Open Mike 19/03/2018

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, March 19th, 2018 - 104 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

104 comments on “Open Mike 19/03/2018”

  1. bwaghorn 1

    wtf the greens ? what a bunch of fucking idiots if you wanted labour asked tough questions ask them your self , fucking stupid morons .

    • Sanctuary 1.1

      Why does everyone hate the Greens? Because maybe they do dumb shit like this. They proudly present themselves as a bunch of smug, self righteous goody two shoes who think they are better than everyone else. What a bunch of twats.

      • Integrity in politics? disgraceful.

        Holding the government to account? how dreadfully undemocratic!

        Acting on principles of the greater good? unheard of!

        Shame on the Greens! [sarc/]

        • chris73 1.1.1.1

          Feel the love for the Greens at the moment :-), I personally think its a good move by the Greens but I guess like anything time will tell

          • dukeofurl 1.1.1.1.1

            Its a good move because 😕

            • tracey 1.1.1.1.1.1

              In their clumsy way they are trying to force a change to a stupid and childlike practice. Shaw has not done well on the TV I have seen articulating the why. This part is a fail so far for me but NOT their desire to bring maturity to QT.

              Let us see what happens at Committee when they propose change there to Standing Orders. Shaw knows Nats would never vote for such change when Govt but they might as Opposition.

              “We will also make a submission to the Standing Orders Review, which kicks off next year, to advocate for further changes to Question Time. This review is where all parties in Parliament make decisions about how future parliaments will operate and is the best place for all politicians to discuss any long term permanent changes to Question Time.

              “The Canadian Government has recently trialled changes to Question Time after Justin Trudeau campaigned to do so. This shows parliament systems are not set in stone and should be open to regular review and change to ensure our democracy is healthy and well-functioning.

              “We have reserved the right to use our questions when we have a point of difference with our colleagues in government. Our Confidence and Supply Agreement with Labour allows us to agree to disagree on issues, and the occasional respectful questioning of the Government from within is also an important part of democracy.

              “That we can occasionally disagree with each other highlights the strength and flexibility of this Government,” said Mr Shaw “

              • dukeofurl

                Still doesnt explain why they cant ask ‘real questions’ rather than patsys.

                • tracey

                  Because they are aiming to get the rules changed duke.

                  • Sanctuary

                    Yeah, because after four months in opposition the National party has seen the error of it’s ways and plans to be responsible within the framework of MMP…

                    Giving extra questions to a party that in nine years of government reduced our waterways to open sewers and created a crisis in the environment, education, housing and health on a point of meaningless principle is the very height of plain stupidity.

                    • tracey

                      I get you dont like the decision Sanctuary. I am just answering dukes questions.

                      Lets see what happens when the Greens propose a change to Standing Orders.

                    • alwyn

                      There isn’t any “error in their ways”.
                      National have been doing precisely what they are meant to. You may not like it because you may support the current Government but you certainly aren’t entitled to moan because the Opposition are doing their job.
                      The role of the Opposition is to oppose, to hold the Government to account and to question Government actions.
                      I realise you may not like the people who are quoted by this link but it is a fair summary of the role. It just so happens that these people were in Opposition at the time.
                      http://decisionmaker.co.nz/guide2003/hgw/oppose.html

                  • alwyn

                    There is nothing in the House Rules about what sort of questions a party can ask.
                    The only requirement is that they must be in some way a responsibility of the Minister. The Clerk’s Office, for a Primary, or the Speaker, for a Supplementary, would never allow you to ask something like
                    “Is the proposal put forward by the Opposition to resolve this a stupid idea”.
                    Of course you can get away with
                    “Has the Minister seen any analysis of alternative proposals”.

                    Parties ask patsies because they want to ask patsies, or because when they are in Government their own agreement with their coalition parties says they must. Agreements between parties in a coalition Government have nothing at all to do with the Rules of the House. Ask the Greens what they agreed too.

                    As far as I can see the only change that would mean anything would be to remove the right to ask questions from any party which is part of the Government. I’m not recommending that but it would be the only way to get rid of patsies.

        • tracey 1.1.1.2

          Some folks only want that from a government when their party is in opposition. Ironically that is the Greens point.

        • Anne 1.1.1.3

          If the Greens imagine they’re going to bring more integrity, accountability, principled decisions and better debate to parliament then they’re sure living in Cloud Cuckoo Land! They remind me of the ancient tradition of “rain dancing” in an effort to please the gods and bring blessed rain and relief to parched soils. Fat lot of good that did.

          The…Nats…don’t… do… integrity…. accountability… and… principled conduct.

          So much good will for the Greens lost in the blink of an eye.

          • Bearded Git 1.1.1.3.1

            If the Nats don’t do the right thing the Greens can simply take their questions back.

            I always go and make a cup of coffee when a patsy question is asked.

      • tracey 1.1.2

        They present themselves as wanting to break cycles. Be it climate, environment, poverty or parliamentary conduct.

        All change starts somewhere. They will submit a change to Standing Orders. Now, who is going to vote for a continuation of childish behaviour and patsy questions? Everyone? Maybe. Or maybe not. Time will tell.

        Doing stuff the same way it has always been done and expecting something different is the definition of madness. Maybe be outraged at the madness of those perpetuating oyr laughable question time and other parliamentary behaviour.

    • Reality 1.2

      Exactly. Greens sure know how to shoot themselves in the foot and to side with National over QT after nine years of their nastiness defies all logic. Feeling let down by James Shaw. If he wants more notice taken of Greens, it’s not Labour’s job to do it for him.

      • Sanctuary 1.2.1

        Classic Green party pointless symbolism of the kind that has most people roll their eyes at the insufferable smugness of it all.

        • Keepcalmcarryon 1.2.1.1

          Yes they are going to be sitting comfortably on their high horses outside parliament next election thinking up new out-of-touch-with-reality statements.
          It’s one thing to play to your support base but if that is at or just below the threshold for parliament then they are going to receive a lesson next election.
          Watch the polls after this. It sucks because we need a strong legitimate Green Party.

