed. She had new energy today.

      National gave the PM a platform, by directing nearly all the Qs at her instead of Ministers. They might rethink that tactic.
      • ianmac 10.1.1

        16 October 2019 at 3:13 pm

        Ah so. Thanks Observer. The Opposition tactic of asking "Does she stand by… ."is countered by using that question as a platform for a dissertation on whatever the PM wants to highlight.
      • Anne 10.1.2

        16 October 2019 at 4:48 pm

        Maybe the weekend polls were the wake-up Labour needed. She had new energy today.

        I hope so. A bit of aggression especially if it can be delivered with a bit of humour is a necessary evil in politics.
    • veutoviper 10.2

      16 October 2019 at 3:09 pm

      JA was simply taking the mickey out of Bridges and National.

      For those that did not watch Qtime today, because the Speaker has restricted Bridges to a maximum of 5 supplementary questions for still running the attack ads using excerpts from videos of Parliament sittings etc, the Nats put up four other Nat MPs to ask the usual "Does the PM stand by all of her Government's policies and actions?"

      As well as Bridges asking the question at Q2, Paula Bennett asked the same question at Q3, Nikki Kaye at Q5, Chris Bishop at Q7, and Scott Simpson at Q8.

      I thought the PM's suggestion that they were running auditions for the role of Leader of the Opposition was very clever and funny. And it gave her a great platform to speak much more than usual. Doubt they will overplay that tactic again.

      EDIT – WOW, observer, snap! Almost the same wording … quite scary … Will leave mine just because it is so weird. Great minds and all of that …
      • observer 10.2.1

        16 October 2019 at 4:01 pm

        Heh.

        I think anyone watching without blinkers could see that Ardern won that round. In fact Bridges is usually pretty good in that role, he's hopeless outside the House, but in Parliament his prosecuting experience comes through. His "substitutes" didn't measure up.
11. Psycho Milt 11

    16 October 2019 at 4:10 pm

    Massey University has just withdrawn the venue for the Speak Up For Women event Feminism 2020, on the grounds of "risk to health and safety," which you can only assume involve highly unusual definitions of the words "health" and "safety."

    It'll be interesting to see if the Free Speech Coalition makes as much of a fuss about feminists losing a venue as it did about Brash losing one.
    • Ad 11.1

      16 October 2019 at 4:17 pm

      🙂

      And also whether the media picks it up.
    • McFlock 11.2

      16 October 2019 at 4:32 pm

      I suspect we'll see more of that excuse in these circumstances.

      "Health and safety" has been a nice, opaque, unopposable excuse for "I don't feel like doing that" for donkey's years. Been a bit of a resurrection of it since they made governance roles personally liable, but usually it's more myth than reality.

      So now if you want to be intentionally controversial for clicks, you'd need to be the one spending a few thousand on a safety plan to deal with a variety of eventualities and put money aside to fund those contingencies.

      edit: found the massey media release:

      The legal advice we have received is that cancellation of the event, as concluded by the report, is the only way to eliminate the risk to health and safety and to ensure that the University would not be in breach of its health and safety obligations.

      lol ISTR the current OSH regimen still includes a reasonableness test, not an absolute on elimination. Lots of case law there for the FSC to get outraged about, if they care.
12. Skeptical 12

    16 October 2019 at 10:27 pm

    Hi Weka

    Can you define what a denier is?

    Someone who doesn’t believe CO2 is the problem?

    Someone who doesn’t believe we are facing an imminent mass extinction?

    Someone who doesn’t believe that declaring climate emergencies is much more than virtue signaling?

    Someone who thinks that there is a huge political push behind it?

    Asking for a friend….

    [lprent: answering for a friend..

    For me, it is simple :-

    1. someone who doesn’t understand the size of the effect of CO2 on climate – that outside of the billion years changes in solar radiation and millions of years milankovitch cycles, it is the largest single climate factor in geological time – and that it normally acts in thousands of years..

    2. someone who doesn’t understand the scale and the speed of the burning of fossilized carbon over the last two hundred years has caused a greater release of CO2 well over any known geological release. It causes significiant effects in mere hundreds of years and has downstream effects for thousands of years..

    3. and someone who is too stupid to understand that those two factors alone are sufficient to cause a well known geological pattern known as a catastrophic change in climate leading to large extinctions at the top of the food chain. Instead (like you in a different handle) they are too lazy to look at the basic science and cowardly to listen to the children who are better scientifically educated than they are. Instead they deny it, preferring to stick their head straight up their arse because it is both easier than thinking and has a more comfortable smell.

    And BTW: are you currently banned? Why come in under a different handle otherwise? Ifs this ‘friend’ yourself under your more usual handle(s)? Are you being as stupid a dimwit as you usually are? ]

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
    
    • weka 12.1

      16 October 2019 at 11:34 pm

      Hi Weka

      Can you define what a denier is?

      Someone who doesn’t believe CO2 is the problem?

      Yes.

      Someone who doesn’t believe we are facing an imminent mass extinction?

      Probably. I mean, there's a huge body of evidence that species are going extinct at an alarming rate, and it doesn't need much in the way of science literacy to understand this.

      Someone who doesn’t believe that declaring climate emergencies is much more than virtue signaling?

      Maybe. Certainly not everyone who believes in the put down of 'virtue signaling' is a denier, but there's a big overlap in the Venn diagram.

      Someone who thinks that there is a huge political push behind it?

      A big political push behind CC? Sounds like a denier to me.

      Asking for a friend….

      If you want to argue about the science, Lynn is your man.
13. Eco maori 13

    17 October 2019 at 2:19 pm

    I personally think that Te Papatuanuku grows enough kia we just have to eliminate the waste and shear Te Kai and putea with our neighbours.

    We have to put as much effort into this problem of kai waste as is going into some people's piped dreams billion spent that could be invested in solar and wind power for the poor tangata to become energy independent. Being energy independent will help pump water to grow Kai and running a freeze to store Kai. In Aotearoa one can achieve this with only $3000. It does not have to be invented the technology already exists.

    How do we feed the world without destroying the planet?

    Bob Geldof

    Hunger and the climate crisis are inextricably linked – the challenge is how to solve one while not exacerbating the other

    Hunger is the most awful and profound expression of poverty. It exists in every country. It is something that most people can identify with on some perhaps primordial level. The fear of hunger is etched into our DNA, passed down the generations from hungry, scared ancestors. It is in our bones. It is in my Irish bones

    But there is very bad news. More recently hunger has started to increase. Again. On World Food Day on Wednesday, 820 million people face chronic hunger. That’s the equivalent of the population of the US and the EU combined. This is daily, frightening, fatiguing, persistent hunger. Day after day, 820 million people will not get enough to eat. Night after night, famished mothers and fathers put their children to bed with empty stomachs.

    I suspect this shocks no one these days. Just as I suspect the spectre of climate crisis evokes yawns. Yet the two are inextricably linked in a kind of existential tango happening too slowly for us to register

    The increase in global hunger is in part triggered by the climate emergency. There have been more floods, more droughts, and more frequent, fiercer storms. Small farmers are being hit first and hardest as once-in-a-century extreme weather events become almost routine The increase in global hunger is in part triggered by the climate emergency. There have been more floods, more droughts, and more frequent, fiercer storms. Small farmers are being hit first and hardest as once-in-a-century extreme weather events become almost routine

    The Global Agriculture and Food Security Programme, which we successfully fought for alongside President Obama, will be critical. It has resulted in a decade of experience in encouraging increased impact from the international system in exactly the way we need. In the face of the dual challenges of climate change and hunger, it is perhaps more relevant today than at its inception.

    Whatever happens with Brexit, the German gathering will be an opportunity for us to come together to tackle one of the great 21st-century challenges. It’s a century that has stumbled to begin. It is finally taking shape, but is still a plastic thing. It will see mind-boggling technologies emerge and profound cultural shifts.

    But what’s the point if we can’t beat humanity’s oldest foe, hunger? Surely it is a modest thing to suggest that next year would be an excellent time to start doing just that. Ka kite Ano link below.

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/oct/16/how-do-we-feed-the-world-without-destroying-the-planet
14. Eco maori 14

    17 October 2019 at 6:30 pm

    Kia Ora 1 News.

    I think that all around that slip on state highway 4 should have been planted in trees years ago

    That's what a left Government does invest in the common people health and mental health.

    Ka kaha to the WheelBlacks.

    Yes rubbish is a huge problem in Aotearoa and around Te Papatuanuku.

    Ka kite Ano
15. Eco maori 15

    17 October 2019 at 6:51 pm

    Kia Ora Te Ao Maori News.

    Out government investment of $12 million in Fostering Te Reo is great our Tipuna set the foundation for Tangata Whenua O Aotearoa Culture to stay Mana kia kaha.

    Condolences to Matua Smith Whanau for their loss.

    Ka kite Ano
16. Eco maori 16

    18 October 2019 at 8:19 am

    Kia Ora The Breakfast Show.

    Its great that we are highlighting our Kiwa problems the Rubbish pollution is a great problem its not like Tangata can pick it up off the Kiwa bed we can't see the Rubbish what you can see doesn't exist Correct.

    Te Papatuanuku was not built in A day.

    He tino pai ki kite ite matomato me Te maui I runga ite Parakuihi engari me Te mea kei Te arahi ratou Ana he hipi e nga rangatira puru.

    More Tawhirimate.

    Wai is A taonga and a powerful source.

    Ka kite Ano
17. Eco maori 17

    18 October 2019 at 2:22 pm

    I believe this version of Tupaia travels around the Pacific ocean and to Aotearoa some people dismissed our oral and carved documents of our history I say no more.

    Descendants of Tahitian navigator Tupaia want the record set straight on his travels with Captain James Cook on the Endeavour

    Descendants of Tahitian navigator Tupaia want the record set straight on his travels with Captain James Cook on the Endeavour

    And Tupaia (on his waka) also came here and returned to Ra'iatea. He then came back here on the Endeavour. That is what the oral tradition is telling us.

    The version that Tupaia came to New Zealand for the first time on the Endeavour was not what's contained in the oral tradition, Mr Tautu said.

    "Tupaia brought Cook here under the pretext of food and water," he said. "[Tupaia] came here to meet and greet his relatives. That's his reason for coming here.

    "It wasn't to bring Cook. It was to greet his family he had left behind.

    Ka kite Ano link below.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/401251/tupaia-s-descendants-shed-new-light-on-cook-s-navigator
18. Eco maori 18

    18 October 2019 at 6:32 pm

    Kia Ora 1 News.

    We need a clean environment for our Mokopuna to have a happy healthy future.

    Ka kite Ano
19. Eco maori 19

    18 October 2019 at 6:54 pm

    Kia Ora Te Ao Maori News.

    It looks like a interesting day in Te Taitokerau.

    Those old Kauri trees found in a old swomp 45 thousand years old. There will be a lot of knowledge on ancient environments of Aotearoa to be examined from the old trees.

    People who try and medal with Our Haka don't have any credibility reason to mess with the Mana wairua of Aotearoa Haka.

    Ka kite Ano

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS