Open mike 19/09/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, September 19th, 2012 - 137 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 link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

137 comments on “Open mike 19/09/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Chris 1
    19 September 2012 at 7:29 am

    I do hope that this pantomime of the two johns keeps on going. They are the joke that just keeps n on giving. I just need to listen to either of them with their rehearsed patter to start my day off with a really good laugh.They are hilarious.Surely they can’t POSSIBLY BELIEVE that the people of NZ are actually BELIEVING anything that comes out of their mouths.Smirk away key,you just look like an uneducated simpleton and your sidekick just looks like a sad little man.

    • RedLogix 1.1
      19 September 2012 at 7:43 am

      Surely they can’t POSSIBLY BELIEVE that the people of NZ are actually BELIEVING anything that comes out of their mouths.

      The crucial point is that the mayoral electoral expense thing is not fatal. (Unless of course Key is covering up for the possibility of him being involved with Dotcom as well … same electorate after all.)

      What is fatal is that they are lying about it. If you cannot trust a person in a little matter you cannot trust them in larger ones. Sure we all spin, and creatively manipulate the truth in order to present the best possible face on matters … but there is a line.

      Bald lies are over the line. Our PM is now a proven liar and NOTHING he now says has credibility. This is the fatal problem.

      • ak 1.1.1
        19 September 2012 at 8:31 am

        Spot on Red. Even the most ardent silver-spoon tory knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is utterly inconceivable that Key hasn’t read the report. They know with absolute certainty that he’s lying.

        It’s BLIAR all over again. Two esteemed right-wing leaders caught red-handed and refusing to budge.

        The difference this time is that they genuinely thought he was different. The golden messiah, blessed by God with money and a refreshing honesty. The anti-politician money-trader from heaven who would pave our driveways with gold.

        Now a spoiled, stubborn brat, insisting to a stunned public that the dog ate his homework.

        Tipping point. Now JOHNNY LIAR forever.

      • Duncan Brown 1.1.2
        19 September 2012 at 9:25 am

        Totally agree Red. “Forgetting” the chopper ride tipped the balance on this one. I don’t expect MPs to be flawless, but I do expect them to be honest about their mistakes. Maybe it would help if fellow MPs, bloggers, the media and Joe Public were gracious enough to let them, instead of dragging up decade-old errors which, if dealt with properly in the past, need to be left there.

        • BernyD 1.1.2.1
          19 September 2012 at 9:29 am

          You can only leave their actions in the past if the person in question has changed their behaviour.
          If justice is served people would leave them alone.
          If they continue to live in denial then we have to keep them honest.

          • Duncan Brown 1.1.2.1.1
            19 September 2012 at 9:40 am

            Agreed, Banks currently faces the music of his own making, and I wish he’d just front up. My qualifier was, that IF is stuff dealt with properly in the past, it needs to be left there. We don’t always see that happen, which is unfortunate. A lot of good people would find it difficult to get into politics cos whole research departments are set up to drag through their past.

        • Professor Longhair 1.1.2.2
          19 September 2012 at 9:56 am

          “…but I do expect them to be honest about their mistakes.”

          Banks’s actions were not “mistakes”. He consciously, deliberately, cynically broke the law, and he has continued to lie about it.

      • Professor Longhair 1.1.3
        19 September 2012 at 9:50 am

        “If you cannot trust a person in a little matter…”

        Repeatedly telling lies about massive financial donations is not “a little matter.”

  2. Bill 2
    19 September 2012 at 7:39 am

    I recently heard from someone who had travelled through Spain that there was a certain tension in the air – a sense of deep discontent.

    And this morning I just read that more than 25% of the entire population of Catalonia took to the streets to demand independence. I’d call that major, no?

    http://www.zcommunications.org/farewell-spain-catalan-independence-march-sends-shockwave-by-dick-nichols

    • Colonial Viper 2.1
      19 September 2012 at 8:18 am

      There has been an ever present movement for independence from Spain in Catalonia. The difference now is the horrific mismanagement of the economy and financial crisis coming out of Madrid. We’re used to the sight of dictatorships in the developing world turning out soldiers to keep civil unrest under control. Chances are in the next year or three, the western world is going to find that it is still developing after all.

      • tc 2.1.1
        19 September 2012 at 8:46 am

        Another reason why Barca V Real Madrid matches are so tetchy (besides Madrid’s abrasive manager) as Real madrid represent royalty and playing the catalan giants is seen as freedom V being ruled over by many catalonians.

  3. Griff 3
    19 September 2012 at 8:29 am

    The Declaration of Equality
    Target: 50000
    Number of people who have signed: 17897
    http://www.nzcpr.com/petition_EqualRights.php
    We, New Zealanders, having founded our society in the equality of comradeship, and living here at home in the land we have made, utterly oppose any laws which establish or promote racial distinction or division.

    There shall be one law for all:

    We refuse to accept any reference to the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles in any constitutional document.
    We require that such references be removed from all existing legislation.
    We require that race-based Parliamentary seats be abolished.
    We require that race-based representation on local bodies be abolished.
    We require that the Waitangi Tribunal, which has outlived any usefulness it may have had, be abolished.

    And we pledge ourselves to oppose and resist all those of whatever rank or degree who, whether by force or the devious processes of the law, attempt to impose the fetters of racial inequality on the free citizens of New Zealand.
    The Declaration

    The Government’s constitutional review provides an opportunity to usher in a new era of democracy for New Zealand based on equality under the law.

    Help us create a movement for change by signing the DECLARATION OF EQUALITY and calling on others to do the same. Our initial target is 20,000 signatures, but we hope to build to 50,000, 100,000 and more. We will deliver the Declaration to Government Ministers in September next year to coincide with the report back from the Maori Party’s Constitutional Advisory Panel. We will keep you informed of progress…

    • tc 3.1
      19 September 2012 at 8:50 am

      my my you Act people do like rewriting the rules to suit your self interests.

    • Ben 3.2
      19 September 2012 at 9:04 am

      I accidentally posted a reply to this comment in the wrong place, oops:
      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-19092012/comment-page-1/#comment-523072

    • vto 3.3
      19 September 2012 at 9:07 am

      Don’t know about your detail there griff but with you on the equality thing re increasing maori governance etc. Many early New Zealand settlers escaped birthright privilege and oppression in their homelands. They had experienced centuries of oppression and inequality and wanted to create a place where those evil strictures were absent.

      Unfortunately those evil strictures are returning. In this mornings paper there was an article about one of the first new buildings being proposed in the Chch CBD. It requires consent from three commissioners – one from Cera, one from the Council and one from Ngai Tahu. What is the one from Ngai Tahu doing there? Are we subject to governance by unelected, race-based birthright privileged bastards as we were in our past? If so then they can get fucked. This system has no place in NZ.

      If the treaty provides for these things then the treaty is an ass.

      unelected

      race-based

      birthright privilege

      New Zealand is getting stinkier by the day

      • marty mars 3.3.1
        19 September 2012 at 9:18 am

        sign the petition then

        your views are the opposite of what this country needs

        “unelected, race-based birthright privileged bastards ” = sad little vto

        • RedLogix 3.3.1.1
          19 September 2012 at 9:32 am

          Yes marty. After all why should the Nga Tahu iwi have to kowtow to a couple of colonialist squatters types?

          After all Nga Tahu are the legitimate owners of the entire South Is are they not?

          • marty mars 3.3.1.1.1
            19 September 2012 at 9:45 am

            Is that what the Waitangi Tribunal said red?

            • RedLogix 3.3.1.1.1.1
              19 September 2012 at 9:49 am

              I understood that was what the Maori version of the ToW says. That the iwi chiefs never ceded any of their sovereignty over their lands, peoples and treasures. No if’s no buts.

              For Nga Tahu I understood that is pretty much the whole South Is.

              After all this is why no NZ govt will contemplate allowing a case to go to any International Court of any sort … because they know that the NZ Crown be shown to have no written legitimacy would lose the case.

              • marty mars …
                19 September 2012 at 9:55 am

                Not sure what your point is red.

                I believe in tino rangatiratanga so you already know what I think.

                Why not just say what you want to say you know you want to say it.

                • RedLogix …
                  19 September 2012 at 9:58 am

                  So which entity do you believe is sovereign in this land?

                  • marty mars …
                    19 September 2012 at 10:04 am

                    I can work with an equal partnership between Māori and the Crown but that would need to be real not the imagined equality we have now. Until then the country is doomed because the foundations are crooked and built on inequality.

                    • vto …
                      19 September 2012 at 10:12 am

                      “I can work with an equal partnership between Māori and the Crown ”

                      Marty, I think most people understand how that comes about under the Treaty etc, and that is all well and good – under the cocoon of the Treaty with all its warts and limitations.

                      But what you imply in the quoted bit above is that you would expect all NZers to be subject to that joint partnership. This is exactly in line with my main point – New Zealanders are then subject to the authority of an unelected, race-based (or treaty-based, take your pick) birthright privilege. Do you not see that this strikes at the very heart of representative democracy? Do you understand how and why this system of democracy has come about and what it tried to escape and then achieve? If so, how does this fit inside your views? And, where it doesn’t fit inside your views, how would you attend to the distortions and their effects?

                    • marty mars …
                      19 September 2012 at 10:27 am

                      It’s a funny thing vto but the limitations of the Treaty all disadvantage Māori, not the other way round.

                      If some people move to a country and then impose their worldview on the people living there and they do it all because they are trying to create utopia or a better life for their children – they are wrong and illicit no matter how much they pray to their god.

                      When the people displaced, as described above, then assert their right to live their lives based on their beliefs and values, the people who have gained advantage from the imposed system argue that the assertion of those rights is detrimental to the established society. What they mean is that it affects, or more rightly potentially affects, their advantage.

                      That is what I believe vto.

                    • vto …
                      19 September 2012 at 10:34 am

                      I understand that and it makes sense within the circumstances of migration and colonisation. However, it doesn;t make sense in a bigger view, which is what I refer to – hence my point about representative democracy and its aims and settings. Your belief, I believe, is too small for today’s world and you are pushing that belief out into areas that it can’t operate in. Perhaps your belief needs expanding to accomodate other factors present in the human condition.

                    • Rusty Hellback …
                      19 September 2012 at 10:37 am

                      innit marty!

                    • RedLogix …
                      19 September 2012 at 10:40 am

                      Yes I think vto and I agree that the military, economic and political dominance of the colonial settlers worked very much against the interests of the real owners of this country. No need to re-litigate all of that yet again right now.

                      What vto and I are thinking about is the future. You are supporting the idea of two equal sovereign entities in this country working in partnership. What I’m asking is for some details. Especially for how to proceed when the two parties do not agree.

                      For instance one sovereign right now thinks it can sell power stations and their rights to use water. The other sovereign thinks that it is the sole owner of those water rights. Spot the problem?

                      Would it not just be easier to have only one sovereign entity like every other nation on earth? And logically is that not the iwi’s?

                    • marty mars …
                      19 September 2012 at 11:30 am

                      Thanks vto but I’m pretty sure equality is a belief that encompasses a pretty wide area and is applicable today.

                    • vto …
                      19 September 2012 at 11:33 am

                      So your suggestion is sort out the current problems first.. That makes some sense. But the problem in going down this path is that in putting things equal, or right under the Treaty, it is beginning to create very large issues that will be problems when it comes to that future. For example, in putting things right under the treaty a co-governance approach is developing and that co-governance, by an unelected group, strikes right at the heart of the way the future should be developed i.e. equality for all.

                      The way in which the wrongs of the past are being attended to is creating wrongs for the future.

                      edit: oops, meant to be in reply to 11.14 comment below

                    • weka …
                      19 September 2012 at 1:47 pm

                      But the problem in going down this path is that in putting things equal, or right under the Treaty, it is beginning to create very large issues that will be problems when it comes to that future.

                      It’s not beginning to create issues. The issues have been there all along. It’s just that Pakeha now have to come to grips with those issues. Maori have been carrying more than their fair share for the last century and a half.

                      For example, in putting things right under the treaty a co-governance approach is developing and that co-governance, by an unelected group, strikes right at the heart of the way the future should be developed i.e. equality for all.

                      Iwi are not unelected, please stop saying that. They might not be elected by you, but they are elected and have legitmate forms of governance.

                      I cannot see how we can have equality for all if Maori are expected to give up their sovereignty.

                       

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      19 September 2012 at 1:52 pm

                      To get what you want we would have to turn NZ from being a single state to being many states and those states would be separated both through geography and race. NZ is far too small and interconnected to be able to do that.

                  • marty mars …
                    19 September 2012 at 11:14 am

                    Using knowledge of the past can help us with current and future issues. In fact i’ve just finished an essay on that topic but that was relating to reducing reoffending rates of Māori through re-enculturalisation.

                    Both of you are trying to run before we walk. Until we get equality we will have to fight the battles within the system and often those battle align with other inequalities.

                    Our imposed system chooses to believe it can have only one sovereign but we could change that really easily. Until then we get on with the job of challenging each and every inequality we come across. That is forward looking and that is working from what we have got not a hypothetic what if.

              • weka …
                19 September 2012 at 1:23 pm

                Ngai Tahu sold land in the 1800s, under British law. 

                The idea that Ngai Tahu own the South Island is a Pakeha idea.

                Kai Tahu aren’t the only iwi in the South Island. Other iwi exist within the area sometimes considered as Kai Tahu’s. 

                Edit: that was in response to RedLogix,

                “I understood that was what the Maori version of the ToW says. That the iwi chiefs never ceded any of their sovereignty over their lands, peoples and treasures. No if’s no buts.

                For Nga Tahu I understood that is pretty much the whole South Is.

                After all this is why no NZ govt will contemplate allowing a case to go to any International Court of any sort … because they know that the NZ Crown be shown to have no written legitimacy would lose the case.”

        • vto 3.3.1.2
          19 September 2012 at 9:37 am

          Three sentences there marty. Barren empty sentences. Nothing. But then again, you never outline reasons for any of your strange positions, you just shout an empty pithy slogan and attach some kiddy abuse.

          • marty mars 3.3.1.2.1
            19 September 2012 at 9:50 am

            my sentences were indeed pithy and I have not abused you. Your views are not the views with any future in this country – that’s all I’m saying.

            • vto 3.3.1.2.1.1
              19 September 2012 at 9:56 am

              Let me tell what this country does not need and that is race-based, unelected, birthright privilege.

              We had it before and maori didn’t like it, yet here they are acting to restore it again. It is your views that are unwelcome in New Zealand marty. They have been proven unsustainable and oppressionary in the past. Why would you think that you are somehow different this time?

              • marty mars …
                19 September 2012 at 10:09 am

                Your first sentence is a repeat of your original comment – umm I read it the first time.

                Equality vto – it is as complicated and as simple as that.

            • Dr Terry 3.3.1.2.1.2
              19 September 2012 at 4:19 pm

              That’s all you are “saying” mm ? What you are “showing” is pure grandiosity.

        • OneTrack 3.3.1.3
          19 September 2012 at 8:48 pm

          Yeah, we need different levels of citizenship in NZ. Where your rights are decided by whats in your blood and nothing else. We should have a sexy name for it though – how does apartheid sound?

      • Uturn 3.3.2
        19 September 2012 at 9:26 am

        “Many early New Zealand settlers escaped birthright privilege and oppression in their homelands. They had experienced centuries of oppression and inequality and wanted to create a place where those evil strictures were absent.”

        A somewhat rosey view of colonials. The idea that the oppressed want to go somewhere else to live a better life free from oppression is contradicted by the reality once they get where they’re going, which is (apart from being tricked back into worse conditions for some) that they themselves became the oppressors. A common problem, of misunderstanding basic human motivations. For many people it’s not that they hate power, it’s just that they don’t have any. Wanting the gains of civilised society without taking the risks necessary to get them locates people within a specific psychological sphere. Early settlers may not have been informed enough to realise it, but failing to label reality doesn’t make reality any less true.

        If you want to free people of oppression, I would have thought you would start with the greatest threat, which isn’t anything to do with Maori issues. At least you can understand the outrage that indigenous people feel.

        Maori, circa 1840: I’m tired of this unelected, race-based, birthright privilege! New Zealand is getting stinkier by the day!”

        VTO, 2012: “I’m tired of this unelected, race-based, birthright privilege! New Zealand is getting stinkier by the day!”

        • RedLogix 3.3.2.1
          19 September 2012 at 9:35 am

          Fast forward to 2112.

          And the millions of oppressed Chinese huddling under oppressive Indian colonial rule in “New Beijing” (aka New Zealand) … grumbling about how this place is “getting stinkier every day”.

        • vto 3.3.2.2
          19 September 2012 at 9:40 am

          Not a bad assessment uturn. You’re right in that the colonial period is somewhat more complex. In a broad sense however, the point made stands – unelected, race-based birthright privilege has no place in New Zealand.

          And this point of yours sums it up perfectly…

          “Maori, circa 1840: I’m tired of this unelected, race-based, birthright privilege! New Zealand is getting stinkier by the day!”

          VTO, 2012: “I’m tired of this unelected, race-based, birthright privilege! New Zealand is getting stinkier by the day!””

          say no more

          • Urban Rascal 3.3.2.2.1
            19 September 2012 at 11:28 am

            Interesting thread. I just started reading Ask the Mountain chronicling the Taranaki land wars & Parihaka. I’m only a chapter in but I find it interesting that in the years leading up to the conflict the Maori on all accounts seem to have been consistently playing by Colonial rules up until the colonials themselves began the descent to conflict.

            We converted them to christianity and then burnt their churches and bibles against everything we’d just taught them was holy. We barred them from New Plymouth unless they pledged allegiance to Queen Victoria and forsake their own culture, so they tolled the roads around the coast.

            From the very outset Maori have shown that they can best colonialism at it’s own games. We have set the rules through crown law and capitalist structures, yet now we thumb our nose at a people who, through a system imposed, have a legal right to challenge government and are.

            Change our capitalist structures is a better answer, because the Maori have shown time and time again that they are happy to work within the system. And that system is ,last time I checked, a colony of the Monarch who is an unelected, race-based birthright privilege.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.3.2.3
          19 September 2012 at 2:10 pm

          The idea that the oppressed want to go somewhere else to live a better life free from oppression is contradicted by the reality once they get where they’re going, which is (apart from being tricked back into worse conditions for some) that they themselves became the oppressors. A common problem, of misunderstanding basic human motivations.

          Although that is what happened I also think it was more a case of them putting in place structures that they were familiar with.

          If you want to free people of oppression, I would have thought you would start with the greatest threat, which isn’t anything to do with Maori issues.

          And what is, in your opinion, this greatest threat?

      • weka 3.3.3
        19 September 2012 at 9:42 am

        “Are we subject to governance by unelected, ”

         
        VTO, Ngai Tahu do run their society by elections. And you are not subject to governance by Kai Tahu. You are subject to governance by authorities who are expected to work alongside local iwi, as laid out by those authorities. The Crown signed the treaty remember. Would you like to undo the Crown’s authority to do that?

        “It requires consent from three commissioners – one from Cera, one from the Council and one from Ngai Tahu. What is the one from Ngai Tahu doing there?”

        Why don’t you do some actual research and come back and tell us why, specifically? There is an answer, but you’re avoiding that so that you can just play the race card.

        CERA, CCC, Ngai Tahu…. that you consider Ngai Tahu to be the one that is undermining your sovereignty speaks volumes.  

        • RedLogix 3.3.3.1
          19 September 2012 at 9:45 am

          that you consider Ngai Tahu to be the one that is undermining your sovereignty speaks volumes.

          OK weka … exactly who do you regard as YOUR sovereign?

          • weka 3.3.3.1.1
            19 September 2012 at 10:44 am

            That’s an interesting question Red. I will have to think about it. My first thoughts are that there are different kinds of sovereignty. There’s an obvious legal one to do with the crown and the queen, but I have other allegiances as well.

            I think this is a very important conversation to be having. 

        • vto 3.3.3.2
          19 September 2012 at 9:49 am

          weka, I actually don’t know the answer as to why Ngai Tahu are there, perhaps you could explain. All I know is that they are making governing decisions on the rebuilding of Chch.

          As for the rest of the hair-splitting, well the wig remains intact in spite of it. You claim they have elections and do not exercise authority over others, but that is clearly not the case. They do exercise authority over others through this ‘working alongside’. How can you not see that? Why are so many people turning a blind eye to these realities?

          • weka 3.3.3.2.1
            19 September 2012 at 10:41 am

            vto, if I lived in Chch I would certainly want to understand why Ngai Tahu is involved in that way, and I think it works better if you treat the question as non-rhetorical. I think it is up to you to find that out though, given the issue is yours (I don’t even know what building you are talking about, this is not my issue). I think if you engaged with that finding out, and with Ngai Tahu in an open way, you might find that interesting. Why not phone them up, or go visit them, and ask?

            At the most superficial level Ngai Tahu are involved in the rebuild because the local authorities recognise them as treaty partners. What that means in legal, ethical, social terms I don’t know, but I think the process of finding out is a crucial one for pakeha at this time. That we don’t know is to our discredit.

            I’m not hairsplitting. I’m teasing out detail that enables us to understand and think in more complex ways about a very complex situation. There are all sorts of people who have influence in the Chch rebuild, lots of them most definitely not elected. The crux of this is about how we share power, and who gets power and who doesn’t. Kai Tahu are one of the big players, and legitimately IMO. This is their land after all.

            I will say this, Kai Tahu are on the ascendant. They are becoming a force to be reckoned with. They are getting very good at playing pakeha at their own game, as well as solidifying their own culture. Best that we get on board with that, and engage with them as partners. They’re not going away. Even if the treaty was abolished, Ngai Tahu would still wield influence and power. If you are concerned about Kai Tahu influence then start supporting the parts of the iwi that are allied with your values system, in the same way that you might with pakeha society. 

            “They do exercise authority over others through this ‘working alongside’. How can you not see that? Why are so many people turning a blind eye to these realities?”

            Please give me some examples of how Ngai Tahu has authority. I’m not sure if we are talking about the same thing.

            In general, it’s not that I don’t see Ngai Tahu’s influence. It’s that I see it and think it is legitimate. (this doesn’t mean I agree with everything they do btw, but then I don’t agree with everything that councils or central govt do either).
             

            • weka 3.3.3.2.1.1
              19 September 2012 at 10:48 am

              Wanted to add…

              “At the most superficial level Ngai Tahu are involved in the rebuild because the local authorities recognise them as treaty partners. ”

              It’s likely that there are politics involved that I am largely unaware of. I think this is another case of Pakeha wanting to run society in a certain way and then getting upset when Maori get on board with that. I’m sure that Ngai Tahu are quite capable of playing the power game at that level as anyone else, and there may be things to be concerned about. But the thing that jumps out at me, again and again, is that Pakeha attempt to engage in debate about this without knowing even the basics of what is going on. We have to educate ourselves and the only way to do that is to learn from Maori. It’s up to us though.

              • vto …
                19 September 2012 at 11:10 am

                weka, I don’t disagree with a lot of what you say there. Fyi, interests take me to direct dealings with Ngai Tahu. I have experience with this authority thing and with being subject to an unelected cabal. I suggest that two separate things are being confused again – firstly, the Treaty with all its warts etc and honouring that; and secondly, the settings required for people to live contendly in these lands in the future. Those two things are entirely different but there is an assumption that one equals the other.

                I am also well aware of their current ascendancy, and that is fine. Rather locals than some foreign entity who doesn’t give a hoot.

                All I can do is repeat the original point which is that being subject to an unelected authority of any sort is inherently wrong and inconsistent with representative democracy. It will lead to failure. It ignores the reasons for that democracy developing and what it was trying to escape. Ignores it. Bit like Key sticking his head in the prophylactic and pretending it doesn’t exist.

                The fact that this unelected authority is also based on race and birthright simply makes that situation worse again.

                It is about the future. The Treaty has clear limits in what it can offer to that future.

                • weka …
                  19 September 2012 at 1:56 pm

                  All I can do is repeat the original point which is that being subject to an unelected authority of any sort is inherently wrong and inconsistent with representative democracy. It will lead to failure. It ignores the reasons for that democracy developing and what it was trying to escape. Ignores it.

                  I don’t consider Ngai Tahu to be an undemocratic body. They are treaty partners, and are operating within the dominant culture’s values that you espouse. I think you just don’t like sharing power. I also think that there is probably little useful discussion to be had if you view NT as an ‘unelected cabal’, when patently they hold elections, and they’re not a secret political faction. That you view them as that will always limit your capacity to move into a positive future with them.

                  btw, Maori (and many other cultures in the world) managed themselves successfully without democracy. Let us at least be honest that when you talk about the reasons for democracy and what it was trying to escape, you are talking about a specific set of cultures at a specific time in history, not a universality for all humans. 

                  • vto …
                    19 September 2012 at 2:24 pm

                    Weka, in the context I am talking about, namely being subject to another authority, it is absolutely not electable. Non-members of Ngai Tahu do not get to vote so there is no accountability and no democracy. Your suggestion is like suggesting that peerage in the House of Lords is democratic. It’s nothing of the sort. I think that, like many others, the straws are being clutched at to decipher support for a predetermined position.

                    And I also understand that many most cultures have managed quite well without democracy. But that is the framework we currently sit under. If we want to asssess another framework then that is another separate question.

                    • weka …
                      19 September 2012 at 3:06 pm

                      Our current framework includes Te Tiriti. As such it includes the system we inherited from the British and it includes the systems we inherited from te ao Maori. You seem to want to remove only one side.

                      If we honour the treaty, then Maori are entitled to govern themselves alongside the Crown. If that had happened in the 1800s I don’t know what our society would look like today (interesting thought experiment). But instead we have a system that has evolved that tries to redress some of the wrongs, including the fact that NT have been denied access to their resources for all that time. I disagree with RL that the redress is about handing back all resources and letting NT govern. I think it’s about sharing equitably.

                      One way of doing that (instead of giving back stolen land) is for Ngai Tahu to be involved at levels where decisions are made about management of collective resources. In terms of Chch, you have the CCC and Ngai Tahu (let’s leave CERA out of it for now). Residents of Chch elect CCC, members of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu elect their representatives. They then work in partnership. Maori get two votes I guess, but given how the odds have been stacked against them, and still are, I personally don’t have a problem with that. We’re not talking about equal slices of the pie, we’re talking about who needs nutrients and who is overfed. It’s about what is fair, and what is necessary.

                      At some point in the future, that will no doubt change. Maybe we end up with truly equal partnership. But in the meantime, what’s the problem?

                      As far as I can tell, you just want the treaty to be gone. This means that you don’t believe that Maori and non- Maori should be in partnership, and that means that Maori will be expected to assimilate into the dominant culture (they can keep their cultural pretties, but they are not allowed power).

                      I don’t think the House of Lords comparison is valid. You’re just trying to point out that whakapapa is exclusive*. But what you are missing is that (a) we have two, valid systems side by side, and (b) there are useful things in terms of governance about the tribal system that we would lose if it was rendered invalid.

                      *and it is only exclusive if you don’t belong to a tribal society that shares resources in that way.

                      I’m curious, what are your thoughts about the Tuhoe settlement?
                       

                    • vto …
                      19 September 2012 at 3:18 pm

                      Sorry weka, aint got much time for a decent answer (you weren’t the weka caught running off with one of my mates chook eggs the other day per chance?)

                      The model you outline imo is not sustainable. The reason is the very first one outlined. It is unelected (by the majority of people on one side only). It is based on birthright and race. These things cause resentment. Resentment leads to anger. Anger leads to hatred and then it is all over.

                      Look, I understand completely the Treaty concepts etc and how it foresaw partnership in the maori version etc etc. That has all been well and truly debated etc. And that is what is being attended to now – those rights and wrongs.

                      But my view stems from a base concpt of fairness and equality. Such a system as you propose fails thoses tests and will not stand the test of time, imo. It sets up divisions within society. It sets up resentment. It means some are in a position to lord it over others who have no control over the lorders. It has a faulty foundation. History has generally shown this to be the case and I cannot understand why so many are hell bent on going down the same pathway again.

                      There are surely problems in meshing the Treaty with equality but that is no reason to give in. There will be a solution. Time will probably the provider of that solution.

                    • weka …
                      19 September 2012 at 4:28 pm

                      “you weren’t the weka caught running off with one of my mates chook eggs the other day per chance?”

                      I couldn’t possibly say ;-p

                      I disagree about the resentment and the anger. We watched that when the first settlements were being negotiated and settled. IMO most of that shifted over time, largely due to Pakeha becoming more informed about what the actual issues are. So, we already know that we can  not only survive resentment and anger but that we can move on to something more constructive.

                      Secondly, much of the resentment and anger that people feel is misplaced IMO. It comes from people who are increasingly disenfranchised from their own culture. And it gets misdirected and fed by the MSM and evil bastards like Ansell using the tools of the mainstream to bash Maori. Both those things (loss of value within one’s own culture, and the acceptance of targeting Maori unfairly and unjustly) are things that we are going to have to resist and change anyway.

                      The other thing to consider is that within the next couple of generations, Pakeha will be outnumbered by non-Pakeha, Polynesians in particular (Maori, Pacifica). What do you think will happen to their anger at that point if we spend the next 50 years trying to subsume them into the dominant culture?

                       
                      “But my view stems from a base concpt of fairness and equality”

                      I disagree. I think you have some abstract ideas about those things from within your own cultural ideas, but they don’t work in the world we live in because they don’t extend to Maori. I might be wrong, so please do tell me how you see the place of Maori in NZ in the future if things were to go the way you suggest (in a later conversation if you don’t get back to it today).

                  • OneTrack …
                    19 September 2012 at 8:51 pm

                    Who voted for the Ngai Tahu leaders? Or is that passed down from father to son? When do the daughters get a go?

            • RedLogix 3.3.3.2.1.2
              19 September 2012 at 10:54 am

              This is their land after all.

              Which is my assertion too. Logically Nga Tahu are the owners and sovereign of the entire South Is and should be making ALL the decisions about it. Why should they be sharing their property and authority with anyone?

              Either it is their land or it is not? Or are we talking about something less cut and dried? ‘Owned’ and ‘not owned’ at the same time?

              • marty mars …
                19 September 2012 at 11:23 am

                answer straight – are you being ironic or sarcastic or do you believe it? The reason I ask is that this view of yours seems different from your previous views that I have read and I’ve been treating the repeated sentence that way so far.

                • RedLogix …
                  19 September 2012 at 11:37 am

                  No I’ve changed my mind. Like it or not the ToW is quite clear, that the iwi chief’s never ceded tino rangatiratanga. This is reinforced by the fact that the Maori version of the Treaty takes precedence. All this you know because you have been telling us this for years.

                  So like it or not we now have to take this position to its proper conclusion and determine that the iwi chiefs are indeed the proper owners and sovereigns in this land.

                  A conclusion that of course has more than a few logical consequences. Ones that are worth exploring I would have thought.

                  • marty mars …
                    19 September 2012 at 11:49 am

                    Thanks red.

                    I’m interested in your thoughts on the way forward.

                    One area that is interesting is that traditionally during times of conflict Māori would work together under iwi or waka groupings and within those groupings the mana of each rangatira was maintained. That same principle could build a pan-Māori grouping focused on the Māori Nation. It is a tough issue for Māoridom in some ways – ensuring mana is maintained and strengthened for all.

                    • RedLogix …
                      19 September 2012 at 12:16 pm

                      Well one way forward is to abolish the illegitimate Crown entity, disestablish New Zealand as a country and return to each iwi it’s legitimate territory that can be governed by the chiefs as their own nation. This is the solution supported by a simple and direct reading to the Treaty, made worse because the white settler government in their hubris and rush to exploit the country, failed to do their paperwork properly … and never established a written Constitution to cover their arses.

                      By tradition Maori have been proven to be generous hosts so I’m assuming that if any non-Maori are happy to pay a proper rent then they will be welcome to stay.

                      And if you think I’m being silly here, then what for example is the Maori view on Tuhoe having regained effective sovereignty over their land? I have to guess that most other iwi will unwilling to settle for less themselves?

                      But I’m guessing that there would be some practical difficulties with such an arrangement. Certainly I’d not be personally offering to explain the new regime to Federated Farmers.

                      Any alternate path is going to involve an ongoing tension between two competing/parallel sovereigns with two differing world views. Either that is a process that slowly converges over time … or not.

                    • weka …
                      19 September 2012 at 2:01 pm

                      I don’t believe that Pakeha have to give away their sovereignty. Am happy to look at what the Crown is and whether it’s still useful. And the idea of devolving to regional autonomy appeals, we should be doing this anyway with the coming of peak oil and CC. 

              • weka …
                19 September 2012 at 1:40 pm

                “This is their land after all.”
                Which is my assertion too. Logically Nga Tahu are the owners and sovereign of the entire South Is and should be making ALL the decisions about it. Why should they be sharing their property and authority with anyone?
                Either it is their land or it is not? Or are we talking about something less cut and dried? ‘Owned’ and ‘not owned’ at the same time?

                It’s the latter IMO. Kai Tahu sold some land. Some was stolen. Some falls inbetween. The British forced Maori into a form of land ownership that meant that individuals could sell land,  instead of that being an iwi/hapu decision. Other iwi existed here as well as Kai Tahu. Lots of complexities.

                Afaik Kai Tahu like other Maori were pragmatic, they could see that the British weren’t going to go away. They could see there were benefits to having the British here. And benefits to having a treaty. 

                When I said the land is theirs, I meant they belong to the land and have that historical relationship around things like mana whenua, ahi kaa, kaitiaki. I didn’t mean they are the legal owners under Pakeha law, although obviously they do own some land in that sense. The big difficulty in these conversations is the word ‘own’.

                To what extent the Ngai Tahu settlement was fair and reasonable, I don’t know. I know that they lost land in the 1800s that was rightfully theirs to live on, manage, be a part of, and that has never really been addressed. I also think they made very smart decisions around the settlement in terms of accessing resources within the Pakeha world that would allow them to move on. I don’t consider the settlement to be an end point, it’s a starting point.

                So, “Either it is their land or it is not? ” is the wrong question. 

          • muzza 3.3.3.2.2
            19 September 2012 at 10:56 am

            VTO – The questions you ask are too difficult for most to wrap their head around, it simply implies regardless of which “ethnicity” people identify with, they are being ruled over, and have little to no control or say in it!

            WTF is “The Crown” anyway – Good luck finding the way to the bottom of that lie.

            We are all being ruled over by entities which are used to keep control of power over resources, whatever those resources might be.

            Democracy does not exist, we see evidence of it on a daily basis.

    • BernyD 3.4
      19 September 2012 at 9:11 am

      Why not just add all religions/political ideals in, you want equality after all.
      The heading should be “Anarchy in NZ”, sign the petition and say “Get F*cked too every one elses opinion.”

    • weka 3.5
      19 September 2012 at 9:19 am

      Out of curiosity, how could the treaty be made null and void? Is there international law that protects it? National law? I’m guessing that trying to eliminate the treaty would be extremely difficult.

      • BernyD 3.5.1
        19 September 2012 at 9:21 am

        Considering it was a civilised answer too war, I’d say the Maori voice will always be heard.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.5.2
        19 September 2012 at 3:18 pm

        Out of curiosity, how could the treaty be made null and void?

        By discussion and writing of a constitution that replaced Te Tiriti. Such a constitution would have to have the removal of multiple sovereignties as it’s absolute minimum with sovereignty then being held by the people of NZ/Aotearoa rather than “the Crown” or other artificial entity.

    • Jokerman 3.6
      19 September 2012 at 11:08 am

      dribble….or drivel?
      btw, i concur with Margaret Mutu re rationalization re-colonisation

    • Murray Olsen 3.7
      19 September 2012 at 4:35 pm

      Griff, I’ll believe that you bigots really believe in one law for all when you start pushing for Banks to be kicked out of Parliament. Until then, if you don’t like living in a country which has Te Tiriti as its founding document and basis of legitimacy, feel free to leave. The society that you want is one of privilege, not comradeship.

  4. Carol 4
    19 September 2012 at 8:43 am

    Today is Women’s Suffrage Day. Some people are tweeting with hashtag #suffrageday

    Sue Moroney asks people to use the hashtag: #wwkst (What would Kate Sheppard Think?)

    http://blog.labour.org.nz/2012/09/18/what-would-kate-sheppard-think-2/

    Kate Sheppard fought for New Zealand women’s political and economic independence and thanks to her more than five generations of women have now been able to influence decision-making through their vote.

    There are things that we have achieved that I think would make her smile, like Marriage property laws, Equal Pay laws, the election of the first woman, Elizabeth McCoombs to Parliament and many more including Mabel Howard as the first female cabinet minister, and our female Prime Ministers Jenny Shipley and Helen Clark.

    But there are some things that I think would make her frown. What would she think about female accountants being paid 30% less on average than their male counterparts in 2012? Or about the National Council of Women, which she founded, supporting the removal of working women’s rights in the first 90 days of employment? What would she think about the fact just 6% of private company boards having female directors; or that just 32.5% of our House of Representatives are female, when women make up 51% of the population?

    http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/timeline/19/09

    Today in History:

    1893 Women’s suffrage day

    Governor Lord Glasgow signed a new Electoral Act into law, making New Zealand the first self-governing country in the world to grant all women the right to vote in parliamentary elections. more…

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/Features/2/5/1/00NZPHomeNews201209181-Suffrage-Day-celebrates-women-s-right-to-vote.htm

    This was followed by legislation in 1919 enabling women to stand for Parliament. Elizabeth McCombs was the first woman elected as a member of Parliament in 1933.

  5. Ben 5
    19 September 2012 at 8:45 am

    Mmmmm….nah.

    Also, has anyone pointed out that there’s more to fighting for “equality” than bashing the Treaty?

    Your post makes no mention of actual equality issues: No mention of equal pay for women, or equal right for ALL parents regardless of work status, or equal rights for LGBT citizens.

    Sounds to me like your petition is all about abdicating treaty responsibilities and absolutely nothing about equality.

    Might be time to call a spade a spade, eh?

    • Carol 5.1
      19 September 2012 at 8:53 am

      Ah, Ben, I thought for a minute you were replying to my comment on Women’s Suffrage Day.

      But, on reflection, I see you are replying to Griff @8.29am

      And I agree with you, Ben, not with Griff.

      Especially agree with this:

      Sounds to me like your petition is all about abdicating treaty responsibilities and absolutely nothing about equality.

    • marsman 5.2
      19 September 2012 at 8:55 am

      Ben. Presumably your reply is to Griff. Use the ‘reply’ button beneath his post or use his name so there is no confusion. I agree with your comment by the way.

      • Ben 5.2.1
        19 September 2012 at 9:03 am

        Oops – I actually thought I had hit reply. Perhaps posting from the bus on the smartphone isn’t the best bet!!

        Yes, my reply was to Griff. Sorry for confusion.

    • weka 5.3
      19 September 2012 at 9:21 am

      “Might be time to call a spade a spade, eh?”

      Might be time to call a rich white bloke a rich white bloke:

      http://www.nzcpr.com/ConstitutionalReviewABOUT.htm

    • Murray Olsen 5.4
      19 September 2012 at 4:54 pm

      Exactly Ben. That petition and their review is all about removing any remaining limits to rich white privilege. At a point in history when Maori might be gracious enough to save state assets for all of us, I am deeply disturbed that some here, on a “left” which has spectacularly failed to do this, are turning against Te Tiriti. When Brownlee removes democracy from Canterbury and “lefties” see Ngai Tahu as the problem, something is very, very wrong.

  6. marty mars 6
    19 September 2012 at 9:11 am

    So key is doing gagagags as well as the fake hui and it’s all for the court case to come.

    “Prime Minister John Key says a decision by some Tainui iwi to boycott the Government’s water consultation hui strengthens the Government’s legal position should the matter end up in court.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7692845/Water-hui-boycott-strengthens-Governments-position-Key

    “On his way into caucus at Parliament this morning he was asked about the unity around the water issue at the national hui last week called by King Tuheitia.

    He suggested that from the media reports he had seen there wasn’t unity.

    “There are kind of more positions than Lady Gaga’s got outfits.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/maori/news/article.cfm?c_id=252&objectid=10834827&ref=rss

    Deliberate and it will fail, as I have said on my post

    His deliberate ignorance is not an advantage it is a weakness and the more he speaks, the more that weakness is revealed. He thinks he is smarter than he really is – but he isn’t.

    http://mars2earth.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/undo-gag.html

    • weka 6.1
      19 September 2012 at 9:51 am

      Thanks Marty.

      From one of your blog links:

      Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson said…

      “These are our views, prove us wrong if you want to. That’s what consultation is about.”

      I despair sometimes. The cultural ignorance in his statement, for all cultures involved, is profound.

    • Carol 6.2
      19 September 2012 at 10:00 am

      Thanks, marty. Well said – Key is arguing from a weak position and exposing his manipulations.

      Also this press release out in the last half hour from Mana:

      http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1209/S00281/no-consultation-no-deal.htm

      “On behalf of the 1200 who attended the hui called by the King last week to discuss Maori water rights and voted unanimously to ask the government to put a halt to its asset sales programme, and on behalf of the tens of thousands of Maori who have already expressed their opposition to the government’s asset sales programme, I wish to thank the people of Tainui for their refusal to buy into National’s ‘consultation’ proposals” said MANA leader and MP for Te Tai Tokerau, Hone Harawira.
      …
      “Yesterday the Prime Minister stated his government’s position” said Harawira. “They will not consult with Maori; they are simply calling hui so that when this case goes to court they can say they ‘acted in good faith’”.

      “Furthermore, government is only meeting with those iwi leaders whose people hold mana whenua across those waterways critical to the government’s asset sales programme. Tainui’s response has been clear and admirable – no consultation, no deal – a position MANA wholeheartedly supports”.

      “The clear challenge now lays with those iwi leaders from Tuwharetoa and Te Arawa”.

    • Treetop 6.3
      19 September 2012 at 12:31 pm

      “There are kind of more positions than Lady Gaga’s got outfits.”

      Last Sunday a lady on Marae mentioned three positions on water which need to be settled.

      1. Who owns it?
      2. Who manages it?
      3. Who has the right to sell it?

  7. ianmac 7
    19 September 2012 at 9:13 am

    Any one read this clever piece of satire? “Next Weeks Q&A”
    Would make a brilliant Youtube clip.

    Shane: It’s a serious matter, though, Prime Minister. Mr Brownlee attacked a group of elderly women with a meat cleaver.

    John: I’ve heard some people describe it that way. That’s fine, and I accept that’s just politics…..

    http://www.imperatorfish.com/2012/09/next-weeks-q.html

    • deuto 7.1
      19 September 2012 at 10:50 am

      It made my day, Ianmac, when I read it a few hours ago, but did not have time then to provide a link here. So thanks for doing so, and highly recommend it to others here.

  8. Carol 8
    19 September 2012 at 9:39 am

    Andre Geddis latest post on Pundit is worth a read. It has very worrying implications for civil liberties and democracy:

    http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/just-when-i-thought-i-was-out-they-pull-me-back-in

    So the Government’s proposed “Public Protection Orders” legislation has finally been rolled out. In a nutshell, it will permit prison authorities to go to the High Court and seek an order that because “there is a very high risk of imminent serious sexual or violent offending by the respondent”, an individual should be detained indefinately in accommodation on prison grounds.

    This is targeting sexual offenders, in response to some over-heated lynch-mob mentality. But, the legislation doesn’t seem to be limited to the nastiest of sexual offenders, but to anyone deemed “dangerous” and who might re-offend, even though the evidence shows it’s impossible to predict exactly who will re-offend.

    First of all, the proposed legislation won’t just target “dangerous prisoners” who are soon to be released from prison. Under clause 7(1)(b)(i), it also will apply to a “person [who] is subject to an extended supervision order andis, or has been, subject to a condition of full-time accompaniment and monitoring”. That is, individuals who presently are out in the community under a watchful eye can get yanked back behind prison walls because they are considered too dangerous to be out there in public … even though they’ve actually been living in the community without doing any harm (otherwise they’d already be back in jail for doing so).

    • RedLogix 8.1
      19 September 2012 at 10:30 am

      I’ve long been very leery of this lynch-mob mentality around sex offenders. Sure few will waste much in the way of sympathy for them.

      But somehow their crimes are being magnified beyond all rationality .. they’ve become the new ‘devil incarnates’ in a secular world otherwise bereft of demons.

      I’ve always wondered at the purpose behind this.

      • BernyD 8.1.1
        19 September 2012 at 10:37 am

        Purpose ?, it’s a reflection of divorce from society because of fear, lock your doors etc.
        If their is a purpose it can only be the criminals’, which is why there is fear.
        And that is not justice.

      • Colonial Viper 8.1.2
        19 September 2012 at 10:42 am

        Its extremely suspicious. One step away from preventative incarceration for ‘pre-crime’. Very Judge Dredd / AD 2000 / Minority Report.

        In the US indefinite detention without trial or charge is now a distinct legal possibility, as long as you are deemed to pose some kind of threat to national security. Which does not have to be defined or justified publically – due to the threat to national security doing so may entail. See how it works.

        More specifically in the NZ case, there is no mention of additional counselling, resources or support for these sex offenders. Just chuck them back in prison if you decide you don’t like the looks of them. It’s atrocious.

      • Dr Terry 8.1.3
        19 September 2012 at 4:32 pm

        Society must find convenient scapegoats, for sure – it helps people to feel better about life.

    • joe90 8.2
      19 September 2012 at 10:44 am

      I’ve always wondered at the purpose behind this.

      On RNZ’s Sunday Morning Wayne Brittenden’s Anglo Saxon attitudes towards punishment went some way in explaining the origins of the nasty wee underbelly.

      edit: here’s the link that wont work.

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2532444/wayne-brittenden's-counterpoint-punishment-anglo-saxon-style

    • Dv 8.3
      19 September 2012 at 1:18 pm

      Dangerous and might reoffend.
      Banks?
      (Both sortsT

  9. kester 9
    19 September 2012 at 11:12 am

    According to the Canadian Government the final cost of Prince Charles and Camilla’s (The Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II) three-day visit to Canada in May was NZD 1.25 million, not including security. The Canadian Royal Mounted Police will not reveal the total security expenditure as (Request # A-2012-03344) is only disclosed in part. Security is about 1.5 times of taxpayers funding for motorcades, hotel expenses and meals etc for the entourage and the royal toadies. So the cost of Prince Charles and his wife’s pompous six day visit to New Zealand in November will be about $3.75 million, that is 1 and a quarter million cups of tea with John Banks, 5 and a half million tampon fantasies Charles can have about Camilla, 195 hip replacements or 94 (total hospital and surgeon costs) of Bypass Surgery. The list goes on. And to think in a country like ours, 270,000 deprived New Zealand children.

  10. just saying 10
    19 September 2012 at 11:45 am

    Nothing from Labour about the welfare legislation.
    However, shad/cab* social development spokesperson, Jacinda Ardern described National’s “reforms” as announced on Monday, as an overstatement.
    Apparently Bennett has been making a big fuss about what turns out to be not much at all. Nothing “bashing” about them apparently. Not unjust, demonising, undermining, humiliating, demoralising, discriminatory, dehumanising, creating greater poverty, inequality and human misery. No sireee, National are in fact making a big fat fuss about sweet f. a.

    “Once again we have Paula Bennett talking up what she says is the most comprehensive reform of the welfare system in decades.

    “Once again today’s ‘news’ isn’t news, but regurgitates a raft of previously announced measures that, in real terms, will change little for those trying to find work.

    Glad you get it Jacinda.
    Just remember the first rule of breakfast club!

    *Love the way this sounds just like cab-sav. Fitting really, though I understand Pinot Gris is more fashionable atm

    • Draco T Bastard 11.1
      19 September 2012 at 4:14 pm

      Tax Cuts For The Rich Linked To Income Inequality, Not Economic Growth, Study Finds

      A new study by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has found that over the past 65 years, tax cuts for the rich have not led to economic growth and instead are linked to greater income inequality in the United States.

      The study found that cutting taxes for the rich does not increase saving, investment, or productivity growth. “The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie,” the study said.

      Things is, I’m pretty sure that the Tories already knew this but keep saying that tax cuts increase growth just so as to justify the tax cuts that they give out which predominately favour the rich.

  12. captain hook 12
    19 September 2012 at 1:52 pm

    POAL is trying on theft by managment.
    by some mysterious process known only to themselves the mangement of POAL have decided that they have a right to acquire the property of the community.
    It is time the Auckland City Council fired the lot of them and hired some people who are comitted to public service and broadening the asset base for all and not just the greedy little bastards who have wormed their way into the executive suite.

  13. Fortran 13
    19 September 2012 at 1:54 pm

    I woke up hearing a chuckle this morning – it was the ghost past of Rob Muldoon.

    When Labour, Greens and Winston parties all want to take control of the Reserve Bank and manipulate it to reduce the exchange rate I am sure he laughed.

    Muldoon would have to chuckle to see that his policy was being copied.

    • McFlock 13.1
      19 September 2012 at 5:18 pm

      The thing about being the only good boy in school is that everyone else rips you off, steals your lunch money, and forces you to do their homework.
             
      Sometimes you need to break the rules just to get along – especially if the rules are only theoretically sound and are a bit stupid in practise, anyway.

      [lprent: Removed the troll that answered you, and also your reply. ]

      • Colonial Viper 13.1.1
        19 September 2012 at 6:49 pm

        Muldoon would have to chuckle to see that his policy was being copied.

        You must be mistaken. Muldoon never used an FTT on NZD forex transactions. Muldoon never used capital controls targetted solely at financial speculation.

        BTW during Muldoon’s time families could buy a house and raise a family on one working class income. Pretty good eh.

        And he could give a decent speech unlike John Key.

  14. deuto 14
    19 September 2012 at 2:02 pm

    RNZ National have just reported that Kim Dotcom is attending Question Time in the House this pm in the public gallery!

  15. captain hook 15
    19 September 2012 at 2:05 pm

    John Banks will be in Bellamy’s sucking up on the Geritol.

  16. Jokerman 16
    19 September 2012 at 2:08 pm

    Yesterdays thoughts before parley-a-ment (is it Yesterday once more?)

    Stretch forward, i say.

    Big aroha to the female Labour MP Representing Christchurch and Education in the House yesterday. Go Lianne (no time to spell check)

    Schools consolidation-children to travel further. cost of fuel. More Time
    (just another Brick in The Wall)-maori immersion in particular.
    freakin “Claytons consultation”.

    “colour-coded name badges”- more rationaliZation

    is Turei a-rising?

    Shirley Boys! Rock On!

    Rhys Darby selling-out

    anyone see the “money is Bad” wee add on 3 between current events?

    Civil Disobedience + Non- violence. “truth” begets Hatred

    imo, religion-straw men. Prophets-real men (not necesarily their interpreters though Mitt)

    xtsy-Rock On!

    greivances? OBLIGATIONS!!

    these commentators who like to “throw” the odd PhD in? Everyman (and Woman, and Child)

    a well- meaning Man said to me the other day; Socialism is “thought control”.
    Whatever! Neo-lib Capitalism is thought, behaviour and emotion control.
    (despair for the psych/soc graduate Pushers) cos the Pusher-Man don’t care if you live, or if you die…

    Cyber-Bullying? censorship inevitably. Freedom of speech is a double-edged sword; death by a 1000 cuts. Words cannot be taken back. (Read James, he was on to it. Maybe he too struggled with a big, immoderate mouth-Martyrdom)

    Regretably, authoratative Judges may need to shut some of the social-networking Web Down

    (poor ol’ Spidey. and he was such good fodder for the Media)
    yet,
    the god of this age blinds..

    ol’ Bollard aye. ïn hindsight, could have done more to put lid on property market. oh well, false foundations of costly stones and straw etc.

    assimilation and accommadation. remember the Premack Principle.

    ol’ John (figjam) Key -fcuk im good; just ask me!

    Évery Good and Perfect Gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the Heavenly Lights, who does not change like Shifting Shadows.-James, again.

    (don’t hide your light under a bushel)

    Joy, is the strength of Love
    Peace, is the security of Love
    Patience, is the endurance of Love
    Kindness, is the conduct of Love
    “Goodness”is the character of Love
    Faithfulness, is the confidence of Love
    Gentleness, is the nature of Love

    Self-Control-the Victory of Love
    (be gentle on self)
    Yet,
    ‘what is truth?”, asked Pilate.

    -off to watch the animal circus now ( i do declare! the Nat MP’s have been observed to be braying like donkeys-asses)

  17. joe90 17
    19 September 2012 at 2:57 pm

    Interesting piece on who’s arming who in Syria.

    http://world.time.com/2012/09/18/syrias-secular-and-islamist-rebels-who-are-the-saudis-and-the-qataris-arming/

    The Obama Administration does not deal directly with the armed opposition, but it has authorized a nonprofit organization, the Syrian Support Group (SSG), to fundraise for the FSA. The SSG is composed of Syrian exiles in the U.S. and Canada as well as a former NATO political officer.

    • Colonial Viper 17.1
      19 September 2012 at 7:47 pm

      That’s who is arming Syria. Guess who is arming the world at a record rate, and doing so by far.

      Is it China? Is it Russia?

  18. aerobubble 18
    19 September 2012 at 3:57 pm

    Romney says if you get handouts then you’ll be voting Obama.

    Bank CEOs included???? Military industrial complex???? Halliburton?

    Did Dick Cheney for vote Obama??

    • McFlock 18.1
      19 September 2012 at 5:21 pm

      He’s also disgusted that some Americans apparently believe that food is a right that they are entitled to.
             
      What a cock. 

  19. gobsmacked 19
    19 September 2012 at 6:30 pm

    Well done to the Labour and Green activists in Christchurch who got their banners displayed on a live cross, TV 3 tonight (6.20 ish). That was about a minute’s worth of free, positive publicity! (Please contact head office ASAP, they need you to show them how it’s done).

  20. Jackal 20
    19 September 2012 at 9:18 pm

    National’s protection racket

    The Prime Minister is running the risk of losing all credibility in trying to protect Banks as everyone can see right through his disingenuous semantics. It seems inevitable that the Act “leader” cannot hide forever behind the slippery John Key, who is obviously losing patience and would rather that the whole damaging affair just went away. That will only happen when Banks is sent back down the river on the next cabbage boat…

  21. captain hook 21
    19 September 2012 at 9:35 pm

    has len brown fired the management at POAL yet?

  22. Logie97 22
    19 September 2012 at 9:52 pm

    PDF payslips.
    My employer sends her payroll notification slips in PDF format as email attachments.
    They are passworded. When you save them to your payroll file on your desktop, they remain passworded. Anyone out there know how to permanently unlock these things. Employer does not appear to be concerned. “Tuff” she says.

    • Dv 22.1
      19 September 2012 at 9:56 pm

      Open them is something like preview, and do a save as worked for novopay slips.

    • Draco T Bastard 22.2
      19 September 2012 at 10:44 pm

      Does that mean that you can’t read them? Because if so then she’s probably breaking a law somewhere.

      • Logie97 22.2.1
        19 September 2012 at 11:48 pm

        Thanks for the feedback.
        Dv – Brilliant – problem partially solved. Still a hassle but good work-around – thanks!
        DTB – the password is the employee number – just a pain having to locate it everytime you want to read it. You’d think that once opened on a private system that it would bypass the password screen hassle.
        I don’t think Hekia gives a shit. She appears hell-bent on upsetting the complete teaching profession.

  23. Draco T Bastard 23
    19 September 2012 at 10:49 pm

    Found this article an interesting read:

    In the neoliberal polity, it makes no more sense for citizens to rally than in does for, say, users of Apple computers to hold a march. In both cases, their role is simply to consume, with the ballot box understood as an extension of the cash register. If the latest iPhone is a dud, buy an Android; if the Labor Party’s been in power too long, vote Liberal.

    Because democracy is understood as a market, rallies, protests, demonstrations and strikes seem, to the neoliberal, not as expressions of the popular will but as outrageous assaults on the democratic system.

    To be clear, we’re not seeing the end of the right to protest, so much as its hollowing out. In the neoliberal era, tightly-controlled top-down events are still considered legitimate – witness the staged spectacles at the recent Republican and Democratic conventions in the US.

    IMO, protests are seen as a less legitimate way of raising awareness of issues than in previous decades. The question is: Is this a result of neo-liberalism or is it a result of some other change that is taking place?

    • weka 23.1
      19 September 2012 at 11:18 pm

      Neoliberalism. I think of it in terms of personal greed having been elevated for  2 or 3 decades – politics is about what individual have to gain rather than the collective good.

      And the consequent yuppification of the culture. Why bother with all that dirty, noisy, unseemly street protest when you can sign a petition or tweet support for/against an idea while sitting at home with a latte?

  24. Bob 24
    20 September 2012 at 12:29 am

    Has anyone read this post lately? http://thestandard.org.nz/key-tries-to-save-face-over-tea-tapes/#comment-451251

    Does saying that John Banks is guilty also result in readers here getting banned for a month like Eddie did to tsmithfield? And I quote “the police don’t decide whether there was an offence or not. That’s for the courts. Ambrose has been found guilty of no offence. By saying he was you’re guilty of defamation. I won’t have our website legally exposed like that. Take a month ban. Eddie”

    [lprent: see my later note. Saying a politician is guilty before the courts has said they are, stated as fact, will usually earn a warning if we see it. Saying a non politician is will earn a ban. There is a public interest argument difference. Perhaps you should look at the legalities that limit the moderation rather than mindlessly jerking off. ]

    • McFlock 24.1
      20 September 2012 at 12:39 am

      got a comment to compare it with? You can’t have a comparison between only one item…

      [lprent: http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-19092012/#comment-523412 ]

    • gobsmacked 24.2
      20 September 2012 at 1:32 am

      Bob, the difference between the two cases is simple.

      Ambrose was very open and forthcoming about what he did. He never claimed he could not recall. He gave many media interviews and explained his actions, in detail. He did not run and hide, nor did he refuse to allow his statements to be published. Quite simply, he knew he had done nothing wrong, so he was very happy to say so.

      Whereas Banks knows perfectly well that he did wrong, both legally and ethically. He is the opposite of Ambrose. The innocent man wants to talk about it – to proclaim his innocence. The guilty man doesn’t want to talk about it. Banks steadfastly refuses to answer media questions. We all know why.

      But only one of the two men was publicly pronounced “guilty” by the Prime Minister, and it’s not John Banks.

      So Bob, the question for you is – whose ethics and principles are more important? Some guy on a blog, or the leader of our country? Would you like John Key’s e-mail address?

      [lprent: Ambrose is also not a poliician. Whereas Banks was one both when the event was done and now. It is in the public interest for the public to scrutinize and speculate on one more closely than the other. The courts have established this particularly clearly in Lange va Atkinson. ]

      • Bob 24.2.1
        20 September 2012 at 4:07 am

        My point is the hypocrisy around innocent until proven guilty, either you believe in the premis or you don’t. As I have pointed out, the likes of Eddie only seem to believe in it when it suits his/her agenda, happy to use it as a reason to ban people against his/her stance, but turning a blind eye when the comments fit their stance (below (25) are examples I was supposed to reply to Flock with).

        Does refusing to answer questions by the media automatically lead to a presumption of guilt in your books? By that reakoning David Bain is guilty, cos the Police said so, and he didn’t directly answer media requests saying otherwise (obviously this is not the case as shown by the privy council).

        [lprent: An interesting but quite inaccurate view. You just haven’t thought it through looking at the sites liability.

        The actual test I tend to use is somewhat more sophisticated than that and is based more around the actual legal limits we operate under rather than your somewhat arbitrary standards. Eddie and other moderators use roughly the same tests.

        1. Is the case in front of a court? We severely limit speculation then.

        2. Are people making an assertion of fact rather than speculating or expressing an opinion. Is that clear? Is the fact established?

        3. Are they a politician? There the limits are much more relaxed due to Lange vs Atkinson and arguments based on public interests (which has a somewhat more limited legal meaning than selling tabloids)

        4. Are they a minor or incapacitated intellectually. We will operate to defend them because they are less able to defend themselves.

        There are several other factors – but those are the most prevelant. Plus we are volunteers and moderating gets done when we have time.

        So saying that the police think there is enough to charge on is a fact if they have put it in a statement or a report. Saying that you think they should charge or not is an opinion. Saying someone is a criminal or guilty is not allowed as that is something that must be done by a court. Saying that you think the court got it wrong or right is an opinion. Neither Ambrose nor Bain are politicians so we severely limit what is said about them compared to Banks. Etc etc…

        The language about how something is expressed is crucial, and simple minded assertions of fact without the qualifiers (like “I think”) establishing a statement as an opinion (which I find is a characteristic of some people who think they are always right) are the most dangerous to the site.

        As far as we are concerned the law is our usual limit because it is where society specifies where the limits are. It is also where the site carries the can for the comments of others. We expect commentators to follow the legal limits of NZ and we expect them to know where they are. We will moderate or ban mostly on the threat to the site posed by the commentators behaviour.

        We usually warn rather than ban unless people persist. But for example stating as fact about guilt on a non politician when the case is in front of a court will almost certainly earn someone an immediate ban for extreme stupidity. Idiots doing comments like that are a danger to the site.

        But in practice, Eddie seldom moderates outside his own posts and he mostly does so to prevent people from thread jacking away from his topic or misrepresenting what he has said. It is usually myself, Anthony, Irish, or RL who will moderate on legal dangers to the site. ]

  25. Bob 25
    20 September 2012 at 1:10 am

    Here you go
    http://thestandard.org.nz/bankskey-water-on-a-stone/

    Mike
    “Also that the PM has a damn duty to the public to read a fricken police report that says his minister lied to us and (apparently) him about breaking the law”
    Carol (via tweets she has read)
    “Does Key dread Aaron Gilmore coming back on Nat list so much he has to support a corrupt Minister”

    http://thestandard.org.nz/none-so-blind-3/

    Lanthanide
    “John Key continues to back John Banks, despite the police report showing that John Banks broke the law and then lied about it”. and again “It’s worth noting here that the specifics around Banks leaving parliament were around him being convicted for a crime that had a possible sentence of at least 2 years in jail, even if the punished he received was no jail term or less than 2 years. Banks is lucky that there’s a (stupid) 6 month limit on bringing charges for the law he broke, so managed to wiggle out of that tangle.”

    Mike (again)
    “Because while forensic analysis is not his job what is his job is to consider and act on evidence that his minister is a corrupt liar. I’m sure Key already knew that and has no problem with it, but the thing is that Banks got caught”

    [lprent: In each comment it was about politicians with the public interest issue. Most of these express opinion (corrupt for instance is a description not a legalism in NZ), or refer only to established facts in the police report, or are speculations about what-ifs. You clearly lack a good assessment on what is required for moderation. Read my note on 24.2.1

    There are a couple there that would have gotten a warning if it’d been in front of a court. But it isn’t. Similarly if it wasn’t politicians. ]