  2. AsleepWhileWalking 2

    Utsava the psychic had a vision of Killary Clinton et al in handcuffs and leg shackles.

  3. Jacinda Ardern rose to the occasion when she became Labour leader, she sounded refreshingly open and honest. She pledged to be relentlessly positive.

    But gradually she has become far more practiced in avoiding saying anything of substance, especially when faced with difficult issues. She is now often absolutely positively vague.

    Was it Russia?

    Corin, I’ve been very clear in avoiding saying it was Russia.

    But that doesn’t…will you actually say that Russia is responsible?

    We are in exactly the same position as our allies, we stood up in the Hague and avoided saying it was Russia. We have been clear in our statements on this that we’re avoiding saying it was Russia. We’ve made sure the UK is clear on our position as well that we’re avoiding saying it was Russia.

    Will you consider sanctions?

    That’s something that we’re avoiding saying.

    You said that Values were going to be a driving force in how you make your decisions. Why’d you put Russia in the coalition agreement?

    We’re still going to obey the letter of the sanctions. We can just work around them.

    The point is that that’s not the same as taking a principled stand. The Nats wanted an FTA – it didn’t want to put it on hold but it did, because of the whole principled stand and Values thing. You on the other hand agreed in the coalition agreement to put it back on the table.

    I have to correct you there. They put the FTA on ice and applied travel sanctions but there was still trade. No-one has said that we would not apply the sanctions, but we’ll do the still trading bit and put the FTA back in the oven. The coalition agreement says “striving towards”. Here this means we’re sort-of not really maybe reheating it. Because we stand alongside our partners.

    So you’re not saying they’re completely off the table? Or maybe you are saying that?

    Right now, I’m avoiding saying either way. Or both ways.

    Winston’s staying all sorts of stuff that’s completely out of sync with you lot.

    I would dispute that. The language has all involved double meanings so we can interpret it in a way that suits us and the Values we work around. Rather like the phrase “flying Emirates”. We have all consistently avoided saying Russia did it.

    Winston’s been less hinty that it was the Russians than you.

    At this point I would like to hint some more, without actually saying the Russians did it. That’s a simple statement of fact.

    (edited)

    Full interview: Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern sits down with Corin Dann after a challenging week for her leadership from newzealand

    • RNZ: NZ govt considers further measures against Russia

      The Prime Minister isn’t ruling out further measures against Russia over the UK nerve agent attack, including the expulsion of diplomats, after the government halted all efforts to restart trade talks.

      Asked if New Zealand might follow Britain and expel staff from Russia’s embassy in Wellington, Jacinda Ardern also said she could not rule further actions in or out.

      “We’re keeping in close contact with our partners in this situation as further evidence comes to light.

      “We’re now assessing what further evidence is coming to light and making sure that we’re being responsive which is why we’re looking at making further statements.”

      https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/352731/nz-govt-considers-further-measures-against-russia

      • Anne 3.1.1

        Don’t read or respond to PG’s diatribes. He’s using the Green ball-drop to sow further seeds of bitter recrimination.

        Don’t give it to him.

        • faroutdude 3.1.1.1

          “There is an alternative Political Viewpoint which conflicts with my unshakeable Ideology. Please assist me to hold my hands over my eyes and ears.”
          FIFY

          • Anne 3.1.1.1.1

            Have you not been around this site for very long? Pete George has a long history of seed sowing acrimony. In fact he was permanently banned a few years ago for the behaviour, but our sysop announced a general amnesty in the hope the culprits had learnt a lesson.

        • Brigid 3.1.1.2

          I prefer to choose for myself what I read and respond to.

        • Pete George 3.1.1.3

          @Anne – ironic re bitter seeds.

          I don’t think this has anything to with the Greens – are you trying to divert? Incidentally, I don’t think that the Greens have dropped the ball if you’re referring to their stand on patsy questions, I applaud them for that.

    • savenz 3.2

      I wonder why the media in NZ is so keen for our politicians to speculate on the alleged assassination of someone in another country by another power, but less interested in getting any information about the murder of civilians by our own troops including a child.

      • The Afghan story has had a lot of coverage for years. The raid happened eight years ago. The latest chapter was covered last week, but not surprisingly it was overshadowed by coverage of an alleged assassination be a foreign power this month.

        • tracey 3.2.1.1

          When do you reckon the media will catch up with Key and question him over his knowledge our Defence Commander lied? Or Brownlee? Instead they will gushingly cover him playing golf with Obama.

          • Sanctuary 3.2.1.1.1

            The establishment MSM will gush over the establishment at play before asking hard questions to the illegal Labour government about party functions in the 1990s where someone may have had an inappropriate hand put on her knee.

        • dukeofurl 3.2.1.2

          What part of the assassination displeases you That they got caught ?

          Surely with your years of wisdom you would realise that the major powers all murder civilians in other countries when they find a ‘necessary reason’ to do so.

          Lets see if the UK is going to walk the talk about sanctions and no longer request Russian natural gas ships discharge in their ports. Or is that sort of thing that matters only for others like NZ

        • savenz 3.2.1.3

          I think the lying about the raid is also part of the issue and no justice for the victims. Sort of goes against this idea our troops are in the Middle East helping the Iraqis and rebuilding the place after the US and UK blew it up.

          And the assassinations in UK have happened before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko, it’s just a good time to have a distraction now that May is in dire straits with all the screw ups the conservative government has had, they just might get a +socialist+ labour in charge of Britain. Can’t let that happen!

          But as Key say’s it’s all part of being part of the ‘club’.

      • Wayne 3.2.2

        savenz

        There was no murder. Do you seriously think that Sir Gerry Mateparae would order the murder of civilians and children? Do you seriously think that SAS soldiers would deliberately order the murder of civilians and children?

        Accidents do happen in wartime, in this instance the misfire/non aligned sights of the helicopter gun.

        • tracey 3.2.2.1

          You are right that it is not legally murder. However given the Commander knew the village named in the book was correct if not the location, and then knew the corrected location was correct, he casts a pall over his credibility on everything.

          Given accidents happen it seems odd the Commander would lie at all. It just makes everything he says unreliable.

          But they might have ordered the killing if they thought a greater goal would be achieved. Collateral damage and all that.

          That old cross examination question arises for the Commander now Wayne. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

          He should resign. That would be the courageous thing to do.

        • tracey 3.2.2.2

          Interestingly the Defence force will now have to reveal what we pay Mr Thiel for his company software.

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12014265

        • Grant 3.2.2.3

          Can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs, eh Wayne?

        • savenz 3.2.2.4

          Well people are dead, and the defence force covers it up. In law in NZ even if it is an accident when you kills someone, you are still held to account, a trial is held, persons held to account and it’s documented and the victims are given some sort of justice.

          It’s all been a cover up and when you cover things up repeatedly you are actually making our defence force less accountable and less trusted as is the government. Lying and weasel words have become the norm for governments.

          The public were fed a load of sop about how our defence force would never be in this position in the Middle East. Our troops should not even be there.

          Learn from Vietnam. More powerful countries will never defeat this style of terrorism when invading a country instead you will kill a whole lot of innocent civilians.

          NZ is just as bad, because we should never have been there in the first place and are there to support and be part of a club instead of making a moral stand to stay out of it.

          The refugees are forced to flee, then that is a whole new set of issues when people can’t live in 1/2 the world because it’s unsafe and the other 1/2 of the world is not equip to deal with the influx or the long term ramifications.

          Then we have climate change so now some countries are gonna hit 50degrees so will become unliveable while others will have to spend billions on trying to stop their land from being submerged as sea levels rise. Then rebuilding houses and buildings/businesses with increased natural disasters and supporting local people effected.

          War and bombing is never a good thing. Many things can be done, before that if there is a disagreement. The only countries that probably will do well out of the Middle East war, is China because they grow more prosperous as other countries like UK and USA bankrupt themselves in the Middle East.

          At the same time western country leaders have lost focus on their own countries and not preparing for what is to come like climate change or how people can starve to death after a disaster like Cyclone Katrina in one of the richest countries in the world.

        • Stuart Munro 3.2.2.5

          The definition of murder may include recklessness rather than intent.

          If one were to kill people in NZ due to sighting problems with a helicopter gun the only way you’d avoid a murder charge would be people downplaying the seriousness of the killing at the highest level.

      • cleangreen 3.2.3

        100% savenz

        So MSM are trapped in “The inconvenient truth” right there as to what you said.

        “the media in NZ is so keen for our politicians to speculate on the alleged assassination of someone in another country by another power, but less interested in getting any information about the murder of civilians by our own troops”

    • alwyn 3.3

      That is wonderful.
      I am totally unable to tell this from any other interview with Ms Ardern.
      Absoludely magnificend. Relentlessly possidive.

  4. Incognito 4

    There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.

    Donald Rumsfeld

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/352798/spy-poisoning-experts-to-test-nerve-toxin In two weeks we may (…) know the results of tests by chemical weapons experts.

    • tracey 4.1

      If we dont know the results of the tests how do we know who produced it?

      • dukeofurl 4.1.1

        Ask Fonterra about tests for things like Botulism- answers may vary.

        How long did the UK wait to get answers about Blairs ‘dossiers’

        Or Bloody Sunday …..

        Or Hillsborough….

        • tracey 4.1.1.1

          I was think8ng that of course. It wont matter the results one side or another will claim it was rigged or falsified or something.

          Is there another suspect for the father/daughter poisoning? Is the theory that the Brits did it to blame Russia?

          • mauī 4.1.1.1.1

            The theory goes that Putin wasn’t leading by enough in the upcoming election.

            The other theory is that Russia thinks the West likes them too much, so before Russia hosts the biggest sporting event in the world (the world cup) they wanted to set the scene for a 1936 Olympics Berlin style event.

            • Anne 4.1.1.1.1.1

              I pick it’s revenge. Revenge against Putin’s critics and perceived enemies within their borders. Revenge against anyone perceived to have betrayed Russia from beyond their borders.

              Putin is a despot and a tyrant.

          • Psycho Milt 4.1.1.1.2

            Is there another suspect for the father/daughter poisoning?

            I haven’t seen any reported. Which is probably why the Brits are so confident it was Russia.

            Is the theory that the Brits did it to blame Russia?

            That seems to be what the illiberals are implying, although so far I haven’t seen anyone game enough to state it explicitly.

            • alwyn 4.1.1.1.2.1

              The Russian Ambassador in London was suggesting that it came from a British Lab at Porton Down.
              Would you class him as an “illiberal”?
              http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43446312

              • tracey

                A despot and a tyrant as Anne says above. Coddled under the old Soviet system where the only thing that changed is… well nothing… a few very rich blokes run the coubtry now as they did then.

      • Incognito 4.1.2

        We just ‘know’, you know 😉

      • McFlock 4.1.3

        The British ran their tests.
        These are international analysts.

    • joe90 4.2

      So many questions….

      /

      Russia’s state media #Skripal conspiracy theory No.1:“Accidental exposure”Porton Down, where the Brits were experimenting with the same types of nerve agents, is located next door to where Skripal and his daughter were found. pic.twitter.com/jAWUY2bXqS— Julia Davis (@JuliaDavisNews) March 9, 2018

      […]

      #Skripal conspiracy theory No. 14:"Yulia's Future Mother-In-Law Did It"https://t.co/PFcr8N2EFE— Julia Davis (@JuliaDavisNews) March 16, 2018

      […]

      #Skripal conspiracy theory No. 16:"Bill Browder did it."https://t.co/e3WmkXk2RE— Julia Davis (@JuliaDavisNews) March 18, 2018

  5. dukeofurl 5

    It must be Russia because Novichok mean ‘newbie’ in russian.!!!

  6. adam 6

    Interesting industrial news. Lectures and support staff join together to make their union have a backbone.

    https://libcom.org/news/lecturers-rebel-union-pushes-poor-pension-offer-13032018

  7. veutoviper 7

    Yesterday there was considerable discussion and reaction on Open Mike to the announcement by the Green Party that they will no longer be asking “Patsy” questions in Parliament as they consider these questions whereby a member of the Government of the day asks questions of a Minister etc of that Government about decisions, progress and/or achievements in an aspect of that Minister’s portfolio.

    This discussion under 9 and its subthreads included suggestions by myself and others that the Green MPs had asked such questions (of each other) right up until the last day Parliament last sat ( Thu 1 March 2018). Alwyn put up the (only) four questions that the Green MPs had asked in the last two weeks of that period as showing that these were patsy questions (but did not provide links to either the videos or Hansard).

    I am very familiar with the workings of Parliament and its resources including their website, so was just going to put up the links to the videos for those four questions but then decided to identify all oral questions that all Green MPs have instigated or answered since the new government came into being in Nov 2017 until now to get a better picture of the overall situation vis a vis Green Party participation in Question Time and the types of questions they have been asking or have been asked, and by whom.

    I completed this last evening and have written up a summary analysis (with video link)s identifying:
    – each primary oral question asked by or to each Green MP to another Green MP
    – any questions asked of Labour or NZF by Green MPs
    – any questions asked by Labour or NZF of Green MPs
    – any questions asked by National of Green MPs

    Green Party MPs participation in Oral Questions since Nov 2017 to 1 March 2018.
    * Questions in last two weeks of Parliament (20 Feb – 1 March 2018) raised as examples by Alwyn, Open Mike 18 March 2018.

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN
    1 March 2018 to Shaw * https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=198774

    CHLOE SWARBRICK
    12 Dec 2017 to Genter https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=197591

    MARAMA DAVIDSON
    28 Feb 2018 to Sage * https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=198702
    30 Jan 2018 to Shaw https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=198038
    15 Nov 2017 to Genter https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=197082
    15 Nov 2017 to Sage https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=197082

    GARETH HUGHES
    20 Feb 2018 to Shaw * https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=198408
    1 Feb 2018 to Sage https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=198180
    19 Dec 2017 to Shaw https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=197909
    28 Nov 2017 to Shaw https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=197184

    JAN LOGIE – Parliamentary Under Secretary Justice (Sexual and Domestic Violence Issues)
    22 Feb 2018 to Shaw * https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=198573
    14 Feb 2018 to Shaw https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=198281
    14 Dec 2017 to Shaw https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=197728
    6 Dec 2017 to Genter https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=197451
    9 Nov 2017 to Sage https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=196986
    No questions to Logie from other Green MPs or from other Parties.
    No questions from Logie to Labour or NZF.

    EUGENE SAGE – Minister of Conservation; Minister of Land Information; Associate Minister of Environment
    No questions to other Green Ministers or MPs.
    Three questions to Sage from other Green MPs:
    – 28/2 Davidson; 1/02 Hughes; 30/11 Davidson; 9/11 Logie – see links under each MP’s name.
    No questions to Labour or NZF; or from Labour or NZF to Sage.
    Three questions to Sage from National;
    Jonathan Young 19 Dec https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=197910
    Maggie Barry 15 Nov https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=197087
    Brownlee 9 Nov https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=196985

    JULIE ANNE GENTER – currently Minister of Women; Associate Minister of Transport; Association Minister of Health
    Two questions from Genter to Swarbrick re Green Party Member’s Medicinal Cannabis Bill
    31 Jan 2018 https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=198114
    31 Jan 2018 https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=198109
    No questions by Genter to other Green MPs, or from Genter to Labour, NZF.
    Three questions to Genter from other Green MPs:
    Davidson 15/11; Swarbrick 12/12; Logie 6/12 – See links under each MP’s name.
    Three questions to Genter from National:
    Reti to David Clark but Genter replied for Clark 22/2 https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=198568
    Bishop to Genter 15/2 https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=198361
    Bennett to Genter 14/11 https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=197020
    NOTE: 6 Dec 2017 – Genter participated in Joyce to Robertson Question at 8.30 mins with patsy question to Robertson which was rejected by the Speaker.
    https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=197453

    JAMES SHAW – Co-leader; Minister of Climate Change; Minister of Statistics; Associate Minister of Finance
    No questions to other Green Ministers or MPs.
    Eight (8) questions to him from other Green MPS:
    Hughes – 20/2; 19/12; 28/11 Logie – 22/2; 14/2; 14/12 Davidson – 30/1 Ghahraman – 1/3 links under each MP’s name.
    No questions from Shaw to Labour or NZF; or to Shaw from Labour or NZF.
    Two (2) questions to Shaw from National:
    Chris Bishop 20 Dec; https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=197990
    Todd Muller 22 Feb. https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=198578

    Shaw has taken part in five (5) patsy questions to Robertson on three occasions as follows:
    14 Feb 2018 – Tamati Coffey to Robertson patsy question; Shaw comes in at 2.06 min with his own patsy to Robertson:
    https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=198279
    1 Feb 2018 Steven Joyce to Robertson (not a patsy); Shaw comes in at 5.30 min with a patsy for Robertson, and then again at 6.00 min when Joyce took offence at Shaw’s question and Shaw had to withdraw and apologise.
    https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=198176
    7 Dec 2018 – Steven Joyce to Robertson – a doozy where Joyce walked straight into it. Shaw is the first one in with a patsy to Robertson at 2.0 minute which was laughed at and not answered; and after some time with everyone and their dog participating, Shaw comes in again at 8.30 minutes with a valid but still patsy question allowing Robertson to again lambast Joyce.
    https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=197536

    Overall Conclusions
    Since Parliament has been sitting from Nov 2017 until on 1 March when it broke for three weeks, Green MPs have instigated and replied to 17 primary oral questions – all from one Green MP to another Green MP in the latter’s capacity as a Minister or in the case of two questions to Chloe Swarbrick in her capacity as sponsor of the Green Party Member’s Bill on medicinal cannabis. These two questions were quite legitimate Questions to Members which are in addition to the 12 questions asked each sitting day. So in terms of the latter, the Green Party have strictly speaking only asked 15 QT questions.

    All 17 primary questions (plus the supplementary questions asked by the same or another Green MP following the primary one) fit the definition of Patsy questions in being questions from a MP in the government to a Minister in that government designed to allow the Minister to speak on the work underway or achieved in their portfolios.

    These 17 primary oral questions may well be the Green Part’s entire oral question allocation over that time (I have been unable to find a definitive source for numbers allocated to each Party but see addendum now added at the end of this comment.).

    Green MPs have not instigated any primary oral questions to Labour or NZF Ministers over that period; nor have Labour and NZF instigated any primary oral questions to Green Ministers or MPs.

    National have instigated seven (7) primary oral questions to Green MPs in their Ministerial capacities – 2 to Shaw; 2 to Genter; and 3 to Sage.

    Green MPs have occasionally participated in asking supplementary questions where the primary question to Labour or NZF has been instigated by National but I have not identified all instances of these as most instances are not readily identifiable without a lot of work.

    However, I have identified and provided the links to four more prominent occasions when Green MPs did take part in asking supplementary questions as already detailed under Genter and Shaw above.

    This is NOT me being selective to show Greens in a bad light. It is simply that the Parliamentary On Demand filter system throws up participation in these more major debates by listing/providing video links to them under Shaw’s name, for example – whereas it doesn’t list or provide video links to participation in less prominent debates. (Not clear what the filter criteria is for this.)

    The following are just some of my personal thoughts since doing this quick and somewhat rough analysis.

    In theory, this seems a good and noble decision by the Green Party to forego asking patsy questions. However, the Green MPs have not foregone doing so to date right up to the last sitting day on 1 March 2018.

    The above analysis would suggest that, for the most part, the Green decision to give their (very small) oral question allocation to the Opposition is really only likely to affect the Greens themselves – in that they will no longer be able to ask each other patsy questions allowing them to tell the House what they are achieving in their various Ministerial portfolios. If they do, they could open themselves to claims of hypocrisy, failing to keep their promises etc.

    As Shaw has said, they are able to tell the public what they are achieving via Press Releases. However, Press Releases are not part of the official historic record of Parliament through Hansard etc as are Oral Questions in Parliament.

    But time will tell. If they ask no questions – and no other Party including National ask them many or any questions in Question Time – then they may be seen as choosing to not participate in a legitimate part of Parliamentary process under the Westminister system. Or they may be seen as having been left out in the cold by the other Parties. We will see.

    Addendum : Green Party Share of Questions to date:
    I have yet to find a definitive source for how many questions are currently allocated to each Party. However, I have bee able to work out the following:

    Nov/Dec 2017 – 15 sitting days @ 12 Questions per day = 180 Q in total.
    Greens asked 7 Q. = 4.86% of total 180 Q

    30 Jan/1 March 2018 = 12 sitting days @12 Questions per day = 144 Q in total.
    Greens asked 8 Q = 4.44% of total of 144 Q in total.

    NOTE – The 2 Questions asked by Genter of Swarbrick on 31 Jan 2018 re the Greens Member Bill are not included as these were questions not included in the 12 daily QT questions, but separate additional Questions to Members allowed under the rules.

    • alwyn 7.1

      Wow. I am impressed.
      The information I put up was done in a much simpler manner.

      In you addendum you say
      “I have yet to find a definitive source for how many questions are currently allocated to each Party”
      According to this
      https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/parliamentary-practice-in-new-zealand/chapter-39-questions/
      I think that we must assume.
      There are 120 members of the House.
      There are 31 who are excluded because the are Ministers, Associate Ministers or Under-secretaries (22 Labour, 5 NZF, 4 Green)
      I am not sure where the speaker is intended to be counted but I assume he is counted in the number who can ask questions.
      Therefor there are 89 who count in the question allocation rule.

      The Green Party should be allocated 4/89 of the questions available. That is 4.5% which fits in with your calculation.
      National of course are going to get 63% of those available as they get 56/89.
      It is a minor point but was there a question time on every day that Parliament sat?
      When you calculated the possible number of questions did you consider that?
      There is no question time on some days. Budget day is an example.

      • veutoviper 7.1.1

        Thanks for you explanation re the question allocation -I was too focused on the rest and that was bugging me.

        Re the question time calculations. Yes I did check – via a quick check through Daily Progress. So for example, Parliament resumed on 7 November, but 7 and 8 November were ceremonial/administrative days with no QT. QT started on Thu, 9 Nov. Then in Dec, Parliament met up to and including Weds 20 Dec, but rose Weds evening and did not sit on Thurs 21 Dec. Hence the sitting days/QTs work out at 5 X 3 days = 15 X 12 = 180 Questions. Been there done that. Worked closely with Parl for many years, including a few secondments to Minister offices, Select Committees etc.

        • alwyn 7.1.1.1

          “Worked closely with Parl for many years”.
          Yes, I must admit I thought that was probably the case.
          I have only a layman’s interest in the subject although I knew quite a lot of MPs in earlier years. Winston is the last one left of that era though.

          I think I met every PM from Holyoake to English except for Kirk, Bolger and Key. Eleven out of fourteen.
          Only in a country as small as New Zealand would that really happen for an ordinary person like me. Note I’m only saying met, not that I had anything really to do with most of them.

          When I said that my method was much simple all I did was look at this
          https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/order-paper-questions/list-of-oral-questions/
          I just looked at the final two weeks and picked out the names of Green MPs.
          I didn’t actually bother reading Hansard for those questions in particular. I do read the questions most days but with the patsies I usually only look to see whether an Opposition MP has bothered to ask a Supplementary.
          God it must be demeaning to be an MP who is assigned to ask one of these questions.

    • Draco T Bastard 7.2

      As Shaw has said, they are able to tell the public what they are achieving via Press Releases. However, Press Releases are not part of the official historic record of Parliament through Hansard etc as are Oral Questions in Parliament.

      Press release may not be but I’m that government policy releases are although, if they are, they’re hard to find.

      I think what needs to happen is a better website design that makes it easy to find this sort of information.

      • veutoviper 7.2.1

        Re government policy releases, I’m not sure they are part of the Parliamentary record other than the passage of Bills as a result of those policies.

        Sorry, I have spent too many hours in the last day or so researching – I’m taking a break!

        I actually find parts of the updated Parliament website excellent now – particularly the filters on finding things in On Demand video section. But I agree there are other parts that drive me crazy. I actually find that a well defined Google search for something on the Parliament website gets me there far quicker than trying to find it on the Parl website.

    • Brigid 7.3

      Awesome.

      Are the Greens compelled to ask patsy questions? Is this a condition of their arrangement with Labour? Or is it just because of precedents set a hundred years ago?

      • tracey 7.3.1

        It is how it is done. It has evolved but not for the better. As part of this effort the Greens are also seeking changes tot he Standing Orders.

        People are talking about Question Time, what it is and if it works. Mission partly accomplished I’d say.

        IF this can truly damage Labour, then labour was in a VERY fragile place.

        Imagine if the revelation that our Defence Commander had lied had been met by a suspension pending investigation. Strong leadership indeed.

        • Brigid 7.3.1.1

          Cool. Thanks.

          “IF this can truly damage Labour, then labour was in a VERY fragile place.”
          So very true.

        • veutoviper 7.3.1.2

          Oh come on tracey – diversions/digs #1 and diversions/digs #2. So transparent.

          Diversion 1 – nothing to do with damaging Labour (and implying its in a VERY fragile place) – this about the Green Party not Labour.

          Diversion 2 – Oh, look over there – our Defence Commander has lied. etc

          • tracey 7.3.1.2.1

            Cmon this is a few questions. Not the mother of all scandals. The beltway and political geeks may love to wallow in this but it is not the broo haha some here are making it.

            I didnt imply Labour is fragile. I replied to the suggestion this was damaging Labour by suggesting that notion ( of another not me) woukd make Labour far more fragile than they appear.

            A few patsy questions go to National as part of a strategy to tidy up Parliament versus a Defence Force Commanda lying. You bet I think the second is way more important. Especially as he continues to run our defence.

            Are yousaying suspending the Defence Commander wouldnt have moved the media focus from Young Lab?

  8. Tried and tired 8

    Can someone please give me some advice(morrissey???) on filling out an oia request, to get documents held about myself and the communications between people about myself. I.E. pH records, emails etc
    Thank you
    V

    [Easiest way is through the FYI website (https://fyi.org.nz/) but please note all requests are public – MS]

    • weka 8.1

      You can do it through this website, but be aware that requests and responses are made public https://fyi.org.nz/

      Are you sure it’s an OIA request you need and not one via the Privacy Act? That is a different process, and information is not made public.

      https://www.privacy.org.nz/the-privacy-act-and-codes/privacy-principles/access/requests/

      • Tried and tired 8.1.1

        Thank you so much. I will read through and take the best course of action. I would love nothing more than to just have this public.

        • faroutdude 8.1.1.1

          “the communications between people about myself. I.E. pH records, emails etc”
          A few of us have been talking about you in the smoko room, then I think a few texts as well.
          There was of course that big email chain going on in November too.
          Need any more info?

    • tracey 8.2

      You can email the Departments who hold the records, directly. Use their general email which can be found by a google search.

      Start your email with these words

      Please treat this email as a requestion for information under the Official Information Act.

      Then list what documents you want.

  9. adam 9

    Part three in a series of interviews with working women.

    https://libcom.org/blog/series-interviews-working-class-women-west-london-part-3-16032018

    I’ve seen and helped people deal with the same rip off type immigration consultants here in NZ. A overcrowded house, is somthing which is also common in Auckland. In all, this is somthing which could have been written about life here. The charging of health care, and the extortion process to get people to pay.

    Funny how working peoples stories are virtually the same the world over. You’d think the elites and sycophants hated working people or somthing.

    https://libcom.org/blog/series-interviews-working-class-women-west-london-part-3-16032018

  10. I agree with Phil Goff’s views on the Auckland citys spending on waste water management spend now and save billions in the future . Councils and governments can lend money at a rate bellow the rate of inflation so it is logical to spend now and save in the long term save money the environment and wild life . heres a link to newsroom

    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/03/18/97308/phil-goffs-legacy-plan-clean-beaches

    ka kite ano

    • tracey 10.1

      He was in parliament for an awfully long time and an MP for Auckland…. has he just noticed how fucked up the sewer systems and waste water management is?

    • eco maori 10.2

      Kia ora Scotty Morrison from Tekarere bro may be you should have English subtitles so those of us who don”t have te reo mastered like you can learn te reo ka pai ka kite ano

      • eco maori 10.2.1

        Scotty positive branding is everything in marketing anything the problem is that OUR Maori Culture has had a negative branding campaign by the MSM that has damaged Maori culture over the last 150 years Eco Maori wants that to stop
        ka pai ka kite ano P.S Helen Clark stopped this phenomenon but when she lost the election the negative branding started up again

  11. adam 11

    This is a bit scary. If true, the democrats are looking more corporate/establishment not less. Working people get shafted again.

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html

  12. Philip Ferguson 12

    A hell of a lot happened in 1968, so this year is the 50th anniversary of a lot of important events. Some very positive, some negative, some horrendous.

    One of the most horrendous was the US massacre of Vietnamese civilians at My Lai on March 16, 1968.

    One of the best books about Vietnam is Nick Turse’s “Kill Anything That Moves: the real American war in Vietnam”.

    We put the introduction to the book up on Redline a few years back. Well worth reading.

    https://rdln.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/my-lai-and-the-real-american-war-in-vietnam/

  13. Philip Ferguson 13

    Articles about some other key events – from the Tet Offensive to the strike by women workers at the Ford car plant at Dagenham, which helped start the women’s liberation movement in Britain – are linked to here: https://rdln.wordpress.com/2018/02/14/1968-the-year-of-revolutions/

  14. Pat 14

    Well M.Hooton certainly earned his money this morning…….contract up for review?

    • Anne 14.1

      It was a shocking display. He deliberately re-arranged facts in order to produce an alternative to the truth. And Mike Williams didn’t do nearly enough to counter it although to be fair, its a difficult task when Hooton is allowed to shout over the top of his adversaries so they can’t be heard.

      At one point he claimed… Jacinda Ardern was putting on an act when she was asked about the Young Labour camp story. He maintained… of course she knew about it, and I think he might even have used the words “she’s lying”. That is a serious accusation to make on a public platform and I would think deserves a response. But my bet is he’ll be allowed to get away with it.

      To my knowledge, no-one in the media has mentioned the fact Jacinda Ardern was overseas when the incident came to light and had only just returned when it broke in the media. While she should have been told sooner, I expect that was a reason why it didn’t happen.

      • Brigid 14.1.1

        Mike Williams has never countered anything hoooooter says.
        He’s as useful as bike peddles on a fish.

        • adam 14.1.1.1

          +1

          Great comment Brigid.

          • mac1 14.1.1.1.1

            Williams did more than once say that Hooton was wrong.

            Hooton of course in the style of great dissemblers just repeated the lie.

            Mrs Mac1 thought that Williams did all right. People listening could judge for themselves who was lying or not.

            Then Hooton went on to push the alternate reality view that Ardern must have known about it, but did a pretty good job of feigning surprise when confronted by reporters on her return from overseas.

            People could then really see what was fiction.

  15. Tracey 15

    Anyone who doubts National are in campaign mode need to read this admission they “accidentally” emailed people who signed a ptition treating them like Nat Party members and asked them for donations.

    Classic Nat strategy. Do something dodgy. Gain the advantage then apologise. Repeat.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/352790/national-apologises-for-mass-database-sign-up

    • tracey 15.1

      Neither stuff nor herald online consider National Party major breach of privacy newsworthy…

    • Anne 15.2

      I was planning to drop that link in Daily Review.

      An up-to-date version of their former rort in the 1970s and probably the 80s. It was Nat. Party raffle tickets in those days. Anyone who bought one ended up on the membership list. Great way to acquire a healthy looking membership even though many of them never asked to be members and may have never known they were members.

    • mac1 15.3

      They can only do that trick once.

      If they rinse and repeat, then everyone with half a memory will know they’re dishonest.

  16. joe90 16

    Russian opposition figure and two time survivor of suspected poisoning attempts –

    Моего кандидата здесь нет, его убили. pic.twitter.com/vyrmfq847L— Vladimir Kara-Murza (@vkaramurza) March 18, 2018</blockquote

    google translate :

    Vladimir Kara-Murza
    @vkaramurza

    My candidate is not here, he was killed

    .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Vladimirovich_Kara-Murza

  17. Tekaea I say that site in Auckland that is before the courts for the devolepment of that whenua should be stopped as there will be a treasure trove of Maori historical artifacts and information in that whenua land. If it is developed this will be a opportunity lost to educate us about OUR tepuna and whenua it will be like England discovering historical artifacts in a hundred years time when high rise buildings are built that need deep foundations dug to reveal OUR maori historical artifacts in bits and pieces heres the link from News Room.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi647nNzPfZAhVGbrwKHYH8CQMQFghGMAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsroom.co.nz%2F2018%2F01%2F22%2F77058%2Fnew-life-in-fight-for-historic-auckland-land&usg=AOvVaw3ZJqkAycT7G7yM24ExNssl Kia kaha ka kite ano

    • eco maori 17.1

      Kia ora Mike from News Hub yes we need to band those fishing practices that kill and threaten the survival OUR precious native dolphins . I still admire Obama I just don’t like him associating with shonky he is a great man he backed a bright prosperous future for the Mokos i.e renewable energy and the Paris climate agreement .
      Ka kaha ka kite ano

      • eco maori 17.1.1

        News Hub I say that teachers and nurses should get a good pay rise the CEOs of these organizations should try and live on a nurses or teachers wage and see half go in rent and see if they can survive on that money these peoples jobs are just as important as the police so they should get paid fairly for there great work. The big picture is the nurses and teachers industry’s are lady dominated industry’s were as the police force is a male dominated industry and they get payed generously for a 40 hour week We have to start the journey to give equality for OUR ladys now keep up the good fight ladys . When my mokos get to the work force I would like to see a more equal society for all humans Kia kaha ka kite ano

        • eco maori 17.1.1.1

          The Project Wallis I seen your expression when you were interviewing Jonathan colman lol and then you have The naked Samoans David is a strait up Kiwi like you Wallis is Back benches going again good to see you getting air time Ka kite ano

          • eco maori 17.1.1.1.1

            Morning the AM Show I was studding Maori culture last nite I have found the same phenomenon there is a total change in the modem story’s from the story I have read on the subject and guess what the producer was called Bradley,
            IT is a nother form of Ngati Porous the facts being distorted manipulated to make my Tipuna look like they had no Mana my Tepuna won’t be happy .
            I will be changeing these lies some people could be making these unaware of what they are doing but some will know exactly whats going on some much for the thanks for what my Tipuna have done in shaping OUR society into the beautiful country we have today KIA KAHA ka kite ano P.S Duncan our Tipuna did not like swearing it bad Karma I stopped swearing on the standard an found this fact out later

  18. Jenny 18

    “Jacinda Ardern stuns climate campaigners, rocks up to accept 45,000 signature petition asking Govt to stop oil drilling”

    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has told those calling for an end to oil exploration in New Zealand that it’ll be “not long” before her government makes a decision.

    She received a 45,000-signature Greenpeace petition on parliament’s lawn on Monday asking the government to ban new oil drilling.

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/watch-jacinda-ardern-stuns-climate-campaigners-rocks-up-accept-45-000-signature-petition-asking-govt-stop-oil-drilling?auto=5753863955001

    Will Prime Minister Ardern listen to the scientists?

    “Ignoring Science at Our Peril”

    Ignore the warnings of scientists at your peril. That is a very valuable lesson our nation can learn from a horrific weather-related tragedy that befell London in 1952, bathing the city in toxic smog that claimed the lives of thousands of people. Had London acted as had been suggested after a nearly identical disaster struck Donora, Pa., four years earlier, many deaths could have been avoided.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/well/ignoring-science-at-our-peril.html?mc=adintl&mcid=keywee&mccr=intdesk&ad-keywords=IntlAudDev&kwp_0=726358

    Or, will the Prime Minister listen to loony tune Act leader David Seymour?

    ACT leader David Seymour said a ban would not only put 11,000 jobs at risk, but also come at the detriment of the environment.

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/watch-jacinda-ardern-stuns-climate-campaigners-rocks-up-accept-45-000-signature-petition-asking-govt-stop-oil-drilling?auto=5753863955001

    • cleangreen 18.1

      Most oil exploration jobs are foreign national jobs not kiwi local workers positions currently now so we are effectively “subsidising foreign workers now with the National Government 2015/17 grants given previously to big oi around the time of the oil conferences.

      “There seems to be trickery involved for the ‘jobs in oil exploration’. These large vessels for seismic surveys and the big rigs for test drilling all come from overseas and they are staffed by fly in flyout contractors.”

      We are being played by the “loss of regional jobs” boogie so heavily by Corporate big oil so heavily that even Jacinda said it in her “watered down wet bus ticket to big oil press ‘apologist’ response on TV1, news hub and RNZ today when asked “why don’t you commit to no more exploration now as the greenpeace asked in the petition”?????

      Jacinda; – you need to finally get serious and also wean yourself off oil now!!!!!; – as if you don’t – your child will not have a future so toughen up will you while you have the bloody chance before your Government crumbles, and then before hell breaks loose!!!!!.

      “The IPCC has concluded that to prevent irreparable environmental disaster emissions need to be capped so that temperature increases no more than 2 degrees celsius from pre industrial ages.”

  19. cleangreen 19

    GOOD FOR GREENPEACE WHILE ‘Jacinda ASKS FOR MORE TIME????????????

    There is no more time Jacinda.

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/petition-delivered-parliament-today-calling-end-oil-exploration

    Petition to be delivered to parliament today calling for end to oil exploration
    8:18am
    Share

    Source:
    NZN

    Environmental groups are to present a 45,000-signature petition to parliament calling for the end of oil exploration around New Zealand.

    Oil exploration vessel.
    Source: 1 NEWS
    The petition will be handed to Energy and Resources Minister Megan Woods at midday on Monday.
    Greenpeace says Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was widely praised for stating before the election that climate change is the nuclear-free moment of her generation but her words must be turned into action.
    “The world can’t afford to burn even existing fossil fuel reserves let alone seek out new oil and gas if we want to avoid catastrophic warming,” said Greenpeace climate campaigner Kate Simcock.

  20. News Hub transport is vital for our small regions as vital as our blood vessels are to us take any mode of transport from a region is like cutting the blood supply to ones hand eventually one hand would fall off . I am still amazed that we let rail get so bad . I have my theory and guess whos on Air New Zealand’s board shonky still carrying on with the task he was original given while he was you know what.
    Ka pai Shane Jones don’t let OUR te tangata be starved of a vital service that is needed for prosperity.
    There you go the internet used for cheating the 99.9 % of Democracy I had a debate with a person on the power of computers and the internet has over some people .
    The corrupt people have know about subliminal messaging for centurys they have used this to undermine native cultures . And this is the reason I have a beef with people using the word crack in any sentence .
    Mike I’m quite glade that I only got educated till I was 9 years old . If not than I would have the same view as a lot of people have on OUR Tipuna as the people that were educated by New Zealand Schools about Ngati Porous Tipuna and there great role they played in establishing OUR Aotearo New Zealand wonderful SOCIETY . The storys are totally different to that that is told in these GREAT Old STATES MEN autobiography ECO MAORI is going to change these farcical storys that are being feed to te mokopunas . Kia Kaha Ka kite ano

  21. Sceptical Honi 21

    Name a government agency in which the vast majority of staff have zero knowledge (other than heresay) of the legislation under which the Agency provides services to the public.
    Hint the agency and its respective Ministry provides aid to more than half the population, many of whom are considered to be our most vulnerable.
    As a “social” Ministry it’s staff are beholden to many Acts, and regulations, the least of which are the Privacy, and the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 neither of which are well known to staff either (excepting a few specialist professional staff who have responsibility for child welfare.)

    Is it proper for a majority of Ministry staff to have zero knowledge of the legislation?
    The Ministry does have an open line for staff to seek legal advice before making decisions. But how can that work effectively if the staff member lacks the base knowledge to properly frame the question?
    Many of the Ministries staff have no decision making authority, nor access to that legal advice because they work in call centres and are solely tasked with giving advice to, and taking information from clients. Never mind the fact they do not have any knowledge to impart, or the English language skills necessary to obtain or impart useful or accurate advice.
    Have you figured it out yet? Another hint, this Ministry serves both our youngest and our oldest citizens, amongst others.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts